U.S. Politics 2016: It Can't Happen Here

[Ice Queen]

10 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

No, there's not. There's strong evidence that Russia was strongly influencing the policy platforms of a candidate  (which again is par for the course in US policymaking -- it's just usually not the Russians) . Not that the candidate or his party's political apparatus was involved in Russian attempts to rig our elections. 

And what about Benghazi? You're accusing me of being a Benghazi witch hunter? In that case I would be a hypocrite. I'm not a hypocrite and I'm definitely not a fucking Trump supporter. My whole purpose of coming into this thread was to post about the danger of the Broad of Broadcasters/VOA reform that Obama is about to sign and its Putin-esque implications under Trump, but instead all I got was the equivalent of idiotic, brainless chants of lock him up, lock him up, lock him up. 

But it's funny you should bring up Benghazi, because right now I feel like I'm virtually arguing with Stannis or random Trump supporter x right now. But hey, apparently calling you out on your BS=getting my panties in a bunch. 

LOL Your nerves are a little rattled, I see. Pot, meet kettle.

I'm curious, though. Why aren't you outraged that a foreign government attempted to meddle in our elections? Aren't you the least bit curious as to why only the DNC was hacked (or, if the RNC was hacked, that information was never made public or leaked by WikiLeaks)? Why Trump called for the Russians to hack Hillary?

There is circumstantial evidence. You just won't admit it. 

As far as VOA, that's been in the works for years. By Republicans, I might add. Obama hasn't signed it yet, though. And in light of Trump's penchant for choosing idealogues and white supremacists (I won't say alt right types), maybe he won't. 

[Ice Queen]

15 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

Already answered this. I'm not denying the obvious connections between him and his employer Yanukovych. Why don't you respond to my actual point regarding your treason allegations? You have yet to explain how a foreign entity influencing the policy platform of a candidate is the equivalent of treason. 

 

I didn't make treason allegations. What I said was that there has to be an investigation FIRST, that there is no DIRECT proof at this point in time. 

Manafort is a special case. I don't doubt he's in this up to his eyeballs and Trump had to know that when he hired him. He's as corrupt as they come. 

[Ice Queen]

13 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

Wikileaks. Assange got the DNC emails from Fancy Bear, which is a Putin hacking proxy. 

Yes, and we haven't heard a peep from them since. 

[All-for-Joffrey]

Quote

LOL Your nerves are a little rattled, I see. Pot, meet kettle.

Why do you keep saying that? What skin off my back is any of this? If anything I'm irritated that you keep skirting the issue at hand -- which is that you have yet to provide any evidence indicating that Manafort, McConnell, or anyone else at the RNC is guilty of treason. You keep pointing to Russian influence on Trump's foreign policy. This is not treason as I've already explained and you (and others) have repeatedly failed to address. 

Quote

I didn't make treason allegations. What I said was that there has to be an investigation FIRST, that there is no DIRECT proof at this point in time.

The person I initially replied to did and you and Kalbear are basically doing the same thing by saying oh there's no proof but we need an investigation to find out. Despite the fact that you have absolutely no evidence of Republicans colluding with Russia to hack the DNC or Podesta, which is the only way treason allegations would come into play here. Again, what you're doing is no different than Trump floating and exaggerating ideas that are only loosely tethered in truth IE: the FBI said state actors tried to compromise Clinton's email server, so her emails may have been hacked and we need an investigation to find out  whether or not she was actually hacked. Take a few exaggerated allegations, skip some due process and you get lock her up, lock her up, lock her up. Or in your case lock him/them up, lock him/them up, lock him/them up

Quote

I'm curious, though. Why aren't you outraged that a foreign government attempted to meddle in our elections? Aren't you the least bit curious as to why only the DNC was hacked (or, if the RNC was hacked, that information was never made public or leaked by WikiLeaks)? Why Trump called for the Russians to hack Hillary?

