61–70 of 87 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can I have all of your personal data? It's okay, I just want to be more informed about your darker side before my next vote.
You could if I was running for President. What a dumb thing to say.
If there's actual evidence of an actual crime, then present it to the public and the court. In the meantime, healthcare is still a huge mess, regulatory capture is keeps getting worse (an isn't limited to the FCC), systemic corruption continues to erode the public sector as politicians - regardless of party affiliation - spend increasing amounts of time "dialing for dollars"[1], wealth inequality continues to get worse, and the military-industrial complex is still a money pump that starts the occasional war.
There is a lot of important work to do, but this denial of service attack against everyone's political time and energy has been a very successful distraction.
So the GOP is directly admitting to collusion with Russian agents in order to disrupt US elections. Are we OK with this as a country?
> So the GOP is directly admitting I don't know that I would assign the actions of a GOP consultant to the entire GOP.
If you look at individual actions only, it is easy to write things off. But I am not a prosecutor, and when we cross some critical mass of "isolated incidents", I start thinking the "bad apples" have spoiled the whole barrel, to actually use that cliche correctly for a change.
I'm sure there's a member or three of the Penn State frathouse recently in the news who weren't culpable in that kid's death, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They said it was the Russians trying to get Trump elected. Is that not good enough for you? Only if it made sense. At nearly every angle you look at, it doesn't. If the Russians wanted someone they could push around, then Clinton was their candidate. She's the one who signed off on the Uranium deal, and had several large donations she received as SCOTUS from the Russians. John Podesta (her campaign chair) had finan…
Sources on any of this conjecture? What large donations from Russia did Clinton receive? Were they comparable to Trump's MANY funding streams from Russian banks? Or multiple of his campaign advisers (not to mention his pick for NSA) having deep Russian ties? Also wasn't Trump the guy falling all over himself to praise Putin/Russia both on Twitter and in-person? Or explicitly asking for Russia to publish more leaks du…
On this note, I just want to point out that Russia is the only European country in the world's 10 most populous countries, and that Russia controls more land than any other country on earth (almost twice as much as the second-largest landholder, China).
It should be no surprise that Americans involved in international business will have substantial connections to such a significant world entity.
It's really kind of silly to hear people holding any previous dealing in Russia against anyone that has a remote connection to Donald Trump.
2) If Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc had non-shady dealings with Russia you would think they wouldn't have to be so shady about how they present those dealings. Sessions wouldn't have to explicitly commit perjury in front of the Senate to try and hide his interactions with Russian officials if they were normal interactions.
3) If you're taking large amounts of money (say for real estate deals) from Russian state banks and oligarchs you're playing a dangerous game of being in someone's pocket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having a geopolitical adversary strategically hack political parties in order to change the outcome of an election to suit their interests is a HUGE problem. By selectively disclosing information a hostile nation can change the political landscape in the target nation to weaken alliances, change security posture, change positions on treaties, and/or create general dysfunction. This is not a case where the public is g…
>> Having a geopolitical adversary strategically hack political parties in order to change the outcome of an election to suit their interests is a HUGE problem So you were ok with Obama sending a few hundred thousand dollars to try and influence the Israeli elections to oust Netanyahu? According to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), the State Department gave $349,276 in U.S. taxpayer-fund…
Even from the article you linked, it says that "OneVoice did not use State Department funds directly for political activities, or seek State Department grants in anticipation of the Israeli elections" but that it indirectly allowed that non-profit to campaign against Netanyahu. Not exactly the same kettle of fish.
Just the same I don't support our government trying to fund political campaigns against our allies either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So the GOP is directly admitting I don't know that I would assign the actions of a GOP consultant to the entire GOP.
Insofar as a political party is benefiting from the bad actions of members, I'm not going to feel bad about it at this point. If you look at individual actions only, it is easy to write things off. But I am not a prosecutor, and when we cross some critical mass of "isolated incidents", I start thinking the "bad apples" have spoiled the whole barrel, to actually use that cliche correctly for a change. I'm sure there's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That is not really a critical look. It is "but Russians wouldn't possibly do that this way" rehashed several times over. You posted this comment 7 minutes after I posted the link. 6 minutes prior to that, you posted another comment in this thread, so I know you haven't immediately started reading the article. Since the article is quite long, I highly doubt that you've read it. And no, none of the presented argument…
>And no, none of the presented arguments there are "but Russians wouldn't possibly do that this way". "“If the guys are really good,” says Chris Finan, CEO of Manifold Technology, “they’re not leaving much evidence or they’re leaving evidence to throw you off the scent entirely.” How plausible is it that Russian intelligence services would fail even to attempt such a fundamental step?" "On the other hand, sloppiness…
1) Russia is not a "European" country. Though it does exert influence in that sphere and has a 'European Russia'. Anecdotally most Russians I've met would bristle at Russia being called a "European" territory. 2) If Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc had non-shady dealings with Russia you would think they wouldn't have to be so shady about how they present those dealings. Sessions wouldn't have to explicitly commit perju…
As previously mentioned, Russia is by far the world's largest state. Though their land area extends across Asia, Russian culture, customs, religion, and heritage are undoubtedly Euro-centric. Almost 80% of Russian citizens live in "European Russia" [0]. By every calculation except raw geography, Russia is rightly classified European.
Moscow is about 1000 miles east of Berlin. It's 3000 miles west of Beijing.
>2) If Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc had non-shady dealings with Russia you would think they wouldn't have to be so shady about how they present those dealings. Sessions wouldn't have to explicitly commit perjury in front of the Senate to try and hide his interactions with Russian officials if they were normal interactions.
I really don't want descend into this unending pit of politically-motivated "nuh-uh", "yuh-huh" accusations about imaginary events and anonymous sources, but I'd at least suggest that you soften your tone re: Sessions. He has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, perjury. You state it as if it's an irrefutable reality.
I think that your bias is leaking through a little bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Insofar as a political party is benefiting from the bad actions of members, I'm not going to feel bad about it at this point. If you look at individual actions only, it is easy to write things off. But I am not a prosecutor, and when we cross some critical mass of "isolated incidents", I start thinking the "bad apples" have spoiled the whole barrel, to actually use that cliche correctly for a change. I'm sure there's…
I'm not a fan of the bad apples argument. The same reasoning is used by some to defend attacks on Muslims.
I think the strongest form of the bad apple argument comes not from the presence of a problem but rather the strength of counter-efforts.