News:

Nitpicky? Hell yes.

Main Menu

Deeper into the Trump Abyss.

Started by Dave, January 30, 2017, 07:22:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Davin

Quote from: Arturo on March 08, 2017, 05:16:30 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 08, 2017, 04:27:56 PM
I've seen this happen a few times now, where Mr. B will avoid criticism of Trump related things, by trying to throw a third party into the mix (specifically Hillary). This is not something we're unfamiliar with, this is the same avoidance tactic used by religious apologists quite often. In all cases it's not truth seeking behavior.

Let's say that Hillary is the worst. Literally the worst. Maybe she would have been 20 Hitlers combined. That doesn't excuse Trump in any way. It has fuck all to do with Trump, and is bullshit to bring it up. So bringing up Hillary doesn't matter even in the worst case scenario.

I mean, all these Conservative people were going around saying, "Trump is president, get over it, snowflake." But they are the ones that can't stop talking about Hillary or Obama. There must be something to it, it feels like they are trying their best to convince themselves that Trump might not be great, but he was the better option. It's sad really, they must on some level understand that they done fucked up, otherwise why haven't they moved on and accepted that Trump is the president now?

I think I see what you're saying. It's like "we are attacking trump. Why? I dunno but Hillary was pretty bad"
It doesn't even make sense when you compare them though. Trump was and is worse than Hillary. But it doesn't matter any more.

It's like they had a choice between a red clunker truck that barely runs (but golfs a lot), and decently running blue sedan, and they chose the clunker, and are now like, "yeah but that other one was blue."
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Dave

Quote from: Davin on March 08, 2017, 05:28:04 PM
Quote from: Arturo on March 08, 2017, 05:16:30 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 08, 2017, 04:27:56 PM
I've seen this happen a few times now, where Mr. B will avoid criticism of Trump related things, by trying to throw a third party into the mix (specifically Hillary). This is not something we're unfamiliar with, this is the same avoidance tactic used by religious apologists quite often. In all cases it's not truth seeking behavior.

Let's say that Hillary is the worst. Literally the worst. Maybe she would have been 20 Hitlers combined. That doesn't excuse Trump in any way. It has fuck all to do with Trump, and is bullshit to bring it up. So bringing up Hillary doesn't matter even in the worst case scenario.

I mean, all these Conservative people were going around saying, "Trump is president, get over it, snowflake." But they are the ones that can't stop talking about Hillary or Obama. There must be something to it, it feels like they are trying their best to convince themselves that Trump might not be great, but he was the better option. It's sad really, they must on some level understand that they done fucked up, otherwise why haven't they moved on and accepted that Trump is the president now?

I think I see what you're saying. It's like "we are attacking trump. Why? I dunno but Hillary was pretty bad"
It doesn't even make sense when you compare them though. Trump was and is worse than Hillary. But it doesn't matter any more.

It's like they had a choice between a red clunker truck that barely runs (but golfs a lot), and decently running blue sedan, and they chose the clunker, and are now like, "yeah but that other one was blue."

Yup, you maybe choose a person in a vote for how they compare with another and how well their ideas resonate with yours. But you judge a person as  by their personal qualities and behaviour.

If you choose the wrong person and are unwilling to judge your choice objectively  . . . Well, I suppose we all have to try to decide the less bad of two bad choices. But, still call the shovel a shovel when it is shifting shit.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Tank

Quote from: Davin on March 06, 2017, 02:14:31 PM
Quote from: Mr. B on March 04, 2017, 01:19:48 AM
One of my favorite bands of all time is R.E.M. I would count them in my top five. Lately, with all the flap about Jeff Sessions and Trump and the Trump campaign vs. Russians. I am reminded of this classic (to me at least)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ-goz4q1qo

Seems, the Democratic Party is exhuming McCarthy. And here I was under the impression that they were the rational adults in the room.

Please, don't get me wrong. I am attacking them from the left because I was so close to becoming a True BelieverTM in the DNC.

