US elections: aiding an' Abedin

[MerenthaClone]

Just now, Altherion said:

I agree with both of you that Trump is not likely to be deliberately anti-imperialist. However, it is possible that his policies will result in some anti-imperialist outcomes whereas with Clinton we are very nearly guaranteed four more years of the same. They're both terrible, but with Trump there would at least be a chance of something different.

It doesn't matter much though. There's no time left for October surprises and many people have already voted so barring some serious issues with polls, Clinton is going to win (although for some reason the probability of Trump winning has edged up to nearly 1 in 4 on FiveThirtyEight).

You've been pulling this "Clinton's a known negative and while Trump has been making every indication that he'll be far far far far far far far worse in any (every) given field, he's not a known negative and is a huge maverick (idiot) so maybe, just maybe, the stars will align and the man who said he'd attack Iran over a minor incident involving trespassing in their waters and gets in 3am twitter slapfights will somehow be an improvement" shit for almost a year now and its still one of the dumbest possible explanations I've ever heard for voting for Trump.  And I include the paranoid schizophrenic patient telling me that Hillary personally killed his family with an axe in that, since at least he believed it.    

Fuck, is it irritating to read.  

[Boris the Blade]

1 hour ago, Sullen said:

One could say the same thing about the States and Saudi Arabia.

Are the Democrats and Republicans both hypocritical compromised pieces of shit because of their support of the Saudi immoral regime and their illegal invasion of Yemen? Does the fact that they help a Wahhabi monarchy automatically make them Wahhabi monarchists?

Not at all, they have common interests despite being ideologically opposed to one another, and thus the alliance.

Same thing between Russia and Assange. (Who, yes, is a massive manbaby)

Nah he is a massive hypocritical piece of shit. He works with a country in Russia that openly violates human rights and commits war crimes and assassinates journalists that crticize him. He whines about the US while wilfully ignoring what Russia does. It makes him a hypocrite. Not to mention how he is responsible for the deaths of people thanks to his irresponsible actions of outing people through his releases. 

 

Also, yes dems and republicans are hypocrites there. 

[Tywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I agree with both of you that Trump is not likely to be deliberately anti-imperialist. However, it is possible that his policies will result in some anti-imperialist outcomes whereas with Clinton we are very nearly guaranteed four more years of the same. They're both terrible, but with Trump there would at least be a chance of something different.

I'd change your last word from different to worse, as that seems to be the far more likely outcome. I'm no fan of Clinton's hawkishness, but I'll take it every time over Trump's reckless know-nothingism, thin skinned mannerisms and his curiosity with nuclear warfare.  

[Lordsteve666]

I read an article somewhere, can't recall where, that the whole email thing is causing younger voters to loose faith in Clinton, with the fear they might swing right. Even if that is the case in what insane universe would voting for Trump be any remoter kind of step-up from that?!?!

I just cannot get my head round how anyone who thinks Clinton is a bit dodgy can seriously believe they are going to realistically get a better deal from a sexist, bigoted, buffoon who gets in Twitter rows, has an itchy nuke finger, lies and deceives and bullshits his way through everything with a mountain of word vomit at every debate/speech/rally.

I'd say the situation for the US is dammed clear to the rest of the world: you may not like Clinton, or her policies, or the fact she's female or whatever, but you have simply got to stop that imbecile getting in the front door of the White House.

[Mexal]

 

[Altherion]

28 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

You've been pulling this "Clinton's a known negative and while Trump has been making every indication that he'll be far far far far far far far worse in any (every) given field, he's not a known negative and is a huge maverick (idiot) so maybe, just maybe, the stars will align and the man who said he'd attack Iran over a minor incident involving trespassing in their waters and gets in 3am twitter slapfights will somehow be an improvement" shit for almost a year now and its still one of the dumbest possible explanations I've ever heard for voting for Trump.  And I include the paranoid schizophrenic patient telling me that Hillary personally killed his family with an axe in that, since at least he believed it. 

And you've been misinterpreting what I said for just as long (despite my repeated attempts to clarify). It'll be nice when this election is finally over.

[Kalbear]

This article is long, but fascinating. Basically, in the study of the DNC hack, a number of researchers found something really ,really odd - a server owned by Trump that has been communicating with a Russian bank very, very secretly. 

Quote

The Times hadn’t yet been in touch with the Trump campaign—Lichtblau spoke with the campaign a week later—but shortly after it reached out to Alfa, the Trump domain name in question seemed to suddenly stop working. When the scientists looked up the host, the DNS server returned a “fail” message, evidence that it no longer functioned. Or as it is technically diagnosed, it had SERVFAILed. (On the timeline above, this is the moment at the end of the chronology when the traffic abruptly spikes, as servers frantically attempt to resend rejected messages.) The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. Nicholas Weaver told me the Trump domain was “very sloppily removed.” Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like “the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.”

 

[Fez]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This article is long, but fascinating. Basically, in the study of the DNC hack, a number of researchers found something really ,really odd - a server owned by Trump that has been communicating with a Russian bank very, very secretly. 