Quote

There is circumstantial evidence. You just won't admit it. 

Where did I say I wasn't "outraged?" Where have I not acknowledged any of this? The RNC obviously didn't want to disclose their hack because they wanted to downplay the Russian interference as it benefited their candidate. This is different than accusing the RNC or Trump supporters of helping Russia hack the DNC/RNC/Podesta, which is ultimately the accusation you're making when you're bringing treason allegations into this. And you've produced no evidence -- circumstantial or otherwise -- to indicate this. You've only produced evidence to indiacte that Russia is influencing Trump's foreign policy platform. Duh. (And again, this is not treason. It's certainly an issue in US foreign policy as it's not just Russia that does this, but it's not treason.) 

Though, when you use the word "outrage," I can't help be slightly bemused/amused. When it comes to Russia trying to influence the outcome of our elections, hacking private emails of political operatives and then releasing them in the public domain is probably the most ineffectual way of doing so and it's child's play compared to what the CIA has done in other democratic countries to influence or determine the result of their election. So as you said in your previous post, pot, meet kettle. Obviously the US's past (and current) intrusions in other countries' democratic elections don't justify what Russia is doing in our election but it is kind of a form of diet karma if you look at it in that light. And Americans QQing about it does kind of make us look like entitled brats when people in democracies in developing countries that we've meddled in are probably like "yeah, take a fucking number assholes." 

Quote

As far as VOA, that's been in the works for years. By Republicans, I might add. Obama hasn't signed it yet, though. And in light of Trump's penchant for choosing idealogues and white supremacists (I won't say alt right types), maybe he won't.

Actually no, this proposal wasn't legislated until this year in the NDAA and it was a bipartisan proposal. There was a past VOA reform I don't know much about, but I do know that it didn't affect the organization's editorial controls. The NDAA (which is the legislative vehicle for this) was passed last week and I believe Obama is slated to sign it today or tomorrow.  President Hope and Change supported it when he thought Clinton was going to win, and if he now has any reservations about this under Trump (not that it's an acceptable change under any president but it's even more worrisome under Trump) he's certainly not threatening a veto over it. So it's going to be law. I hope you enjoy your newly resurgent VOA spewing alt-right hate messaging under Anne Coulter, their new overlord. Can't wait until Trump and Bannon find out about this one. 

 

 

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

Oh for fucks sake. Can we please criticize the incoming administration's cozy ties with the Kremlin without resorting to red scare tactics straight out of the 1950s? I'm getting pretty fucking fed up of seeing so called "liberals" take the neocon line against Russia. Ultimately making it a hyper-partisan issue and throwing around claims of "treason" is a disservice to your cause in the long term -- not to mention incredibly dangerous. We have a substantial portion of the electorate already willing to ignore recent US history; it doesn't help when the opposition decides to do the same thing. 

Who was invoking red scare of the 50's?

In the meantime if you read the article you'd see that -- and religion and white supremacy, which is so much a part of a large number of those in the house beliefs -- is what it's about.  Nobody even mentioned communism.  Not even Putin.

This is neoliberal economics at work at the corporate and state levels -- for the purpose of assisting one of the candidates get elected, and that other one, whom we know Putin personally hates, not be elected. And everybody involved here gets even richer and the rest of us get even more screwed.

And it broke all the laws.  Treason, means allowing another country run one's own.

This is not politics. This is coup d'etat on behalf of vastly powerful and wealthy beings for their own benefit to continue plundering the planet and leave most of the rest of us starving.

 

 

 

 

 

[SpaceChampion]

 

[Zorral]

29 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

I didn't make treason allegations. What I said was that there has to be an investigation FIRST, that there is no DIRECT proof at this point in time. 

Manafort is a special case. I don't doubt he's in this up to his eyeballs and Trump had to know that when he hired him. He's as corrupt as they come. 

There are and have been investigations.  Thus the power fight between the FBI and CIA.