I am disappoint because I was fairly excited about finally being able to identify with a party brand but then Trump got elected and now this hypocritical bullshit.

Now, back to square one.

I'm damn near declaring anarchy.
Why do you have to put political bullshit (along with a clear false equivalence between McCarthyism and what is going on now), in a Music thread?

Politics is a well known touchy subject, and that is not the thread for touchy subjects. There is a whole Politics forum for you put this in where you can get a useful discussion out of it. Like someone could point out how dragging hundreds of people through the mud for something that shouldn't have been considered bad in the first place, is far different than trying to find out if the President colluded with a foreign government.

So I'm putting this response here, because I think this is where it belongs.

Can we try refrain from using hyperbolic terminology? Unless it's a joke or we're making fun of people who tend to over use hyperbolic terminology. Can we try to compare things accurately? Because shit like this doesn't help to get at the truth it helps to conceal truth.

I agree and have split the post into its own thread.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Dave

QuoteScott Pruitt, Donald Trump's head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, has dismissed a basic scientific understanding of climate change by denying that carbon dioxide emissions are a primary cause of global warming.

Pruitt said on Thursday that he did not believe that the release of CO2, a heat-trapping gas, was pushing global temperatures upwards.

"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," he told CNBC.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/09/epa-scott-pruitt-carbon-dioxide-global-warming-climate-change

So, there, the pre-Pruitt EPA, NASA, NOAA and the regiments of global climate scientists are all confused and the handful, or three, of the mates of those supported Trump et al are right. Politics and ideology (not to mention money and greed) rule, OK.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Recusant

You may not have heard in the UK, but it's been public knowledge for a while that Pruitt took materials supplied to him by oil and energy companies and lobbies then sent them on to the EPA under his own name (source). Devon Energy, one of the oil companies, was a top contributor to the Republican Attorneys General Association during the time that Pruitt was its chairman (source).
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Dave

Quote from: Recusant on March 11, 2017, 02:00:01 PM
You may not have heard in the UK, but it's been public knowledge for a while that Pruitt took materials supplied to him by oil and energy companies and lobbies then sent them on to the EPA under his own name (source). Devon Energy, one of the oil companies, was a top contributor to the Republican Attorneys General Association during the time that Pruitt was its chairman (source).

Well, well, what (not) a surprise.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Recusant

#141
Quote from: Mr. B on March 08, 2017, 06:31:20 AMThe guilt is not so much proclaimed as it is implied. The implication is that the Russians stole the election from Hillary therefor, anyone on Trump's team who spoke to any Russian at any time in the past 20 years is culpable for Hillary's loss.

There is evidence that Russian intelligence agencies hacked the email system of the DNC and John Podesta's Gmail account, then (possibly through an intermediary) gave the stolen emails to Wikileaks, who proceeded to gradually put the content of the hacked emails before the public. Their strategy was clear: keep the negative stories about the Clinton campaign and the DNC in the public eye throughout the later stages of the presidential campaign. That strategy was effective, and it seems likely that it worked to turn voters away from Clinton. "Stealing the election" is your phrase. I'm unaware of any mainstream media sources who've asserted that the Russians "stole the election." Rather they've reported on the Russian efforts to affect the outcome of the election.

If there was collusion between Russians and members of the Trump campaign, would you rather we never know about it? It has been admitted now that the Trump campaign was responsible for getting the language in the Republican platform regarding US aid to Ukraine changed to be less bothersome to the Russians. Yet Trump and members of his campaign lied repeatedly about that, saying that they had no involvement whatsoever in the change in language (source).

Why all the lying if this was a completely innocent effort by Trump and his team? It may be that Trump is a compulsive liar who instructs members of his staff to promote his lies. On the other hand, it may be that he actually is beholden to the Russians in some way. You may not care one way or another, but it seems entirely within the remit of the press to attempt to discover the truth of the matter. Trump bleating about "McCarthyism" shouldn't deter them.

As for some impulsive Democrats talking about impeachment, it's not as if there was nothing like that happening on the Republican side from the early days of Obama's presidency. There are hotheads on both sides--so what?

Quote from: Mr. B on March 08, 2017, 06:31:20 AMhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-wrong-claim-fbi-director-comey-ca/

Comey testified under oath that Hillary did not tell the truth regarding her handling of classified emails.

The GOP asked the Justice Department to look into it.

QuoteThe Justice Department declined to comment on the request.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/us/politics/gop-seeks-criminal-inquiry-of-hillary-clintons-testimony-to-congress.html?_r=0

I read both of your sources, but I didn't see where Comey testified under oath that Clinton didn't tell the truth regarding her handling of emails. Please quote the relevant passage.

Quote from: Mr. B on March 08, 2017, 06:31:20 AMComey didn't recommend bringing her up on charges because he believed she may have been ignorant of the laws.

I don't recall Comey saying Clinton may have been ignorant of the law, either. Can you please cite a source and quote the passage?

Quote from: Mr. B on March 08, 2017, 06:31:20 AMI am not aware of any specific slanders. The general slander is that anyone associated with Trump is a piece of shit. At least, that's the impression I get from the general public. There are all kinds of reasons for them being pieces of shit but the one that is the most prominent today is whether or not they communicated with Russians during the election. That's the one that will cause people to lose their job. Or possibly worse.

As far as I can tell, you're speculating when you say that people will lose their jobs because they were communicating with Russians during the election. It's a known fact that several people in Trump's campaign and transition staff did communicate or meet with Russians, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is now comfortably ensconced in the White House as one of Trump's top advisors. What may cause people to lose their jobs is lying under oath. It's perfectly clear that Trump does not fire people for lying, particularly when their lies corroborate his.

Quote from: Mr. B on March 08, 2017, 06:31:20 AMAnd again, what is the standard we want to set with this? Should it be officially illegal for anyone working in a campaign to communicate with foreign agents? To claim that no one from the Hillary campaign spoke to anyone from Russia is to deny reality.

You have yet to provide any evidence or support for the idea that people are suggesting it should be illegal for campaign staff to communicate with members of foreign governments. Your term "foreign agents" is vague. If you're referring to members of foreign intelligence services, then such communications certainly deserve scrutiny, especially if the government employing them considers itself an adversary of the United States. There is no doubt that Russia qualifies.

Quote from: Mr. B on March 08, 2017, 06:31:20 AMThe reason the Trump people are being scrutinized is because Trump wasn't supposed to win. If Hillary had won, all we would be hearing about would be Benghazi and her illegal server and her lying about it. But we wouldn't be hearing about how people in her campaign talked to Russian ambassadors.

It's all bullshit.

Regarding the Clinton story fading away, I think that it has a lot to do with the fact that it was almost entirely a political propaganda story in the first place (particularly BENGHAZI !!!). There was very little actual substance to any of it, and Comey plainly stated that the FBI would not submit anything regarding the email server for prosecution. Trump insisted that he'd push to "lock her up!!!" once he was elected, but that was one of the first things he walked back as soon as he was elected. I expect that was because he was told that there was no political gain to be had from pursuing a prosecution that could very well fail.

Regarding the Trump administration/Russia issue, I refer you to the first part of my response above. Even if Trump had lost, I think it's rather unlikely that the questions about the involvement of Russian intelligence agencies in the election would have promptly died, and the possibility of collusion by members of Trump's campaign staff are part of the story. I don't know if you think that this is a minor matter that should ignored by the media and the US government, but if you do, I strongly disagree. Nor do I agree that it's "all bullshit."




"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Recusant

Regarding the Russian connection, via the Palmer Report: "Russian intel officer flew in for Republican Convention to oversee Donald Trump's platform change." I think Palmer overstates things somewhat. I didn't watch the Maddow show that he's talking about so I cannot comment on that.