 

Just read it. Really interesting stuff. No smoking gun, but a very suspicious situation that should be looked at with a lot more resources. I saw the Clinton Twitter account retweet that article too, so it seems the campaign thinks its worth drawing attention to.

[Boris the Blade]

So CBS is saying that Comey did reopen it? 

 

Damn even Rove criticized Comey. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, Sullen said:

He's an anarchist with an especially nasty bone to pick with the world's number one super-power and who's looking to cause as much damage as possible anywhere he can, any way he can.

Russia's helping him in this endeavour, he's not going to bite the hand that feeds him, even if they are ideologically opposed to one other.

I think you give Julian Assange way too much credit here. I am not sure what Assange's political leaning is. I assume it's probably leftish. But to me it looks like that wikileaks was for him more a tool to fuel his narcisistic tendencies. The real political activists like the Domscheit-Bergs have left wikileaks a long time ago, over Assange. I agree with you, that Assange has a bone to pick with the US. And more importantly vice versa. If there's really still that trumped (no pun intended) up espionage charge from the US pending over his head, then he is in deep trouble - it's worth noting that Ecuador is electing a new president next year, the current one will probably not run for another turn, and the economic situation and outlook is not particularly great, so if I was Assange I would not bet my life on the new president/goverment being as favorable as the current one. And yes, I also agree with you, that this alliance with Russia is more thing of convenience than political conviction. 

[Kalbear]

On 10/31/2016 at 3:32 PM, Boris the Blade said:

So CBS is saying that Comey did reopen it? 

They might be, but it's not accurate. There is nothing to reopen; it was never closed. His testimony may be impacted with new evidence, and he is basically reserving the right to amend it per rules.

This isn't like a criminal case. Investigations never get closed. They might not be particularly active, but they never get closed unless the investigation leads to an actual conviction - and even then, new evidence can bring more people around.

Right now, we really don't know anything about anything. It's possible that there are emails from or to Clinton (no one knows for certain). It's possible that there is only emails to and from Abedin.

To correct @Commodore's odd insistence, there is zero evidence that this computer was used to contact the Clinton email server and zero evidence that Abedin ever had  any email account on that server. The notion that she did is ludicrous and on its face absurd. 

[Boris the Blade]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They might be, but it's not accurate. There is nothing to reopen; it was never closed. His testimony may be impacted with new evidence, and he is basically reserving the right to amend it per rules.

This isn't like a criminal case. Investigations never get closed. They might not be particularly active, but they never get closed unless the investigation leads to an actual conviction - and even then, new evidence can bring more people around.

Right now, we really don't know anything about anything. It's possible that there are emails from or to Clinton (no one knows for certain). It's possible that there is only emails to and from Abedin.

To correct @Commodore's odd insistence, there is zero evidence that this computer was used to contact the Clinton email server and zero evidence that Abedin ever had  any email account on that server. The notion that she did is ludicrous and on its face absurd. 

CBS ruined my fucking dinner with their blatant bullshit. Ugh. 

[Kalbear]

As I've said elsewhere, treat all the crap about the email with the same discerning eye you'd treat any news about an active shooting situation. No one knows much of anything, there are a ton of random conflicting anonymous sources talking about all sorts of weirdness, and it is almost certain to be a big pile of nothing. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Trump refusing to pay campaign pollsters 3/4 of a million dollars...

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/31/donald-trump-is-refusing-to-pay-his-campaign-pollster-nearly-three-quarters-of-a-million-dollars/?postshare=7601477933633852&tid=ss_tw

[Fez]

Potentially related to the Russian bank stuff.

Mother Jones

Quote

 

In June, the former Western intelligence officer—who spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters and who now works with a US firm that gathers information on Russia for corporate clients—was assigned the task of researching Trump's dealings in Russia and elsewhere, according to the former spy and his associates in this American firm. This was for an opposition research project originally financed by a Republican client critical of the celebrity mogul. (Before the former spy was retained, the project's financing switched to a client allied with Democrats.) "It started off as a fairly general inquiry," says the former spook, who asks not to be identified. But when he dug into Trump, he notes, he came across troubling information indicating connections between Trump and the Russian government. According to his sources, he says, "there was an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit."

This was, the former spy remarks, "an extraordinary situation." He regularly consults with US government agencies on Russian matters, and near the start of July on his own initiative—without the permission of the US company that hired him—he sent a report he had written for that firm to a contact at the FBI, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates, who asked not to be identified. (He declines to identify the FBI contact.) The former spy says he concluded that the information he had collected on Trump was "sufficiently serious" to share with the FBI.

Mother Jones has reviewed that report and other memos this former spy wrote. The first memo, based on the former intelligence officer's conversations with Russian sources, noted, "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance." It maintained that Trump "and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals." It claimed that Russian intelligence had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail him." It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on "bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls."

The former intelligence officer says the response from the FBI was "shock and horror." The FBI, after receiving the first memo, did not immediately request additional material, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates. Yet in August, they say, the FBI asked him for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the bureau several memos—some of which referred to members of Trump's inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI. "It's quite clear there was or is a pretty substantial inquiry going on," he says.

 

No idea how accurate this is, but if it starts getting picked up by more mainstream news sources, that'd be a sign.

[BloodRider]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

I agree with both of you that Trump is not likely to be deliberately anti-imperialist. However, it is possible that his policies will result in some anti-imperialist outcomes whereas with Clinton we are very nearly guaranteed four more years of the same. They're both terrible, but with Trump there would at least be a chance of something different.

And its possible physical castration will "cure" a rapist from recommitting.  Its still a monstrous act and it should not be considered as a viable solution by nations that claim to be civilized.  

[Boris the Blade]

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

Potentially related to the Russian bank stuff.

Mother Jones

No idea how accurate this is, but if it starts getting picked up by more mainstream news sources, that'd be a sign.

Jesus christ.

[Kalbear]

It's becoming more clear that the projection thing about Trump might apply to him as far as the emails go. 

I kind of want it to be true if only because it would be one of the most momentous events in my lifetime.

[Mudguard]

I haven't paid as much attention to the election over the last several months, since the decision to vote for Clinton over Trump was an easy one to make, but the more I learn about Clinton and her campaign and the DNC, the less respect I have for them.  I completely missed until now the news that Donna Brazile was passing debate and townhall questions to Clinton during the primaries.  I don't know how anyone can still say with a straight face that the Democratic nomination process wasn't rigged from the start to nominate Clinton.  Here's a statement from Brazile during the DNC convention:

Quote

“On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic party for the inexcusable remarks made over email. These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process. The DNC does not – and will not – tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates. Individual staffers have also rightfully apologized for their comments, and the DNC is taking appropriate action to ensure it never happens again.”

"Steadfast commitment to neutrality"?  How shameless does one have to be to say these things after passing debate questions to Clinton throughout the entire primary?  How is she still the DNC chair?  The DNC has replaced one corrupt chair with another that is probably even more corrupt and lacking in integrity.  Doubt the Clinton campaign can really object to Brazile's position as head of the DNC when they were complicit in the corruption.

Regarding the new emails and Comey, it doesn't surprise me that the Clinton campaign is orchestrating a massive effort to tear down Comey.  And to do that they had no problems immediately resorting to outright lies, such as Clinton's assertion that Comey only sent his letter to Republican members of Congress in order to show his unfair bias.  Predictably, her rabid supporters started immediately spreading this lie before her campaign was eventually forced to admit that she "misspoke."  It's clear that perception is more important than fact for Clinton.

Now the Clinton campaign has gotten tons of surrogates to push the idea that Comey violated the Hatch Act.  I've read a couple critical but reasonable opinions on Comey's actions from two former Attorney Generals, Eric Holder and Alberto Gonzales, who have both worked closely with Comey.  They both think Comey was wrong to release the letter, but neither think Comey had an intent to influence the election.  They make it clear that they believe that Comey is a man of integrity who is doing what he thinks is right and just, but that in this instance, he's making a big mistake.  Without the required intent to influence the election, there is no violation of the Hatch Act.

In the face of this onslaught against Comey, I'm glad to see Obama standing up for Comey's integrity and character.

Quote

President Barack Obama does not believe FBI Director James Comey is attempting to influence this year's presidential vote, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday.

"The President doesn't believe that he's secretly strategizing to benefit one candidate or one political party," Earnest said. "He's in a tough spot, and he's the one who will be in a position to defend his actions in the face of significant criticism from a variety of legal experts, including individuals who served in senior Department of Justice positions in administrations led by presidents in both parties."

...

Amid outcry about Comey's decision, Earnest called the FBI director a man of "integrity and good character."

Earnest's comments come after Democrats, as well as even a few Republicans, have been critical of Comey's actions. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Comey may have violated the Hatch Act and at least one Democratic member of Congress has called the FBI director to resign.

Earnest said Obama still has confidence in his FBI director amid widespread criticism of his decision to make information public about Clinton's emails.

"The president thinks very highly of Director Comey," Earnest said. "And yes, you can assert that he still has confidence in his ability to do his job."

Although I've disagreed at times with Obama's decisions, I've never questioned his integrity or intent.  He's had to make some difficult decisions and I've always felt that he's made his decisions in the best interests of the country.  I can't say I feel the same about Clinton.

It also doesn't surprise me that many Republican's are jumping on Comey as well.  He's made several big decisions that have infuriated Republicans.  The most recent one was declining to prosecute Clinton.  If Comey really wanted to sink Clinton, all he had to do was to go forward with the prosecution of Clinton as so many Republicans wanted.  Even if Clinton was eventually cleared, that would have immediately ended her bid for the presidency.  Besides the decision to not prosecute Clinton, he refused to certify the NSA's wiretapping program despite pressure from Alberto Gonzales the Bush White House and he contradicted Gonzales' testimony on the US Attorney dismissal scandal.  I think it's ludicrous to assert that he's intentionally trying to influence the election to benefit Trump.

[Ariadne23]

Re: the Trump/Russia connections under investigation by the FBI, of course the RNC is aware of all this, right?