Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Another wild coincidence, by the way - around 2011 or so, ExxonMobil and Russia signed a $500 billion oil-drilling deal. Which was then blocked by US and EU-imposed economic sanctions. If, say, a certain someone were to lift those sanctions, both Tillerson's company and Russia would make out like bandits. Hmm.
Also, Tillerson has been awarded the frickin' Order of Friendship by Putin. No cause for alarm there whatsoever.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."![]()
He might, but in all honesty, Senate Republicans have to at least appear to be Anti-Russian for 6 months, and if they want to show it, what better way then to make sure the Pro-Russian Sec. Pick, for one of the most important Secretaries, doesn't get the job? They can let in all the other important Pro-Russian Secretaries and not raise much of a fuss, but they could also say "We're sorry, Mr. Tillerson, we don't support you getting the Job" as a way to stay tough on Russia and as a tug against Trump, to try to keep him in line (as best they can).
Heck, they could decline Mr. Tillerson for the fact that he's one of the most Liberal Picks Trump has, what with his support for Common Core and Immigration Reform, and not make it about Russia, even though it would really be about Russia.
Then again, the Republicans might have no Spine, or not enough of a spine, to tell Trump "No" for the first Six Months-Year he's in office.
edited 30th Dec '16 7:29:03 PM by DingoWalley1
Claims? Can I assume that you do know the United States Intelligence Community is a federation of seventeen intelligence agencies precisely because it's been a legal requirement for thirty years (since Reagan) that this must be the case?
Whistleblowing is a completely different issue, one that covers every single organisation/company that exists in the world, given what the concept of whistleblowing actually is.
The existence or absence of whistleblowers is fundamentally irrelevant to what the USIC's job actually is, just as the existence or absence of whistleblowers for (let's say) Wal-Mart does not change Wal-Mart's legally required responsibility to engage in accountancy behaviour to balance and audit its finances.
edited 30th Dec '16 7:39:54 PM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.@Series Of Numbers: you ask for proof and evidence that the hacking was the work of Russia, yet you have yet to provide proof and evidence of any actual corruption in the leaked files.
"They just shut down when the word comes up. They can't handle being called it even if they're proud white supremacists. ""
Is pretty much moral dissonace, or like I call this term "Cold racism" where it focus more on the feelings of the racist itself rather the damage it does to other, "I dont want anything bad to happen to muslim, im just preserving my country" or thing like that, as long their feeling feel safe, they dont give a shit anything else.
and about the military, if I have to guess is because Obama was waaaaay more cautious about things, he didnt want to bring military into Syria and many feel he is soft with Muslims, Trump come with their superficial charm and said he love them, is like Obama being a traitor and Trump a patriot because the later used populism like crazy
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"@Dingo: Do they though? The general US population is more or less past the red scare, and particularly on the right there's a growing support for a more cooperative relation with Russia. The neo-nationalists even seem to consider Putin one of their own to some extent, in yet another contradictory expression of international solidarity by a theoretically nationalist movement.
![]()
![]()
Well, that's because there wasn't any. The emails did show that the Clinton camps claims that they were going easy on Sanders were bullshit though; they were playing dirty from the outset more or less. There was also the matter of primaries have been deliberately scheduled to shut down someone running from the left, and the deal to make Kaine VP made all the way back in 2008.
None of that illegal, and most of it wasn't technically in violation of the party's own rules and regulations, but it's also very illustrative of the issues with the way the democrats conduct themselves as an organization.
edited 30th Dec '16 7:57:58 PM by CaptainCapsase
The Right would like Putin — I mean, he's basically an ultraconservative, and it would make sense that today's barbaric GOP would consider him a friend. Terming it a Red Scare frames it incorrectly.
edited 30th Dec '16 7:53:10 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."![]()
According to this Washington Post article
, it certainly would benefit them to be tough on Russia.
edited 30th Dec '16 7:54:09 PM by DingoWalley1
How current are those? There were a bunch of articles in the same news cycle as that article noting there was a very abrupt and quite massive spike in approval for Putin and Russia among Republicans.
For example, "All of a Sudden Russia Has Become a Partisan Issue"
edited 30th Dec '16 7:57:14 PM by CaptainCapsase
@164,724: Not true. I gave 4 sources in post 164,430.
Here's another: http://thehill.com/media/300427-emails-donna-brazile-gave-town-hall-questions-to-clinton-camp-in-advance
edited 30th Dec '16 8:02:25 PM by SeriesOfNumbers
What's more contradictory is the people still supporting Trump for being a "man of the people," since this is the exact same kind of international elite business his supporters decried. I doubt this relationship is going to do much for the average American or Russian.
edited 30th Dec '16 7:57:56 PM by Eschaton
@Cap: Well, that article was posted a week ago, and it shows a statistically significant gap between Dems and Republicans, on the issue. So fairly recent, I'm guessing?
@Numbers: None of which, you may recall, were anything actually illegal, and only one of which was anything close to corruption. Which amounted to nothing and was done by somebody who longer has any power.
![]()
Basically. Some go a step further and prefer to be called "white nationalists," and they claim to most-definitely-not-be white supremacists because they have no problem saying that Asians are better for various reasons.
Though if you push them further, it's usually just China, Korea, and Japan - and more likely just Japan. And it specifically involves an admiration for their ethnic homogeneity, meaning: no blacks or Muslims to muck everything up (and the women know their place, which is an added plus).
edited 30th Dec '16 8:04:07 PM by Eschaton
![]()
![]()
![]()
There is certainly an argument to be made that the Liberal school of international relations is only good for scoring political brownie points back home and has been a dismal failure otherwise*. Although human rights issues and democracy (or the lack of it) are regarded solely as internal issues in the Realist school, the emphasis on stability over advancing an ideology is something that's long overdue.
* Iraq being the crowning example of liberal interventionism being a sham.
edited 30th Dec '16 8:09:26 PM by CaptainCapsase
@164,719: I knew about Tillerson, just not the others. That's why I was curious hearing that Trump has surrounded himself with people who have ties to Russia. Now that I've seen a source, though, I concede that part of the debate.
@164,734: Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethicaly acceptable. And Clinton named Schultz to a new position on her campaign after she stepped down as DNC chair. But really, the main point is this: we had every right to know the info from the leaks. By disapproving of the leaks, you're implicitly saying that sometimes info should be withheld from the public to trick them into voting a certain way for the greater good. That's an anti-democratic position.
Looks like I might ' ve been wrong about the likelihood of Clinton starting a war with Russia, though. Looks like Trump's not the only one with ties to Russia: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
edited 30th Dec '16 8:28:46 PM by SeriesOfNumbers
![]()
In the sense that "liberal" in terms of the school international relations isn't the same thing as "liberal" as an American political designation, yes, it was the fault of liberal internationalism that Iraq went down the way it did.
I said post-war for a reason; the massive manufacturing surplus that forced the United States to spend decades investing in rebuilding Europe and later in Japan to avoid a collapse in demand (and thus a total economic collapse) isn't something that's likely to happen without another global military conflict.
edited 30th Dec '16 8:25:01 PM by CaptainCapsase
It's getting really really difficult to keep calm, when I read complete bullshit like this.
Take a step back and realize what the fuck you're saying here.
You're basically so pissed off and can't take an L, that you're willing to defend Russian hacking and propaganda.
That's inexcusable and borderline treasonous.
New Survey coming this weekend!

edited 30th Dec '16 7:18:00 PM by CaptainCapsase