QuoteYesterday we brought you yet another name that now must be added to the list of alleged Trump-Russia conspirators: Konstantin Kilimnik. Politico has exposed that Kilimnik had flown in for the Republican National Convention and then bragged about his role in getting the GOP party platform changed in Russia's favor. But now Rachel Maddow has pieced together that Kilimnik was a Russian intel officer.

Maddow made the connection during her Thursday evening MSNBC program, and oddly enough, she did so by connecting Politico's latest reporting with an older Politico report on Kilimnik. In a separate development this week, two former Donald Trump campaign aides, Carter Page and J.D. Gordon, are now both asserting that it was Donald Trump himself who personally pushed them to make the GOP platform change.

[Continues . . .]

The second link to Politico that Palmer used is a repeat of the first, which appears to be an error on Palmer's part. From the context it is clear that he's actually referring to "Manafort's man in Kiev". In that Politico story, we learn that Kilimnik seems to have put it about that he worked for GRU (Russian military intelligence). There is no solid confirmation of that information but I'm not sure how one would go about determining his actual position, if any, with GRU. Almost certainly a direct question to them would get a "can neither confirm nor deny" response, at best.

If Kilimnik was in GRU, then it's interesting, since GRU was one of the agencies believed to have been involved in hacking the DNC and Podesta. As the Politico story puts it:

Quote"I always understood that he was in the Russian Army intelligence for a couple years," said an international political consultant, who has worked with Kilimnik, and who stressed that, at the time, all Russian men were required to serve in the military. But the consultant added, "I don't think it was as big a deal as people made it out to be."

Bill Browder, an American-born investor whose business in Russia led to him being blacklisted by Putin's regime as a national security threat, differed. "It's not like you can say, 'I used to work for [Russian intelligence].' It's a permanent affiliation. There is no such thing as a former [Russian intelligence] officer."
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Recusant

My gut feeling about this story is that there was probably no active collusion by Trump himself. I can't rule out a possibility that Manafort and others may be cozier with Russian interests than anybody would want in people so close to the president of the US. It looks to me like Putin simply has a useful idiot in Trump.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Dave

Quote from: Recusant on March 11, 2017, 08:44:35 PM
My gut feeling about this story is that there was probably no active collusion by Trump himself. I can't rule out a possibility that Manafort and others may be cozier with Russian interests than anybody would want in people so close to the president of the US. It looks to me like Putin simply has a useful idiot in Trump.
I have long had tge feeling, unless Trump or his advisers have well hidden depths and strengths in international affairs, that Trump will end up as a puppet.

Putin will dangle nice juicy deals in front of him (or his companies) that will contain the means of playing him like a puppet. I don't think Trump can touch Putin in the crafty department.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Tom62

I just wonder why everyone is so angry about the successful hacking of the Democratic party by Russian hackers, while at the same time the CIA and NSA are doing hacking stuff, all over the world,  that is far more evil.

BTW I blame the success of Russians hackers on a combination stupidity, incompetence, arrogance and a lack of responsibility of the Democrats.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

Recusant

Quote from: Tom62 on March 11, 2017, 09:17:34 PM
I just wonder why everyone is so angry about the successful hacking of the Democratic party by Russian hackers, while at the same time the CIA and NSA are doing hacking stuff, all over the world,  that is far more evil.

BTW I blame the success of Russians hackers on a combination stupidity, incompetence, arrogance and a lack of responsibility of the Democrats.

The history of the US meddling in the internal politics of other nations (both blatant and covert) is long and ugly, there is no doubt about that. There is little reason to doubt that the CIA has had its fingers in the internal politics of several countries around the world in the recent past. Ronald Reagan was pleased to mouth his platitude about the United States being a "shining city on a hill," but he was all too willing to support murderous terrorists in Nicaragua to further his political ends. There are plenty of other examples. Skipping over US involvement with the coup in Chile that installed the vile dictator Pinochet, we can look at the so-called "Banana Wars" of the late 19th/early 20th centuries.

