POTUS Election thread

[Husar]

Well yes, less sure about you even going to one though

Why would I go to the ones where you are?

[Fragony]

Why would I go to the ones where you are?

Can't remember inviting you ;)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Can't remember inviting you ;)

Of course you don't remember, you were hitting the schnapps pretty hard by then.

[Husar]

Can't remember inviting you ;)

I know we're terribly off topic by now (then again, there are still Trump and Hillary and what else is there to say? ), but you actually did, about ten years ago or so, in the chat. You said you organize techno parties and I should let you know if I ever want to come.

That's how much you have changed, the cynicism is really changing you, just like my link said.

[Greyblades]

As fascinating as it is watching the thread devolve into a round of baiting fragony, project veritas put up more captured footage:

[Hooahguy]

As fascinating as it is watching the thread devolve into a round of baiting fragony, project veritas put up more captured footage:

The Clintons have a long history of conspiring with ducks.

[Fragony]

In any case, what I thought was an innocent joke isn't all that innocent, unreal that this is actually a well thought over part of the campaign

[Montmorency]

Might as well put this here - nice enough article.

PUTIN, SYRIA, AND WHY MOSCOW HAS GONE WAR-CRAZY

Earlier this week, to get a whiff of the new atmosphere, I went to the studios of Channel One, the country’s main state broadcaster, to appear as a guest on a daytime political talk show. Russian television stations have long devoted much of their time to dissecting the minutiae of America’s every political hiccup, a consequence of the Russian ruling class’s simultaneous fascination and revulsion with the U.S. political system. I was the only American on set, and it was clear I was meant to play the role of the pitiable imbecile and birthday-party piñata: everyone would get a chance to step up and have a whack. The host of the program, Artem Sheinin, noted that it was the thirtieth anniversary of the Reykjavik summit between Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan, talks that ultimately led to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which reduced missile stockpiles in both countries. “Some people think this is when our country began its surrender; others say it marks the end of the Cold War,” Sheinin said. “But, as we see from our conversation today, the Cold War wasn’t brought to an end, and, in my view, can’t be.”

As a digital animation of a grizzly bear clawing away at a bald eagle played on a large screen behind him, Sheinin turned to me. “Does it not seem to you,” he asked, “that all these children dying in Syria, in eastern Aleppo, this fear about Iskanders—all this is a result of how you have been pushed into being the word’s gendarme, and want to remain as such?” I fumbled through an answer. Russia obviously sees itself as fighting against U.S. hegemony, I said, but what is it fighting for? What is its strategic vision for itself and the world? Another guest, a Russian parliamentary deputy, began to shout, “For Yugoslavia! For Libya! For Syria! For everything you have done these past twenty years!” He was nearly hysterical, but his answer was truthful: Putin’s foreign policy at this moment is, in large part, about avenging the wrongs inflicted on Russia over the past decades, the insults and grievances borne by a generation. It may be a tall order to achieve by January 20th of next year. But Putin may certainly try.

This is also why, IMO, US and European administrations cannot approach the situation by 'quarantining' Russia (even assuming that were politically and economically practicable at this time) but rather by somehow forcing a consolidation of primary Russian interests. Russia is doing this to the US, so perhaps it may be worth trying to manipulate the Russian public's perceptions such that they no longer take certain events as injuries, thereby undercutting the same sentiments that Putin both foments and responds to in his overt hostile or bad-faith gestures.

Easily said...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In any case, what I thought was an innocent joke isn't all that innocent, unreal that this is actually a well thought over part of the campaign

You're smarter than that and cannot really be that naive. This is the game as it has always been played.

[Kralizec]

As fascinating as it is watching the thread devolve into a round of baiting fragony, project veritas put up more captured footage:

Project Veritas is not a reliable source. The founder has a proven track record of doctoring videos conjure up controversy about non-existent issues. He's even been convicted for entering a Senator's office on false pretenses, posing as a repairman with the intent of bugging his telephone line.
And he's supporting Donald Trump, surprise surprise....

[Greyblades]

Project Veritas is not a reliable source. The founder has a proven track record of doctoring videos conjure up controversy about non-existent issues. He's even been convicted for entering a Senator's office on false pretenses, posing as a repairman with the intent of bugging his telephone line.
And he's supporting Donald Trump, surprise surprise....

Video records dont become automatically false because of the person presenting it.

Dodges through incredulity, ridicule and outright denial in the face of video testimony of lawbreaking, this squirming is depressing to witness.

[Kralizec]

Video records dont become automatically false because of the person presenting it.

Dodges through incredulity, ridicule and outright denial in the face of video testimony of lawbreaking, this squirming is depressing to witness.

Personally, I vastly prefer a written article to a video. Even without taking account of the quality, or the person who made it. You can chalk that up to lazyness if you want. I just don't want to waste 15 minutes of my life, for some information that would take less than 5 minutes to read, and from a dubious source to boot.

The only bit I got from your video (I fast forwarded to about halfway through and watched a couple of minutes) that he accuses Clinton of violating campaign finance rules (i.e. giving directions to people paid by a supposedly independent PAC) . If true, that's serious.

You could do me a favour and summarize the charges made in that video...afterall, you were the one who was trying to make some sort of point with that video...I assume.

[Pannonian]

Video records dont become automatically false because of the person presenting it.

Dodges through incredulity, ridicule and outright denial in the face of video testimony of lawbreaking, this squirming is depressing to witness.

Have you watched The Wilderness Years yet? Now that is acknowledged by experts on the subject to be one of the great political documentaries, with research and sources that stand the scrutiny of trained historians and politicians across the whole political spectrum. Including testimony from all the main players who were still alive. This was your response.

Not a good sign when you need videos to make your point.

Do you know what hypocrisy means?

[Fragony]

I know we're terribly off topic by now (then again, there are still Trump and Hillary and what else is there to say? ), but you actually did, about ten years ago or so, in the chat. You said you organize techno parties and I should let you know if I ever want to come.

That's how much you have changed, the cynicism is really changing you, just like my link said.

Oh stopped doing that, fun times. And cynism is just facing reality