People in intelligence have been saying that with their long gathering and examination of the information they've been looking at, that, "Ay-up, this is what it is."

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

 

The Presidency is a giant cash grab for Trump.  His wallet is his real concern.

[All-for-Joffrey]

Who was invoking red scare of the 50's?

Generally, when you're shouting "treason" with baseless accusations of collusion with the Russians to discredit your political opponents, you're pretty much channeling a central component of McCarthyism and the Red Scare. 

In the meantime if you read the article you'd see that -- and religion and white supremacy, which is so much a part of a large number of those in the house beliefs -- is what it's about.  Nobody even mentioned communism.  Not even Putin.

I did read the article. (It actually did mention communism vs. eastern orthodoxy in the context of an explanation as to why American social conservatives are now becoming more pro-Kremlin.) At any rate, McCarthyism wasn't just about suppressing communism -- it was also using a generalized Cold War fear of Russia to suppress due process, free speech, democratic norms, etc. Which brings me back to your treason allegations: 

And it broke all the laws.  Treason, means allowing another country run one's own.

Which laws have Trump/Republicans broken in relation to their relationship with Russia? Hmmm? Do tell. I'm curious. And again, your definition of treason isn't legally permissible (see Altherion's post). If you're speaking more generally and not legally then you have quite a bit of explaining to do as to why politicians and political operatives who work with countries like Israel or Saudi Arabia or Taiwan or groups like the MEK aren't guilty of "treason" but those who work with the Russians are. 

[Rippounet]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The Presidency is a giant cash grab for Trump.  His wallet is his real concern.

Debunked already. Trump started blasting the F35 a couple of days ago:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trump-says-keystone-xl-news-coming-soon-blasts-f-35-costs-and-the-cia-1.3891799

 

[Kalbear]

15 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

Generally, when you're shouting "treason" with baseless accusations of collusion with the Russians to discredit your political opponents, you're pretty much channeling a central component of McCarthyism and the Red Scare. 

 

Which is why no one did that but you. It's not to discredit my political opponents. It's to investigate something and point out how potentially bad it actually is. 

I am not calling for locking anyone up. You apparently are. I am calling for an investigation, on the grounds that it is potentially treasonous or impeachable offenses. 

15 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

Which laws have Trump/Republicans broken in relation to their relationship with Russia? Hmmm? Do tell. I'm curious. And again, your definition of treason isn't legally permissible (see Altherion's post). If you're speaking more generally and not legally then you have quite a bit of explaining to do as to why politicians and political operatives who work with countries like Israel or Saudi Arabia or Taiwan or groups like the MEK aren't guilty of "treason" but those who work with the Russians are. 

For starters, anyone who works as a foreign agent has to disclose this and has to fill out forms. It is against the law if you don't. This came up recently with Dole and Taiwan, as a matter of fact. So, for instance, if Manafort was getting paid by Russians and didn't disclose that, this would be illegal. If Trump was doing the same thing that would also be illegal. If any members of his staff were doing so, that would be illegal. If Trump knows about it, that is also illegal. You can, as you point out, work for various countries - but you must disclose this. If you are a political official and deal with another foreign government you also have to fill that out and disclose it, and if you get any value out of it you've violated the emolument clause of the constitution, which is an impeachable offense.

Furthermore, if you are colluding with a foreign government to commit espionage, this is treason - this would be the 'aid' part of the treasonous clause, and we've seen this in the past. In addition to that, it's also conspiracy charge and potentially racketeering. 

Now, you'll come back with 'you have no evidence, lock her up' and that is entirely fair. But I'm not saying that we should lock them up; I'm simply saying that there is more than enough evidence and implication to investigate further. 

I get that you really, really want to blame random democrats for failures because reasons, and I also get that you're really deeply wanting to appease Russia for some reason - there's a whole cadre of my friends who are now falling over themselves being thankful for the US becoming a Russian puppet now. But really, stop with the idea that investigations into these things are the same as chanting lock her up after Clinton had been investigated. I'm happy to drop talking about it if nothing is found, and I won't claim a conspiracy theory or anything like that, but mentioning what the stakes are is not the same thing as saying that someone is at fault, any more than mentioning that Clinton could have been indicted for Espionage Act violations indicates that she is guilty of those things.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Oops, wrong thread.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

50 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The Presidency is a giant cash grab for Trump.  His wallet is his real concern.

I said a long time ago that it would be prudent to assume that when ever Trump says anything to assume the opposite is true. So of course draining the swamp meant he's coming for all the graft. 

 

[OldGimletEye]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 So of course draining the swamp meant he's coming for all the graft. 

Now why would somebody doubt that the swamp thing himself would be doing any swamp drainage.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Why aren't you outraged that a foreign government attempted to meddle in our elections?

Let me turn that around: why are you outraged that a foreign government attempted to meddle in our elections? Since the end of WWII, the US has attempted to meddle in the internal politics of foreign nations through every method from NGO support to sponsorship of outright coups. Do you believe in some kind of American exceptionalism that gives us the right to do this, but restricts anyone from doing it to us?

The outrageous part here is not that somebody tried to meddle in our elections; that should be completely expected. It's that our major parties nominated candidates that made such interference effective. Don't want foreign powers to influence your elections? Don't nominate candidates who have more skeletons in their closets than (pant)suits.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The outrageous part here is not that somebody tried to meddle in our elections; that should be completely expected. It's that our major parties nominated candidates that made such interference effective. Don't want foreign powers to influence your elections? Don't nominate candidates who have more skeletons in their closets than (pant)suits.

As pointed out, the skeletons didn't really matter here. They were typical politics, and it is likely that if Sanders, Obama, or any one else had been hacked there would be 'outrageous' comments about random people here and there.

And while the concept of people meddling in our elections is not a particularly outrageous concept, it does make the US a significantly lower class of country compared to what it was. This was something that had been fairly unthinkable prior to this year. Yes, it's perfectly understandable that other countries want to do it, but the outrage is not 'meddling with election' and is instead 'meddling with US election'. 

Furthermore, I would absolutely expect others to be rightfully pissed at the US for meddling in their elections; why should you be surprised that people might be angry towards countries that meddle in ours?

The real concern I have is the asymmetry of this kind of attack. The US, being a Democracy, is vulnerable to this in a way that Russia is not. There's very little the US can do that is of a similar vein of attack. That concerns me quite a bit, and makes me think that democracies are going to die because they're simply too vulnerable to manipulation from external sources.

[Castel]

Assuming of course that drip-leaking information on one side only can't create a worse perception than it should

Or that other nations haven't been outraged or shouldn't be outraged.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Let me turn that around: why are you outraged that a foreign government attempted to meddle in our elections? Since the end of WWII, the US has attempted to meddle in the internal politics of foreign nations through every method from NGO support to sponsorship of outright coups. Do you believe in some kind of American exceptionalism that gives us the right to do this, but restricts anyone from doing it to us?

The outrageous part here is not that somebody tried to meddle in our elections; that should be completely expected. It's that our major parties nominated candidates that made such interference effective. Don't want foreign powers to influence your elections? Don't nominate candidates who have more skeletons in their closets than (pant)suits.

This is some of the most flawed reasoning I've ever seen. 

[All-for-Joffrey]

 

Quote

Which is why no one did that but you

 

Quote

Let's see. You're wrong. Why don't you look at the post that prompted this discussion in the first place. Zoral said: 

Quote

Quote

"Why the Rs are embracing Russia and Putin:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/the-conservative-split-on-russia/510317/

It's still treason."

****************************************************************************************

Nice try though.

Though how you and Cat are framing this is just about an inch away from Zorral's treason accusations. 

 

Quote

I am not calling for locking anyone up. You apparently are. I am calling for an investigation, on the grounds that it is potentially treasonous or impeachable offenses.

Well if you have any basic reading comprehension, you'd realize that I'm obviously arguing for just the opposite, that there's nothing to indicate that anyone should be locked up for treason here. I was making fun of you for the treason insinuations/hysterics. Obviously floating around allegations of treason or potential treason translates to incarceration at the very least (if not the death penalty). This is particularly egregious when you take violations of other laws as evidence of "treason" in the absence of any actual evidence of treason. Yes, jumping from FARA violations to treason is an unreasonable reach. 

 

Quote

 

For starters, anyone who works as a foreign agent has to disclose this and has to fill out forms. It is against the law if you don't. This came up recently with Dole and Taiwan, as a matter of fact. So, for instance, if Manafort was getting paid by Russians and didn't disclose that, this would be illegal

 

Actually, I think it's been reported that Manafort did fail to disclose his Russia ties on FARA forms. So that's illegal. It's not treason though. (In addition to Dole, Kissinger has repeatedly failed to disclose his ties to China via FARA on the other side of the equation.) It happens all the time unfortunately and people rarely get prosecuted for it. 

 

Quote

Furthermore, if you are colluding with a foreign government to commit espionage, this is treason - this would be the 'aid' part of the treasonous clause, and we've seen this in the past. In addition to that, it's also conspiracy charge and potentially racketeering.

And again, this is what you have repeatedly refused to offer evidence for. What do you mean "we've seen this in the past?" Do you mean we've seen it with Trump, the RNC et co and Russia or do you just mean that we've seen people commit treason before? If it's the former, please enlighten me; I'm legitimate curious. If it's the latter, congratulation, you've just proven that people have committed treason in the past. Ok....

 

Quote

I get that you really, really want to blame random democrats for failures because reasons, and I also get that you're really deeply wanting to appease Russia for some reason - there's a whole cadre of my friends who are now falling over themselves being thankful for the US becoming a Russian puppet now. 

Excuse me? I almost typed a personal attack there -- that's how angry that made me. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a "Russia puppet." I've been consistently critical of Russia and Putin throughout this thread -- and in general. Clearly you haven't seen my posts in the MENA thread from a a year ago. No I am not a puppet for an autocratic, corrupt, kleptocratic, human rights violating regime. The whole reason I came into this thread in the first  place was to post about the VOA/Broadcasting Board issues, and I even mentioned the potential of the damaging Russian connection there. So I know you evidently enjoy flinging mud without evidence but you will end that fucking line of discourse right there and stop the baseless accusations that I'm a "Putin puppet." Pathetic. I'm not a "Putin puppet" for pointing out that your insinuations of treason are groundless hysterics. 

As for "blaming random Democrats" this has nothing to do with that. I'm not denying Russian interference and I didn't bring up any other armchair post-election analysis -- I haven't even posted in this thread since the election. This is just like the time you thought i was Caliban and accusing me of posting something that I never posted on Facebook even though we're not even Facebook friends. Put your foot in your mouth right now and just stop. 

 

Quote

 

But really, stop with the idea that investigations into these things are the same as chanting lock her up after Clinton had been investigated. I'm happy to drop talking about it if nothing is found, and I won't claim a conspiracy theory or anything like that, but mentioning what the stakes are is not the same thing as saying that someone is at fault, any more than mentioning that Clinton could have been indicted for Espionage Act violations indicates that she is guilty of those things

 

And for the millionth time since ya'll don't have basic reading comprehension, my stance is perfectly clear. I have repeatedly said there needs to be an investigation into Russian interference in the elections (and there will be). I've also said it's incredibly disingenuous for you to link this investigation to treason or insinuate that it will turn up in the course of the investigation because you have no fucking evidence. 

 

 

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Now why would somebody doubt that the swamp thing himself would be doing any swamp drainage.

touche