|
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 04:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 04:51 m4ini wrote:On July 17 2018 04:40 JimmiC wrote: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.
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:
[quote]
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. Pretty sure he's not on board for an investigation and trial since he feels none of those work in the USA to rich, white and privileged. So I strongly doubt that was what he was going for.
Uhh, there already is an investigation, and it's not going to end in Trump on trial or being held accountable. So either he's not guilty or the system is broken/working as intended, or maybe both. I think he's the embodiment of a lot of what is wrong in this country, guilty of a whole host of crimes, not the least of which blowing innocent people into pieces, but in the US that's just a Tuesday for a president so you're right that I don't maintain the blind faith others do that the justice system would find him guilty for treason if he was 100x over.
|
On July 17 2018 04:59 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 04:36 zlefin wrote:On July 17 2018 03:58 kollin wrote: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) Your counters were based on misreading my points lol (e.g over the black communities), I cant be bothered scanning line by line over my posts on an Internet forum. That irrationality played a large part in voting behaviour does not mean there was nothing Hillary could have done to overcome that rationality, and I think it was the flaws within her platform that prevented her from doing so - all you can do is try to overcome the irrationality, as the only alternative is lying down in front of history's steamroller and getting flattened. Assume what you like about my knowledge, that's the centrist arrogance that I've come to expect with regards to American politics and which I now find extremely dull. Politics isn't particularly chaotic in my opinion, I think fairly coherent analyses can be provided for all the major political shocks in the western political sphere in the last few years. The idea that Trump was spawned out of irrationality (rather than more irrationality comparatively than a Clinton victory) is ahistorical.
if they were about misreading, then you should point out the misreading, or be more clear in the first place. fact is, I can only argue based on what is presented. and you failed to argue your point well. that you don't followup your arguments is not my problem.
I never said there was nothing hillary could do to overcome the irrationality.
irrationality does not prevent a coherent analysis from occurring. as irrationality has a number of known patterns to it. there's large lists of known cognitive biases which affect people.
unless you can prevent some evidence to the contrary; I consider it quite reasonable to believe that someone who acts as you do, and isn't from the US, isn't that familiar with the policy details of a policy wonk candidate, and instead has considerable factual errors about what the platform was, especially for a candidate they dislike. very few people would have a good knowledge of the platform.
You're using a different definition of chaotic. I'm talking about the formal sense of a chaotic system, in which case it most definitely is.
your opinion on the chaoticity is noted; and means very little compared to the scholarly research.
at any rate, time to wrap this up:
did you learn anything/get anything of value from all this?
and to the thread: did anyone else get anything useful out of all this?
|
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.
The GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION in the affidavit is the NRA. The RUSSIAN OFFICIAL who is Butina's boss is Alexander Torshin. US PERSON 1 is probably David Keene.
|
|
|
On July 17 2018 05:17 TheLordofAwesome 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. The GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION in the affidavit is the NRA. The RUSSIAN OFFICIAL who is Butina's boss is Alexander Torshin. US PERSON 1 is probably David Keene.
This won’t be the first conservative organization they got their claws into. And the way these investigations work, it is a slow roll from the outside as it works its way into the real meat of the case. My bet is that we find out in the near future that a bunch of GOP members took money they should have known was not from a legit source. Or worse.
|
On July 17 2018 05:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:51 m4ini wrote:On July 17 2018 04:40 JimmiC wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. Pretty sure he's not on board for an investigation and trial since he feels none of those work in the USA to rich, white and privileged. So I strongly doubt that was what he was going for. Uhh, there already is an investigation, and it's not going to end in Trump on trial or being held accountable. So either he's not guilty or the system is broken/working as intended, or maybe both. I think he's the embodiment of a lot of what is wrong in this country, guilty of a whole host of crimes, not the least of which blowing innocent people into pieces, but in the US that's just a Tuesday for a president so you're right that I don't maintain the blind faith others do that the justice system would find him guilty for treason if he was 100x over. See not looking for a trial and execution. He's talking about what I said in the other post. And for the record I disagree with it. Edit: and I don't have blind faith in the justice system, just that it is a lot better than what happens in dictatorships of all flavors.
lol I'm not against a trial, though I am personally against the death penalty.
What about Trump getting off consequence free would be better than him being executed though?
|
On July 17 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 05:18 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:51 m4ini wrote:On July 17 2018 04:40 JimmiC wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. Pretty sure he's not on board for an investigation and trial since he feels none of those work in the USA to rich, white and privileged. So I strongly doubt that was what he was going for. Uhh, there already is an investigation, and it's not going to end in Trump on trial or being held accountable. So either he's not guilty or the system is broken/working as intended, or maybe both. I think he's the embodiment of a lot of what is wrong in this country, guilty of a whole host of crimes, not the least of which blowing innocent people into pieces, but in the US that's just a Tuesday for a president so you're right that I don't maintain the blind faith others do that the justice system would find him guilty for treason if he was 100x over. See not looking for a trial and execution. He's talking about what I said in the other post. And for the record I disagree with it. Edit: and I don't have blind faith in the justice system, just that it is a lot better than what happens in dictatorships of all flavors. lol I'm not against a trial, though I am personally against the death penalty. What about Trump getting off consequence free would be better than him being executed though?
Are you saying with or without a trial?
|
On July 17 2018 05:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 05:17 TheLordofAwesome 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. The GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION in the affidavit is the NRA. The RUSSIAN OFFICIAL who is Butina's boss is Alexander Torshin. US PERSON 1 is probably David Keene. This won’t be the first conservative organization they got their claws into. And the way these investigations work, it is a slow roll from the outside as it works its way into the real meat of the case. My bet is that we find out in the near future that a bunch of GOP members took money they should have known was not from a legit source. Or worse.
Glad you brought up the GOP candidates taking money. The NRA has been asked about its unprecedentedly huge donations to the GOP in 2016. Its response was always "Well, any money we got from foreign sources, including Russia, was placed in separate accounts from our political and lobbying donations."
But money is fungible. If money from Russia went to keeping the lights on or to payroll or to office supplies, that means the NRA had more cash on hand to donate to political organizations. The FBI clearly didn't buy their excuse.
I wonder when Americans are going to start getting charged in these investigations. Watergate sent some 40-odd people to jail, I believe.
|
On July 17 2018 05:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 05:18 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:51 m4ini wrote:On July 17 2018 04:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. Pretty sure he's not on board for an investigation and trial since he feels none of those work in the USA to rich, white and privileged. So I strongly doubt that was what he was going for. Uhh, there already is an investigation, and it's not going to end in Trump on trial or being held accountable. So either he's not guilty or the system is broken/working as intended, or maybe both. I think he's the embodiment of a lot of what is wrong in this country, guilty of a whole host of crimes, not the least of which blowing innocent people into pieces, but in the US that's just a Tuesday for a president so you're right that I don't maintain the blind faith others do that the justice system would find him guilty for treason if he was 100x over. See not looking for a trial and execution. He's talking about what I said in the other post. And for the record I disagree with it. Edit: and I don't have blind faith in the justice system, just that it is a lot better than what happens in dictatorships of all flavors. lol I'm not against a trial, though I am personally against the death penalty. What about Trump getting off consequence free would be better than him being executed though? Are you saying with or without a trial?
With, but without presumes that people genuinely think all this blathering about Trump-Russia is actually about nothing deserving a more severe penalty than gets handed out for stealing formula from Walmart for anyone involved.
|
On July 17 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 05:18 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:51 m4ini wrote:On July 17 2018 04:40 JimmiC wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. Pretty sure he's not on board for an investigation and trial since he feels none of those work in the USA to rich, white and privileged. So I strongly doubt that was what he was going for. Uhh, there already is an investigation, and it's not going to end in Trump on trial or being held accountable. So either he's not guilty or the system is broken/working as intended, or maybe both. I think he's the embodiment of a lot of what is wrong in this country, guilty of a whole host of crimes, not the least of which blowing innocent people into pieces, but in the US that's just a Tuesday for a president so you're right that I don't maintain the blind faith others do that the justice system would find him guilty for treason if he was 100x over. See not looking for a trial and execution. He's talking about what I said in the other post. And for the record I disagree with it. Edit: and I don't have blind faith in the justice system, just that it is a lot better than what happens in dictatorships of all flavors. lol I'm not against a trial, though I am personally against the death penalty. What about Trump getting off consequence free would be better than him being executed though?
You mean apart from someone not being an actual murderer?
Should've known better, apologies to JimmiC.
|
On July 17 2018 05:36 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 05:18 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:51 m4ini wrote:On July 17 2018 04:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. Pretty sure he's not on board for an investigation and trial since he feels none of those work in the USA to rich, white and privileged. So I strongly doubt that was what he was going for. Uhh, there already is an investigation, and it's not going to end in Trump on trial or being held accountable. So either he's not guilty or the system is broken/working as intended, or maybe both. I think he's the embodiment of a lot of what is wrong in this country, guilty of a whole host of crimes, not the least of which blowing innocent people into pieces, but in the US that's just a Tuesday for a president so you're right that I don't maintain the blind faith others do that the justice system would find him guilty for treason if he was 100x over. See not looking for a trial and execution. He's talking about what I said in the other post. And for the record I disagree with it. Edit: and I don't have blind faith in the justice system, just that it is a lot better than what happens in dictatorships of all flavors. lol I'm not against a trial, though I am personally against the death penalty. What about Trump getting off consequence free would be better than him being executed though? You mean apart from someone not being an actual murderer? Should've known better, apologies to JimmiC.
I'm using the term executed and not assassinated or murdered to denote that it would be at the end of a trial, but noting that our "justice" system is incapable of such a trial.
|
|
|
Seeing and hearing a lot of people talking about their pro-Trump family members turning on Trump after this.
From Reddit: "For the first time in his life, my father just admitted that Trump may indeed be a traitor to the country. Up until this point, he has never questioned Trump in any way, and fully bought onto the "Hillary would have been terrible" train.
But after having just watched this press conference, he couldn't believe that the President of the United States did nothing but shit talk this country, and praise Russia.
Ladies and gentleman... I guess there is hope?"
I also just talked to a friend who loves to troll me online with pro-Trump memes. He was flabbergasted to say the least.
Also, #TRE45ON was trending last I looked. This *might* be the straw that breaks the camel's back?
|
On July 17 2018 05:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 05:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 05:17 TheLordofAwesome 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. The GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION in the affidavit is the NRA. The RUSSIAN OFFICIAL who is Butina's boss is Alexander Torshin. US PERSON 1 is probably David Keene. This won’t be the first conservative organization they got their claws into. And the way these investigations work, it is a slow roll from the outside as it works its way into the real meat of the case. My bet is that we find out in the near future that a bunch of GOP members took money they should have known was not from a legit source. Or worse. Glad you brought up the GOP candidates taking money. The NRA has been asked about its unprecedentedly huge donations to the GOP in 2016. Its response was always "Well, any money we got from foreign sources, including Russia, was placed in separate accounts from our political and lobbying donations." But money is fungible. If money from Russia went to keeping the lights on or to payroll or to office supplies, that means the NRA had more cash on hand to donate to political organizations. The FBI clearly didn't buy their excuse. I wonder when Americans are going to start getting charged in these investigations. Watergate sent some 40-odd people to jail, I believe.
I think soon. Maybe in the next ground of charges. And given the clown show that we have seen so far leading up to this, my bet is the NRA didn’t keep that money separate at all. In 2016 the wheels came off the funding systems for elections and everyone just didn’t give a shit. But there was so much money, we are just catching up to it now.
It is sort of like how Cambridge Analytica, a UK company, worked on the Trump campaign. Sure, they have a branch in the US that is “separate”, but I’m still amazed that didn’t raise any eyebrows. And of course, they were shady as fuck.
We have completely lost control of elections in this country and we are only starting to understand how bad it is.
|
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.
Hello ? Separation of powers, democracy ? Arguing that they were or are corrupt may be valid, but wanting them to be under the control of the executive power, please do not. Seriously. Especially under this president that is talking about nukes like I talk about my breakfast. We have been at peace (mostly, at least in our western areas) for 70 years, and you want the balance of power of the strongest country in the world to fail ?
|
On July 17 2018 05:41 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Seeing and hearing a lot of people talking about their pro-Trump family members turning on Trump after this.
From Reddit: "For the first time in his life, my father just admitted that Trump may indeed be a traitor to the country. Up until this point, he has never questioned Trump in any way, and fully bought onto the "Hillary would have been terrible" train.
But after having just watched this press conference, he couldn't believe that the President of the United States did nothing but shit talk this country, and praise Russia.
Ladies and gentleman... I guess there is hope?"
I also just talked to a friend who loves to troll me online with pro-Trump memes. He was flabbergasted to say the least.
Also, #TRE45SON was trending last I looked. This *might* be the straw that breaks the camel's back?
I seriously doubt it, but you're right that people are saying they watched Trump commit treason on TV, presumably knowing the penalty and what they are calling for.
|
On July 17 2018 05:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 05:29 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 05:18 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:59 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:51 m4ini wrote:On July 17 2018 04:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:24 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
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. Pretty sure he's not on board for an investigation and trial since he feels none of those work in the USA to rich, white and privileged. So I strongly doubt that was what he was going for. Uhh, there already is an investigation, and it's not going to end in Trump on trial or being held accountable. So either he's not guilty or the system is broken/working as intended, or maybe both. I think he's the embodiment of a lot of what is wrong in this country, guilty of a whole host of crimes, not the least of which blowing innocent people into pieces, but in the US that's just a Tuesday for a president so you're right that I don't maintain the blind faith others do that the justice system would find him guilty for treason if he was 100x over. See not looking for a trial and execution. He's talking about what I said in the other post. And for the record I disagree with it. Edit: and I don't have blind faith in the justice system, just that it is a lot better than what happens in dictatorships of all flavors. lol I'm not against a trial, though I am personally against the death penalty. What about Trump getting off consequence free would be better than him being executed though? Are you saying with or without a trial? With, but without presumes that people genuinely think all this blathering about Trump-Russia is actually about nothing deserving a more severe penalty than gets handed out for stealing formula from Walmart for anyone involved.
Espionage, money laundering, etc., are generally considered more severe crimes with stiffer penalties than petty theft. So far we've had dozens of Russians indicted and the indictments have contained very specific allegations, right down to the unit numbers of the GRU hackers. Now we are seeing another Russian charged today. We've seen four Americans plead guilty to curiously soft charges (HINT: It means they've flipped and are cooperating with prosecutors to nail a bigger target to save their own skins.). If you think Trump and everyone surrounding him aren't going to be charged by Mueller, then you are a colossal idiot.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 17 2018 05:44 Nouar 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. Hello ? Separation of powers, democracy ? Arguing that they were or are corrupt may be valid, but wanting them to be under the control of the executive power, please do not. Seriously. Especially under this president that is talking about nukes like I talk about my breakfast. We have been at peace (mostly, at least in our western areas) for 70 years, and you want the balance of power of the strongest country in the world to fail ?
Separation of powers is not a license to commit treason or other criminal acts. If the actions that the FBI and intelligence community have taken against Trump and his campaign are without legitimate predicate (which is not only the default presumption, but also appears to be the case in fact so far), then those organizations need to be thoroughly cleaned out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