The government of the US has never shied away from glaring hypocrisy when it comes to its relations with the rest of the world, and this is no different. That doesn't mean that citizens of the United States are disallowed from being mightily displeased about Putin using the Russian intelligence agencies to meddle in the country's political process.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Recusant

Quote from: Gloucester on March 11, 2017, 08:59:14 PMI don't think Trump can touch Putin in the crafty department.

I agree without reservation. Trump is a bombastic ignoramus while Putin is a polished, intelligent, and extremely successful thug with decades of experience.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Davin

Quote from: Tom62 on March 11, 2017, 09:17:34 PM
I just wonder why everyone is so angry about the successful hacking of the Democratic party by Russian hackers, while at the same time the CIA and NSA are doing hacking stuff, all over the world,  that is far more evil.
Can't I be mad about both? I'm also mad about the spying on US citizens. Turns out, I can be mad about a lot of things at one time. Do you think people should only be mad at the worst thing and just fine with everything else?

Quote from: Tom62BTW I blame the success of Russians hackers on a combination stupidity, incompetence, arrogance and a lack of responsibility of the Democrats.
Given enough time, everything can be hacked. A mark with those things can make it easier, but nothing is completely secure. To blame the victim of a hack is, I think, a shitty thing to do. Just like I think it's a shitty thing to do to blame the victim of a mugging instead of the mugger.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Tom62

Quote from: Davin on March 13, 2017, 02:21:54 PM
Quote from: Tom62BTW I blame the success of Russians hackers on a combination stupidity, incompetence, arrogance and a lack of responsibility of the Democrats.
Given enough time, everything can be hacked. A mark with those things can make it easier, but nothing is completely secure. To blame the victim of a hack is, I think, a shitty thing to do. Just like I think it's a shitty thing to do to blame the victim of a mugging instead of the mugger.

Normally I would agree, but what happened at the DNC was sheer incompetence from both the DNC IT staff as the FBI.

Quote from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/14/dnc-hillary-clinton-emails-hacked-russia-aide-typo-investigation-findsIn the run-up to the election, the US Democratic National Committee (DNC) received numerous phishing emails, the paper reported on Tuesday. One of them was also sent to John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign. An aide, Charles Delavan, spotted the message sent to Podesta's private account. It asked Podesta to change his password.

Delavan realised the email was a phishing attack and forwarded it to a computer technician. However, he made a typo, writing: "This is a legitimate email." He added: "John needs to change his password immediately."

The blunder gave Kremlin hackers access to about 60,000 emails in Podesta's private Gmail account. According to US intelligence officials, Moscow then gave the email cache to WikiLeaks. The website released them in October, and the email scandal dominated the news cycle and was exploited by Trump.

The FBI had known for some time that Russia was making a wide-ranging and systematic attempt to hack US political institutions including the White House and the State Department, the paper reported. In September 2015 the FBI discovered that a cyber-espionage team linked to the Russian government had penetrated the DNC.

But instead of sending a top-level delegation and raising the alarm, the FBI got a single special agent to make a phone call. The agent, Adrian Hawkins, rang the DNC and was put through to the IT helpdesk. He told the tech-support contractor on duty, Yared Tamene, that a group called "the Dukes" had hacked the DNC's computer networks.

According to the paper(New York Times), Tamene thought Hawkins's message might have been a prank call. He googled "Dukes" but found nothing. He then failed to alert senior staff after his cursory search of the DNC's computer system logs revealed no obvious sign of an intrusion.

Hawkins rang back repeatedly over the next few weeks. Tamene, however, did not respond. "I did not return his calls, as I had nothing to report," he wrote in a memo seen by the New York Times.

The FBI's laid-back approach meant that Russian hackers were able to roam inside the DNC's computer systems for almost seven months, before Democratic officials finally realised the gravity of the attack and brought in external cybersecurity experts.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein