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
I saw Rational wiki entry about wikileaks and assange and said another more simpler theory: that Julian dosent reallyt like Hilary clinton and the atack come most for her than for russia, consider wikileaks twitter call Snowden a "hilary shill" for disagree with them....
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"I think that Wikileaks has leaked some stuff on Russia semi-recently, it's not so much that he's working directly with Russia as he's happy to throw in with Russia for a chance to hurt the US and especially for a chance to hurt Clinton. He's not an agent so much as an ally.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSo, the House Intelligence Committee released its report on Snowden today. The full thing is classified, but they released a three page unclassified summary (available here
).
Highlights (emphasis theirs):
edited 15th Sep '16 4:07:16 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Since we are on the subject of Snowden again, I'd like to point out something: In the event Snowden becomes a liability for Russia, Putin will not kill him (since it would tell future Snowdens that Russia isn't a safe haven, and that hurts intel-gathering), nor necessarily put him in a supermax. Instead, what is likely is that he gets effectively comfy house arrest in a dacha somewhere far away from anything important. He would then be elligible for trade should a Russian agent come into American custody.
@Jovian: And we should believe any of that because? The US lies to its population every bit as much as Russia and China, the EU member states, and any other nation you care to name, based on historical precedent, and the intelligence agencies are by far the worst offenders in that regard.
edited 15th Sep '16 5:00:07 PM by CaptainCapsase
Is it safe to say that the three global superpowers are simply unlivable since neither of them can balance safety and freedom adequately? Not to mention their outright hatred toward each other that's keeping serious issues from being addressed, like global warming and nuclear weapons?
@Caspase
Then there's no point talking about anything ever.
@Mario
There aren't three global superpowers. Neither Russia nor China has the ability to project military power outside their respective continents. India, Brazil, and every other potential "superpower in waiting" are in the same boat but more so.
![]()
![]()
To be fair, all three countries are in the United Nations National Security Council, plus all three combined have the largest nuclear stockpile(s) in the world, enough to turn Europe and the Middle East into a graveyard......
But I see your point. It seems only America has the resources to dominate the globe.
edited 15th Sep '16 4:56:25 PM by Mario1995
"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam GallagherChina can barely project power outside of their country but the Russians can and have been projecting power across Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and South America for over a decade now. All the rust from those rockets is well and gone at this point.
edited 15th Sep '16 4:59:25 PM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?
Better prepare those old fallout shelters then.
Someone at the New York Times wrote an opinion piece criticizing other journalists for "normalizing crackpotism" in the coverage of Clinton and Trump
.
President Gerald Ford had been a star football player, yet somehow we in the media developed a narrative of him as a klutz — so that every time he stumbled, a clip was on the evening news. Likewise, we in the media wrongly portrayed President Jimmy Carter as a bumbling lightweight, even as he tackled the toughest challenges, from recognizing China to returning the Panama Canal.
Then in 2000, we painted Al Gore as inauthentic and having a penchant for self-aggrandizing exaggerations, and the most memorable element of the presidential debates that year became not George W. Bush’s misstatements but Gore’s dramatic sighs.
I bring up this checkered track record because I wonder if once again our collective reporting isn’t fueling misperceptions.
A CNN/ORC poll this month found that by a margin of 15 percentage points, voters thought Donald Trump was “more honest and trustworthy” than Hillary Clinton. Let’s be frank: This public perception is completely at odds with all evidence.
On the Politi Fact website, 13 percent of Clinton’s statements that were checked were rated “false” or “pants on fire,” compared with 53 percent of Trump’s. Conversely, half of Clinton’s are rated “true” or “mostly true” compared to 15 percent of Trump statements.
Clearly, Clinton shades the truth — yet there’s no comparison with Trump.
I’m not sure that journalism bears responsibility, but this does raise the thorny issue of false equivalence, which has been hotly debated among journalists this campaign. Here’s the question: Is it journalistic malpractice to quote each side and leave it to readers to reach their own conclusions, even if one side seems to fabricate facts or make ludicrous comments?
President Obama weighed in this week, saying that “we can’t afford to act as if there’s some equivalence here.”
I’m wary of grand conclusions about false equivalence from 30,000 feet. But at the grass roots of a campaign, I think we can do better at signaling that one side is a clown.
There are crackpots who believe that the earth is flat, and they don’t deserve to be quoted without explaining that this is an, er, outlying view, and the same goes for a crackpot who has argued that climate change is a Chinese-made hoax, who has called for barring Muslims and who has said that he will build a border wall and that Mexico will pay for it.
We owe it to our readers to signal when we’re writing about a crackpot. Even if he’s a presidential candidate. No, especially when he’s a presidential candidate.
There frankly has been a degree of unreality to some of the campaign discussion: Partly because Hillary Clinton’s narrative is one of a slippery, dishonest candidate, the discussion disproportionately revolves around that theme. Yes, Clinton has been disingenuous and legalistic in her explanations of emails. Meanwhile, