Printable View
Is donating money to a charity more personally charitable than volunteering extra tax money to the government? :sneaky:Quote:
Nowhere in the Gospels did Jesus preach about government's need to be charitable. He did preach that it was my personal duty to be so.
Like Trump wouldn't fly? Like Obama wouldn't fly?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Come off it, I know you Americans think you're special, but you're not especially stupid.
That is all a bit weird, the wealth mostly transfers up so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/
It was okay for a while after WW2 until people apparently realized the poor rich people weren't getting enough tax breaks or whatever.
Jesus also preached that you should pay your taxes and accumulate treasures in heaven rather than down here. And that people who put anything but him first, such as money or America, are not really going to get to heaven. Sad.
And yet the results are so poor. Huge economic inequality. Divergent social, educational and health outcomes from birth, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The problem with the right is that the immediate moral itch is scratched (or blamed on the victims) and the overall situation gets worse.
Well, Shepard Smith is someone I can respect even if I do not agree with him on everything.
Trump is a train wreck that is still sliding across the track thinking it has endless momentum.
Of course a lot of people actually saw that coming, but hey, I enjoy the ride so far. :2thumbsup:
He actually thinks the russians hacked the DNC? Seems that despite some vindication with Trump, Fox hasnt changed completely since John Stewart was calling it BS mountain.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...reince-priebus
https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...ussian/512819/Quote:
Donald Trump no longer denies that Russia orchestrated a cyber-attack against Hillary Clinton’s campaign and her party, according to his top advisers, who also blamed Democrats for the breach and falsely characterized the testimony of an intelligence chief to Congress.
Trump’s incoming White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, told Fox News Sunday the president-elect “is not denying that entities in Russia were behind this particular hacking campaign”.
Apparently, so do Trump and a lot of his chosen advisers.Quote:
After months of equivocating on the origin of cyberattacks that targeted Democrats before the election, President-elect Donald Trump said Wednesday that he thinks Russia was behind the intrusions.
“As for hacking, I think it was Russian,” Trump said at a press conference in New York. “But I think we also get hacked by other countries and other people.”
Later, he emphasized his skepticism. “It could’ve been others also,” he said.
Also, the latest press conference in full, go to around 55 minutes for the questions and answers about Russia, which is what I mostly watched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUaEFgr4Ho
Complete trainwreck, he rates and berates almost every reporter who asks him something.
And the great announcement about how he learned that nuclear holocaust would be very bad... :wall: :rolleyes:
Did I already mention that his conference with Netanyahu was terrible? He just asked him on stage to wait a bit with new settlements and proposed the best solution would be the one both sides want, ********** genius! :wall:
“is not denying that entities in Russia were behind this particular hacking campaign”.
Later, he emphasized his skepticism. “It could’ve been others also,” he said.
Preemptive ass covering isnt proof husar. Shepard Smith is still regurgitating that baselss line not 10 seconds after accusing trump of "repeating ridiculous throwaway lines that arent true at all".
You may want to note that I tried not to use selective quoting, but I can prove your point wrong like that just as well:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
“As for hacking, I think it was Russian,” Trump said at a press conference in New York.
He just tried to take it back later when he realized that it could be used against him.
As for the allegations not being true at all, that's pretty ridiculous given that neither you nor I can definitely know the truth in that case.
I would say thinking that it was the Russians is perfectly legitimate given that the US intelligence community said so. Whether they are always trustworthy is a different question, but there are plenty of people even in Trump's party and administration who believe just that. If you say everyone is an idiot who believes that, then Trump's team of excellent people contains several idiots who were hand-picked by him. :2thumbsup:
His prevous behavior indicates my interpritation; that being he's entertaining the idea of russia because he is less certain that it will turn out to not be russia and wants to cover his ass.Quote:
You may want to note that I tried not to use selective quoting, but I can prove your point wrong like that just as well:
“As for hacking, I think it was Russian,” Trump said at a press conference in New York.
He just tried to take it back later when he realized that it could be used against him.
I would think you would agree, you are usually the first person to refute claims that "he means what he says" after all.
I know that no proof has emerged in the months after the allegations were made and the people who propel it as irrefutable either have vested interest in it being true or were appointed by those same people. Strong bias towards false.Quote:
As for the allegations not being true at all, that's pretty ridiculous given that neither you nor I can definitely know the truth in that case.
Not allways trustworthy, proven liars for whichever administration apppointed them, same thing amirte? ~:rolleyes:Quote:
I would say thinking that it was the Russians is perfectly legitimate given that the US intelligence community said so. Whether they are always trustworthy is a different question.
I highly doubt that. Show me one that doesnt present it with some variation of "We cant say 100% that it isnt true".Quote:
there are plenty of people even in Trump's party and administration who believe just that.
I say anyone who presents it as indisputable fact at this stage is either too ill informed for the position of journalist, or a liar. That Shepard Smith also proved himself a blind hypocryte through doing so is a bonus.Quote:
If you say everyone is an idiot who believes that, then Trump's team of excellent people contains several idiots who were hand-picked by him.
We can't expect evidence in the form of top-level government intercepts or public defections; what we have is more than adequate.
Is the level of evidence for this hack less than that for any of the other military-industrial cyber attacks of recent times? After all, the Obama administration acknowledged Stuxnet - Putin is unlikely to ever reciprocate unless as a threat during a moment of heightened tension. Or maybe acknowledging Stuxnet was just Western propaganda after all? Can't trust those spies!
Fool me once monty.
The word of the organization behind iraq, once again saying what their president wanted to be true without so much as a russian IP (even as succeptable to faking as they are) to support it, isn't worth spit for proof.
Leaving aside the problem of dissonance once you have to pick and choose what you will deign to believe, the Iraq connection is misunderstood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
2004 even
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
2011/16: "Please take a look at what we don't know about WMDs. It is big."
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I dont see the relevance of the first two, whether or not they saw "a violent insurgency and rising anti-US sentiment in the Middle East" coming as a result of the war changes nothing about the CIA's complicity in justfying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
As for the third, I would not be surprised if there were doubt, disagreement and discontent from within the aparatus of the CIA but the fact remains that the organization produced this report at the behest of Bush's admin that persuaded politicians such as John Kerry that Iraq was producing Nuclear weapons.
America has been publically kicking itself for over a decade that it had been fooled by the Bush administration's claims of Iraqi Nukes, which were based on such reports. To put stock in the Obama's admin claims of russian hacking out of hand whose proof comes soley from the same compliant source and founded on the same amount of proof, IE None, Indicates either an epic degree of gullibility, a hideous lack of historical awareness or a desire to believe that has overwhemed any rightful skepticism you posess.
The point is that these are not the same sources, that there was much disagreement on how to report the intelligence between various agencies and actors within the agencies, and the conditions for proof are different considering physical scale of alleged activities. The administration chose to represent particular interpretations to Congress and the public which intelligence agencies overall disagreed with. On the other hand, the conclusions on these hacks have broad backing. It is difficult to see the intelligence community as a unified actor with single goals in these histories, let alone that there is some goal apparent now.
You shouldn't excuse partisanship as skepticism.
I remember a time when I was accused of being unpatriotic and was ridiculed at the university and at the internet for opposing the invasion of Iraq. A few agreed with me (including my professor fortunately), but I felt very lonesome when I was being hated by so many for such a long time. Of course, they all agree with me now. A few of the friends who agree with me now are war veterans. That's the thing. I tend to express my views regardless of what the majority of the people believe. It's because I tend to have experiences and witnessed the things that they didn't or don't remember. This still goes on with recent events. Whenever I have a debate with the people I strongly disagree with, I realize that they really don't know the issue much.
I have an impression that Trump doesn't remember and isn't really keeping track of what he has said on an issue (at least on international politics issues), so there is no use to look for consistency in what he says.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Now you're changing the goalposts to something that even I did not claim, besides, you probably mean "We cant say 100% that it is true" because otherwise it sounds like you were trying to make them refute your own argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...blicans-229572
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-r...neering-hacks/
As Monty explained, your demands for 100% proof are just an expression of your own partisanship, all I said was that someone who takes Russian interference for granted does not deserve to be called an idiot, that's different from saying I'm 100% sure they're right or that they all have to agree 100% or that there were 100% proof. You cannot live life with 100% proof and security in everything.
This is an apt comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
We are used to political leaders whose staff and personal outlook lends itself to measured phrasings and careful use of labels and terminology. Barack Obama was among the most "considered" of Presidential speakers.
Trump, by contrast, mostly just says what he thinks and doesn't let past statements influence his current commentary very much. His core support group, by the way, simply adores this quality as it is very much "true" to everyday speech by most "regular" folks. They did, in part, vote for him precisely because of this quality.
For good or for ill, trying to measure him by the communication standards of his predecessor is a waste of time.
Whether the CIA is an actor or merely a tool in this is something I have come to change my mind on through this debacle, but the paralels are the same, claims with broad backing but containing precious little proof, being swallowed by those who we would want to be above such gullability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Partisanship would have me believe one admin's use of the CIA to back thier theories and decry the other's. I decry both. You dont.Quote:
You shouldn't excuse partisanship as skepticism.
Were I you I would not advertise a habit to assume all your opponants are merely ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan
You said: "there are plenty of people even in Trump's party and administration who believe just that." it is not moving the goalposts to expect belief not to come with a disclaimer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Hm, it seems I should have kept my skepticism to claims of the admin believing it.Quote:
A rather stupid mistake really; the republican rank and file contain such rabid anti russians, Mcain in paticular, who would automatically believe claims the russians were behind the sky being blue. Of course there'd be some that believe this.
Whereas you can evidently swallow anything that has 0% proof as long as there is enough official looking names attached.Quote:
You cannot live life with 100% proof and security in everything.
These accusations of partisanship is but a dodge; ridicule to avoid having to acknowledge the possibility that what you want to believe may not be true; as valid as accusations of being unpatriotic was 15 years ago.
To dismiss the official bottom-line out of hand merely by the reasoning that spooks lie is either lunacy, where it will not recognize the contradictions it encounters, or hypocritical opportunism, where it will happily accept some claims but not others on no principled distinction.
There are specific demands one could be warranted in making in assessing hackers' chain of command and intentions. You could wonder whether analysts have made some crucial mistakes, or have been misled by a group potentially camouflaging themselves in such a way as to create the red herring of Russian deployment. You would be right to ask officials to take a leap and release as much as feasible should Trump or Congress pursue an escalatory policy much more aggressive or punitive toward Russia, especially if on the basis of Russian cyber attacks.
If the agencies have chosen to go all-out on too little, jumping the gun, or in the worst case if they have indeed conspired to fabricate claims or events in the hope of crippling or removing Trump, then they are quite reckless and should suffer for it. It would be a lot to pin their institution upon, for unclear benefit and illusions of success, and the process for unraveling it isn't obscure. Alternatively, if they are sitting on content because there is a strong connection between the hacks and the Trump administration and there is only one overarching case, it should not take long for the tipping point.
First of all I didn't mean believe as in Scientology-level belief, but that's kinda arguing semantics now. If only you held Trump to that standard...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Anyway, several intelligence agencies saying so plus several other indicators saying Russia is trying to destabilize the Western world in general is not exactly 0% proof. Your "demands" are completely outlandish because you refuse to challenge your own beliefs. I don't even "swallow" anything, I just think it is likely that it was Russia, that's good enough for me s there is not much I can do about it either way. The only thing I can do is be a bit wary concerning potential Russian attempts to influence the election here for example.
You may have missed this, but a lot of pro-Trump Twitter accounts switched to anti-Merkel tweets around the same time after the election. There is no definitive proof here either, but it, too, is widely seen as a Russian bot net of Twitter bots that they use to influence our politics. The reason I can believe it is that it wouldn't be the only measure given that they created an English version of Russia Today to spread their propaganda here as well. Lavrov was apparently praising the downfall of Western hegemony already at the Munich security conference. It also rhymes well with all the other backhanded stuff Putin has done from arresting people on bogus charges, "local defense forces" popping up somewhere and the whole defender of endangered Russians thing. There isn't even any definitive proof that all his critics who mysteriously got poisoned or shot were killed on his order but you probably believe he is a harmless kitten given that there is 0% proof against him... :rolleyes:
I have someone else for you, Kim Jong-Un, can you definitively proof that he ever did anything evil?
Do they have? You know they're having issues when they're listing "Putin's revenge on Clinton because she insulted him" as a motive on an official report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Also, the NSA, which is, according to Snowden, the organization best equipped to get to the bottom of this, expressed least amount of certainty in the report.
In the end, it wasn't even a hack. It was phishing. Which brings us to another problem because one of the most important "proofs" was that it was conducted on such a scale that it could have been only been done by a country like Russia, which is contrary to what phishing is. You don't need anything more than a computer with an internet connection to do it.
It does seem like the report was actually about telling the politicians and parts of the public what they want to hear. In the end, all involved in writing the report refused to categorically state anything or offer any proof. Instead, they covered their own asses by saying that Russian meddling is a probable conclusion based on what they know, so that no one can actually call them on it.
Russia says something like that on her involvement in Donbas, MH 17, doping scandal and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Weird of you to say "according to Snowden" - you don't have to get the NSA job description from Snowden - but yes, in the most recent (January) document put the NSA as reporting moderate confidence, or "the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence". This qualifier was for the specific claim that the Russian government wanted to see Trump elected and worked to contribute to his winning; for the rest, the NSA seems to share high confidence.Quote:
Also, the NSA, which is, according to Snowden, the organization best equipped to get to the bottom of this, expressed least amount of certainty in the report.
If the infiltrators were a single organization, then it would need to be more than a single individual given the scale of the operation. But the content accessed and disseminated is clearly political - the contention is that regardless of who or how many specifically executed the task itself, or participated in grabbing data, their employers or paymasters were state agents.Quote:
In the end, it wasn't even a hack. It was phishing. Which brings us to another problem because one of the most important "proofs" was that it was conducted on such a scale that it could have been only been done by a country like Russia, which is contrary to what phishing is. You don't need anything more than a computer with an internet connection to do it.
So we hope to receive updated information in the coming weeks. It seems like buying time or stalling. They made very strong claims, in fact, most significantly:Quote:
It does seem like the report was actually about telling the politicians and parts of the public what they want to hear. In the end, all involved in writing the report refused to categorically state anything or offer any proof. Instead, they covered their own asses by saying that Russian meddling is a probable conclusion based on what they know, so that no one can actually call them on it.
Quote:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US
presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
Quote:
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s
election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her
unfavorably to him.
Given Trump's remarks about NATO and Putin's apparent thirst to "come to the aid of Russian citizens" in neighboring countries, a Russian intention to help Trump get elected is really not so far-fetched. You could say Trump promised something and Putin wanted to see if he couldn't get it. He already "influences" elections at home, a little bit of that abroad to soften the hard NATO-bumper around his wannabe-expanding empire does not seem outlandish at all.This requires destabilizing or destroying both NATO and the EU ideally. Sure, there is no definitive proof that it was Russia, but that's kinda their/a thing these days that a lot of things happen and noone has any hard proof for anything. Welcome to the digital age where everything can be faked or disregarded as fake as wanted...
Quite interesting though that both Mattis and Pence tried to assure Europe that the US are fully committed to NATO.
Well - NATO was intended to combat the USSR - so it is obsolete.
Anyway, your army is too small and you don't foot your share of the bill.
Trump and Pence may well be worse for Putin and Russia.
What makes an institution obsolete? Why is the British monarchy not obsolete?
So we shall become a part of the Russian Federation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
That can be arranged of course.
Why isn't the Monarchy obsolete?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Trump.
Your army is too small, you do not have enough Tanks and Tank Hunters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Stop pretending this is not a problem.
I don't see the thought.Quote:
Why isn't the Monarchy obsolete?
Trump.
Britain has an inbuilt immunity to Populism, our Monarch looms so large in the national consciousness that there's no room for a leader like Trump. What's more, there's no room for one man's vision because all is done "by the Crown". Blair came close to being "Presidential" and he is now generally loathed for that and his "sofa style" of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
But that isn't true, and to the extent that it differs from America it might as well be parliamentary government as the factor.Quote:
Britain has an inbuilt immunity to Populism
As with other things, for the monarch to genuinely block a populist leader or government in some capacity they would have to sacrifice themselves in the process.
You mean the Russians won't want us when we offer to join because we are too weak?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
So your only option is to stay alone without being either The USA's or Russia's ally and without getting invaded by anyone?
Woah, that sounds like a big problem.
Just in case you misunderstood me and mean that Russian aggression is a problem, well, yes, but not as long as we stick together in NATO and/or the EU, so why did you just seemingly defend Trump for complaining? As long as NATO has a sufficient nuclear arsenal, the size of our regular armies is sufficient as well. As for the fair share of spending, I don't really believe it would somehow lower the spending of the US if all of Europe spent more on defense. More likely the US would spend more to stay #1. In fact they may secretly have liked the low EU spending levels as it makes us more dependent on them. If we began to spend loads of money and built a huge army, we'd probably get a lot of other complaints... We're already Hitler to the rest of Europe because we have so much power in the EU, I'm sure they'd all be quiet if we spent 6% of our GDP on tanks and also disbanded the EU and all our treaties with Poland. Why not also build border fortifications and talk about how they steal our jobs and cars and that their behavior has to have consequences. Aww man, I should go into politics. :dizzy2::sweatdrop:
I simply consider him a credible expert on the subject. Probably wasn't needed to be pointed out, as it wouldn't be contested but still...Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The part I find interesting is that he explicitly stated that NSA has the tools to find out exactly what happened. Hence, I'm surprised at the lack of certainty in their report.
What is the scale of operation?Quote:
If the infiltrators were a single organization, then it would need to be more than a single individual given the scale of the operation.
That implies that all political leaks must have been orchestrated by state agents, which is rather silly. Disclosing information about something that is trendy is human nature. Bill Clinton's sexual escapades were interesting when he was president, then no one cared and became somewhat interesting again 20 years later when his wife was running.Quote:
But the content accessed and disseminated is clearly political - the contention is that regardless of who or how many specifically executed the task itself, or participated in grabbing data, their employers or paymasters were state agents.
It's simple how society works. There's no need for a master villain. Just like leaks about Trump's pussy grabbing came out when he was running for president and weren't remotely interesting before that. Somebody obviously had that information for a very long time, but simply no one cared. By applying the same reasoning, we must conclude that it was Hillary and Democrats who orchestrated the leak because they had a vested interest in Trump losing the election.
This is blatant misrepresentation of my position; I dismiss it because the russians doing it is a theory and the only thing that supports it is the word of spooks that have twisted the truth before in similar circumstances and whose taskmaster at the time had incentive to do the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
All your presented theories of mistake or ill intent are made all the more plausable than "russia did it" by the precident that was the Iraq war debacle and the fact that the CIA's entire role is to be the illicit tools of the president of the time, often loyal to the most extreme fault.
Is your english failing you again? The difference between believing something to be true and entertaining a possibility is much greater than mere semantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
You said members of the trump admin believe it. Prove it or amend your statement.
Testimony of the demonstrateably unreliable and indicators of general ill intent are not proof and it certainly should not be enough for someone in Shepard Smith's profession to state as fact, yet there he is.Quote:
Anyway, several intelligence agencies saying so plus several other indicators saying Russia is trying to destabilize the Western world in general is not exactly 0% proof. Your "demands" are completely outlandish because you refuse to challenge your own beliefs. I don't even "swallow" anything, I just think it is likely that it was Russia, that's good enough for me s there is not much I can do about it either way. The only thing I can do is be a bit wary concerning potential Russian attempts to influence the election here for example.
If you want to believe that the russians did it, I dont care, I dont even mind but dont blow smoke up my ass about it being proven. I mean the Seth Rich theory has a dead body found with valuables untouched but still labled a mugging by DC cops and it's the russian angle being pushed by the media?
The Kim Jong-Un case has the escapees testimony to fall back on, the CIA's "this is how we think the russians hacked the DNC" has nothing of the sort.Quote:
You may have missed this, but a lot of pro-Trump Twitter accounts switched to anti-Merkel tweets around the same time after the election. There is no definitive proof here either, but it, too, is widely seen as a Russian bot net of Twitter bots that they use to influence our politics. The reason I can believe it is that it wouldn't be the only measure given that they created an English version of Russia Today to spread their propaganda here as well. Lavrov was apparently praising the downfall of Western hegemony already at the Munich security conference. It also rhymes well with all the other backhanded stuff Putin has done from arresting people on bogus charges, "local defense forces" popping up somewhere and the whole defender of endangered Russians thing. There isn't even any definitive proof that all his critics who mysteriously got poisoned or shot were killed on his order but you probably believe he is a harmless kitten given that there is 0% proof against him... :rolleyes:
I have someone else for you, Kim Jong-Un, can you definitively proof that he ever did anything evil?
Pak und Flak nach vorne.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Unauthorized access maintained and developed over the course of a year with respect to emails, chat, research, no financial or donor information taken, basically undetected throughout the time period until discovered and kicked out in spring of 2016.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Not at all. We're talking about electronic networks and data accessed remotely and without authorization, over prolonged periods of time.Quote:
That implies that all political leaks must have been orchestrated by state agents, which is rather silly. Disclosing information about something that is trendy is human nature. Bill Clinton's sexual escapades were interesting when he was president, then no one cared and became somewhat interesting again 20 years later when his wife was running.
The Trump audio tape wasn't a leak, it was publicly-available content from media unrelated to Trump that people dug up while combing over his public profile for dirt.Quote:
It's simple how society works. There's no need for a master villain. Just like leaks about Trump's pussy grabbing came out when he was running for president and weren't remotely interesting before that. Somebody obviously had that information for a very long time, but simply no one cared. By applying the same reasoning, we must conclude that it was Hillary and Democrats who orchestrated the leak because they had a vested interest in Trump losing the election.
So I correctly represented it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
They were recruited by the CIA.Quote:
The Kim Jong-Un case has the escapees testimony to fall back on, the CIA's "this is how we think the russians hacked the DNC" has nothing of the sort.
If you are referring to Brexit, I disagree. When it comes down to it Brexit happened because of a lack of consultation on the surrender of parliamentary power to Europe (treaties signed without Referenda first). This caused disenfranchisement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
A lot of the resentment towards Eastern Europeans has to do with the fact that "we" didn't invite them in, "Europe" foisted them upon us.
Debatable - the Queen has publicly intervened once and survived it. Supposedly she put the screws to Gordon Brown in 210, telling him if he didn't step aside and allow the LibCon Coalition she'd dissolve Parliament and call fresh elections.Quote:
As with other things, for the monarch to genuinely block a populist leader or government in some capacity they would have to sacrifice themselves in the process.
No proof, though, of course.
No - I just mean you don't have enough tanks, or men. Germany is large, but the German army numbers just over 60,000 men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army
More than last year - but still about half the size the army needs to be to contribute effectively to NATO and Germany's own defence. At the same time you're integrating the Dutch, Romanian and Czech armies into your own, increasing the area you are required to cover.
Ok, they think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
As for Shepard Smith, he is about as professional as the President who states bullshit as facts all the time, so I guess the people get the level of professionalism they voted for. :2thumbsup:
Smith doesn't even call it a fact, he "only" doesn't pronounce any doubts on TV. While that may not be textbook journalism, it's far better than outright lying or presenting "alternative facts". You might as well complain about Stephen Miller not having shown up on all the shows that invited him when he clearly said on TV that he would repeat things on any show anywhere at any time. I mean what professional standard is that for a representative of the POTUS?
Your whole Smith outrage is obviously a smokescreen fueled by partisanship since you never get outraged by similar blunders of the Trump admin.
Ugh, first you scold me for not using belief correctly and then you talk about me believing something when I clearly said I can't be sure. Is your logic failing you today or is it my fault again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
And what Seth Rich theory? Can you prove it? Can anyone?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...afa_story.html
All I see there is a bunch of speculation that offers no more proof than the Russian hacking theory. With the added bonus that even if he was the leak and/or murdered to cover the leak, it could still have been done by the Russians. :dizzy2:
Because it would make sense to publicly release the names of their Russian sources who secretly told them so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
And escapees are no proof, they're obviously not happy with the regime and are likely to lie to get asylum in other countries. Unless you can prove that they are not lying, NK is a paradise.
As I said, so you think we're not good enough for NATO, how about we just scratch the idea and work with the Russian Federation if we don't deserve NATO protection? Maybe Putin will agree to a cooperation without demanding that we spend more on defense. The Red Army can defend us effectively if the US Army does not want to. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
And if neither of them want us, well, we have finally achieved complete independence with no threat, might as well disband the army completely to make them want us even less.
But why just Brexit? Populism has had trouble penetrating your national government over its history more because of inertia than any palpable pressure from the monarchy, because conservatives deferential to the monarchy have typically ruled over the national government, because your most significant populist movements have been ethno-national ones seeking dissociation rather than representation, because social authority was contested and compromised on the basis of landed aristocracy embracing market capitalism under state stewardship into the Industrial Revolution. These quirks, and their attendant norms, are smoothing out as time passes.Quote:
If you are referring to Brexit, I disagree. When it comes down to it Brexit happened because of a lack of consultation on the surrender of parliamentary power to Europe (treaties signed without Referenda first). This caused disenfranchisement.
A lot of the resentment towards Eastern Europeans has to do with the fact that "we" didn't invite them in, "Europe" foisted them upon us.
I don't think the monarchy continues to act as some primitive force distinguishing American results from British ones. Let's say the only discrete forms of democracy are party democracy, and populist democracy. Would you be surprised if there were a referendum towards dissolving aspects of the monarchy in your lifetime?
Is it just from outside the US that people are pointing and laughing? Bowling green massacres, the Swedish attacks...
He's a laughing stock.
He's also very self-critical it seems:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxhf0iLXm70
John Oliver sums up what's weird about the Trump-Putin thing, small language warning for the song at the end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0utzB6oDan0
Trump cannot be US president for more than 8 years. If there were a suitable UK heir apparent for him to marry, he could haven been close to the centre of power in the UK till his dying day; and his offspring would continue where he left off for generations to come.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Meaningless as usual. What is an American value (I can easily mention many supposed Russian values, with which America would be gladly associated) and why are Americans supposed to care about Crimea and their country's foreign interests?
An ordinary American shouldn't care at all if their proxies do better than Russian proxies or if X random dictatorship is ruled by a pro-American or a pro-Russian despot. Only nationalists care, and these guys are by definition dump and easily manipulated.
Foreign relations are irrelevant to human rights and if John Oliver has some decency left, I expect the rest of his episodes to comment on America's friendly relations with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Pakistan and almost every sub-Saharan state. Jesus, McCarthy is long dead, you aren't gonna get these votes back by russophobic hysteria.
That seems like a somewhat meaningless post considering you make a lot of assumptions about John Oliver not caring about the diplomatic relations to Saudi Arabia etc. He has a 20 minute segment and has to cram a lot of content into it. He cannot explain the entire world and all the problems in one go. And he did cover it by the way when he said that the US are not perfect and even mentioned that he usually talks about the imperfections of the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
In fact, instead of russophobic hysteria, you could call it a questioning of friendly relationships with countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia in general. The use of Russia as an example makes sense given that it is a current hot topic obviously.
As for caring about Crimea and foreign interests, I would agree that the foreign interest thing is a bit weird, especially when it comes to business interests that make foreign people suffer. It is however a topic that people do care about, see people talking about better relations with Russia to intensify trade and create more jobs and so on. Why should Americans not care about what happened to Crimea?
They should care in the sense that the international law was stomped, but Oliver's propaganda is misleading, because I would personally care more about... let's say the will of the Egyptian people getting stomped.
He skips Saudi Arabia in twenty seconds and focuses on Russia using the cleverest and oldest trick in the book. Casually and quickly recognizing it as valid and then ignoring it for the rest of the episode with a simple "aside".
He didn't lie, even when he implied that Putler should be blamed for every assassination happening in Russia by circular reasoning or that the economy is going to fall (it isn't, it has stabilised and been projected to rise). Not that I'm gonna shed any tears on Boris Nemtsov, the oligarch who ruined Novgorod, but you get the picture.
I know that what I'm saying can easily be dismissed as whataboutism, but the whole russophobic paranoia becomes very fragile, when viewed inside context. Hillary "laughing at extra-judicial murders" Clinton tried to play the patriotic, bald eagle card, but she failed miserably, because Americans had been taught to hate commies, not Russians specificallt and they still remember all these coffins sent by Zarkawi, al-Douri and the rest of the gang.
The only thing I am hopeful for Trump is that he somewhat improves the relations for Russia, regardless of Oliver's condescending opinion about Russians. Look at all these ignorant peasants believing stories about jugs and hating gays. It's Kipling burden all over again, but with Slavs instead of Africans and Asians.
End of rant.
Ugh, even Russia Today doesn't deny those:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
https://www.rt.com/news/russia-gay-law-myths-951/
What the people Putin kills or has deconstructed in courts actually did is irrelevant if he only does it to secure his own power. The situation where a president sits out a term limit for one term and then runs again has also never been seen in the US by the way, especially with a close ally of his taking over for the one term while he even takes a different government position. What would you call it if Obama had become Clinton's secretary of state and then ran again as president in 2020?Quote:
A law was passed earlier this summer that levies a fine of up to 50,000 rubles (about $1,500 dollars) on any individuals, and up to 1 million rubles (about $30,000) on any organizations engaged in “propaganda of non-traditional relationships to minors”. Non-traditional sexual relationships were informally defined by the lawmakers as those that cannot lead to the production of offspring. What constitutes propaganda is also unclear.
[...]
After several one-offs refusals to let them go ahead, and unsanctioned protest rallies, Moscow’s local parliament banned gay demonstrations for a 100 years in 2011, and again in 2012. They have been allowed to take place in St. Petersburg under the guise of human rights demonstrations. These have inevitably ended in bloodshed, as LGBT campaigners have been outnumbered by religious and radical right-wing counter-protesters, with police having to separate the groups.
[...]
According to a May survey conducted by Levada Center, only 21 percent of Russians believe that homosexuality is a sexual orientation people are born with. Forty five percent believe that it is a result of “being subjected to perversion or loose personal morals”, with 20 more believing that it is both a result of circumstances and nature. More than half of Russians believe that homosexuality should be either punished by law (13 percent) or treated medically (38 percent). According to a survey conducted shortly after the gay propaganda law was passed by Levada, 76 percent of Russians support it.
I will give you that there is such a thing as russophobic paranoia, but the existence of that does not whitewash all the things that are actually "wrong" about Russia.
I like John Oliver, but that was literally seventeen minutes of talking about Putin's personality. The real issues he only addressed in the last three minutes, including the pop song at the end which is actually a strong political statement.
This is the problem with western media right now, everybody focusing on Trump said this and said that instead of his policies.
Against the law, as Obama cannot run again. The 22nd amendment limits a person to <2.5 presidential terms total, regardless of consecutiveness. Grover Cleveland "sat out" a term, winning the popular vote 3 times but losing the electoral college for the middle one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
There's no proof that Putin killed Nemtsov other than that he didn't like him. Yes, he may have, but he also may not, and mob squabbling sounds much likelier than the president ordering someone to be murdered near Kremlin.
I am not denying that Russia is more homophobic and undemocratic than the US, but Oliver's tone was clearly condescending and borderline racist, treating Russians like some naive idiots, who are clearly not as clever like him and his audience. Why would they vote for Putler other than stupidly swallowing his propaganda?!
Finally, I have no problem with how Putin circumvented the Russian constitution, as he was elected fair and square. Still a noob compared to our Karamanlis who in exactly 40 years was prime-minister for 14 and president for 10 (and maybe more hadn't been for the king and the junta).
Meanwhile, a bunch of Democrats believe that Hillary was liquidated, because Putin hacked their system. If I were Trump, I would enjoy their paranoia, stopping them from seeing the real causes of their dismal failure.
Yes, but that doesn't improve anything about the Russian situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Nemtsov is not the only Putin critic who happened to have an accident. Do such things never happen to his friends because they're all nice and all his critics are criminals? What a coincidence...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
See above regarding the circumvention. Fair and square has to be a joke given that opposition is pretty much not allowed to exist. Almost every journalist or newspaper critical of the man is getting harassed and shut down, critical questions are almost absent from his press conferences and the opposition parties are led by his friends and acquaintances. That's like saying everybody loves Kim Jong Un because people show up to his parades and you never hear about demonstrations against him. Prove me wrong with hard proof. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
As for his policies, they're mostly as bad as the things he says. Let's take these:
https://www.politiplatform.com/trump
Crime: Starts out okay, then come the gun things that I just won'rt ever understand as a nanny statist. Plus replace the meth heads with gang members.
Education: Don't improve the school system, just give more tax money to private schools. :wall:
Environment: Yeah, sure, by shutting down the EPA and making one of its worst nightmares the head of the EPA. :rolleyes: How am I supposed to believe that? Will he invent Clean Oil? As for the pipelines, which are oh so safe: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3rxqUXqPzog/maxresdefault.jpg
Families: Some okay ones, but generally geared towards a population increase = more consumers of resources we are not going to have anymore soon. Yay!
Foreign Policy: Don't have time to think about all of it, but we already know he basically says "America First", huge military increase (why do we need more again if they get more anyway?) and, very funny, no stealing of US tech, not like they would hamper or steal technologies of other countries. No reason for me as a foreigner to like any of this obviously.
Government: :laugh4: Yes, he also placed bankers all over his cabinet and his head advisor is a racist, fascist, fake-news-running ex-banker... :laugh4:
Healthcare: Hard to say on a whim, but I assume more privatization, I like #70, that sounds like a game-changer. I'm curious to see the US cover everyone well with more privatization. Which president didn't promise to fix the VA? (possibly a lot, not like I checked)
Immigration: #90 sounds good, should have been implemented before those entitled millenials automatically got the citizenship. I propose a citizenship exam at age 21, failures get thrown over the wall.
Jobs & Economy: Still waiting to see more Americans with a job while everyone gets a hefty price increase on everything that is or was imported. The lower consumption could be offset by all the babies/new consumers.
Science & Tech: Basically the NSA does not **** me enough yet by saving all my communication?
Taxes: Some of them sound good, want to see them in action though, especially given that he basically promised to tax his friends more when he recently seemed concerned that they can't get enough loans/money.
You would be surprised what people are willing to believe. My relatives, for the longest time, could not differentiate between pedophiles and homosexuals. The way they saw it, is that what stops one from committing one lustful sin if they do another. It's just an example, but it is fairly easy to manipulate people with fear of some sort of punishment, whether from a divine source or some imbecile with access to explosives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
Wait till Charles III ascends the throne - I bet he won't loom that large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Don't steal this title from Putin. He will take on so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
First of all, NIZHNY Novgorod.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
Second of all, it is an exaggeration to call him an oligarch.
Third of all, as for Nemtsov being responsible for the "ruination" of"Novgorod" - a proof needed. Both for the fact of ruination and for the man being instrumental in it (if any).
So, getting a good old b-job after a hard day at work is out of the question?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yeah, it was really weak. You can't really cover Putin in 20 minutes, anyway. He should have focused on a single, or at best a few aspects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
And a fallacy. Nemtsov's death can be used to blame Putin for another murder and so on, ad infinitum...Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Firstly, you changed the topic, because censoring the opposition is not the same with exchanging places with your underling. Secondly, should I really link any evidence about Putin's increased popularity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
He represses the opposition, but he would have won any way. That doesn't excuse his actions but neither does it delegitimise his presidency.
Alright. Anyway, my point was that Oliver's obsession with Russia is dishonest, misleading and after all irrelevant. Why should I defend Putin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
What? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
Nemtsov is not required to be a murder for all the "accidents" of his enemies to make him look suspicious.
I didn't change the topic, I gave the answer regarding him switching positions above and then commented on your saying that he won fair and square. To say he would have won anyway sounds incredibly cynical and cannot be proven obviously, just like the opposite. That he does all these things clearly shows that his presidency is more like a dictatorship than a presidency. There are probably other dictators who may get a lot of votes, even majorities, but that doesn't change anything about their ruthlessness or that they may have brainwashed to population to get there. It's like saying Hitler didn't need elections anymore because he would have won them anyway, he was just a popular chancellor and not a dictator. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
I don't think he has an obsession with Russia and every time US shows say about European countries it is partially misleading, just like I have people on Facebook who say misleading things about the US. You have to see the overall picture and he's not so wrong about Russia there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
And they're not irrelevant, he used it to show why Trump's attitude towards Russia is morally and perhaps judicially questionable. Trump is the one who has some strange obsession with talking about how he wants to be friends with Russia. :shrug:
There will never be a Referendum on dissolving "parts of the Monarchy", there might conceivably be a referendum on abolition but that is highly unlikely. It is far more Likely the monarch would see the writing on the wall and voluntarily abolish their position and usher in a Republic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
After all, the Monarch has been placed over us by God to Protect us. I'm not joking here, this is widely acknowledged to be the view of HM Queen. Abolition in the UK is unlikely though, the Queen is outstandingly popular, her son is also generally very popular and her grandson is possibly the post popular of the lot.
On the other hand, Abolition in her other Dominions is a real possibility, but it all depends on timing. The Australians have already rejected abolition under the current Monarch. It's possible that once Charles ascends abolition there and in Canada will move forward but not immediately after his coronation - it would take a few years at least to get going.
In that time he might prove an excellent King, and if he dies early and William ascends then abolitionists will be back to square one, I think.
A rumour:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
http://24-my.info/putin-wants-to-rep...eader-media-2/
So I see there are increasingly moves to outlaw public protest in the US:
http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/s...2062bd07b.html
I see that it's also being used to expand the civil forfeiture rules to... Nice!
So the state decides if you are allowed to protest, and if it decides that you aren't, it takes all your stuff.
If that isn't fascism, what the hell is it?
The civil forfeiture rules in the US are unbelievable. Any of you non Americans who haven't acquainted yourselves - here's a rogues gallery to give you a taste:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/listver...orfeiture/amp/
A novel way for law enforcement to boost their budgets by stealing off (mainly) black people.
Need more information, what are the criteria the police are using to identify those who should be arrested. What property is allowed to be siezed.
As it is we dont know if this isnt merely allowing cops to arrest the guy who showed up with a face mask' baseball bat and molotov before he starts causing damage or sieze his weapons without spending time getting a warrent.
With the narcotics seizure rules, the police pretty much can decide if you are likely to be involved in the drugs industry, and then they can take anything that isn't nailed down.
In some counties the situation is getting extreme and is not necessarily drug related. Any local infraction incurs a large fine, which if you can't pay, results in more fines... Then prison. Consequently large numbers of young (mainly black) people owe the state lots of money they don't have and are in prison for trifling offences.
Such things can be contested, if you can prove in a court of law that what has been siezed was not aquired criminally or used in criminal activities (aka "that pile of cash they found under my bed that my job wouldnt pay me in 50 years of continuous labour isnt drug profits but inheritance, here's the will and bank records" or "I have that fertilizer because I am a farmer not a bomber, here's my licence") the property will be returned, fines cancelled or repaid and such misuse leaves the counties open for damage claims.
But this is an issue of the original law and the subject of another thread, what does this extension account for? Would it really extend to siezing people's houses while they are away protesting?
Of course, because the people most affected by this not only have extensive resources to get legal help, but are also considered impartially by the US justice system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Ah Tories... Things that affect people who don't look like them are irrelevant and uninteresting. While things that even hint at their privilege are beyond the pale and threaten the very fabric of the world :laugh4:
There are legal companies in america that offer "No win, No fee" rates on cases.
Again, what does this extension account for?
When Trump was talking of Sweden, did he know anything beforehand?
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/eu...ockholm-riots/
Or had he traveled with Doc Brown and Marty McFly into the future?
That looks more like out-and-out corruption than Fascism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
There are, actually, often minor disturbances in Sweden involving immigrants and the Police.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
This doesn't look like it really qualified as a real "riot" in the French sense.
You are right. The market can efficiently deal with this. The system works!Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
When the state allows its enforcers free reign over its citizens, the individual examples do look like corruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Not much of a refutation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Nor an answer to the question.
Doublepost.
Here is a good Washington Post series on asset forfeiture from a couple of years ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/inv...=.224f7ec3b968
I remember back when this got started during the heyday of the "War on Drugs", easy to pass laws when spun as cops seizing yachts and Ferraris from big time dealers. I think the general gist of the story for lawful citizens is, don't carry more than $200 in cash. If they take it, it's generally not worth your time/money to try to get it back. You may be innocent, but your property is guilty as hell!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Idaho and I are not normally on the same side of most issues. However, the civil forfeiture rules for drug crimes in America are far too easily abused and applying the same rules for such things as protesting without a permit would be ludicrous. I cannot see that application as anything other than an infringement of the first amendment. Injunct it now and strike it down soon after.
If I recall, @Strike For The South is also quite leery of this forfeiture stuff.
You guys only live there, what would you know. Greyblades has a deeper understanding, based on a sense of moral superiority that only an English tory could nature.
As with a number of well-intentioned things, the forfeiture process in the war on drugs was well meant but did not think through the unintended consequences.
Goal: Make drug dealers pay for the cost of the war on drugs, tying the property forfeiture to the presence of illegal drugs or paraphernalia that tested positive for same. Confiscate the (house, boat, car, etc.) and auction for cash which then funded the anti-drug effort.
In practice: tying forfeiture to the item's use for drugs and NOT to the owner's or operator's actions allowed for confiscation of lots of stuff -- even if it had been stolen or rented from its rightful owner who then received no compensation. Even if there was no evidence to link any person to a crime that would meet the minimum needed to arraign someone, the stuff could still be taken and sold. Sadly, it is all to easy to teach yourself to justify raids and confiscation that can't really generate legal evidence, but can get you loot. Most police departments have not abused this.....most.
The potential for abuse in these situations is galling.
GB is as enthusiastic about Corbyn as you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho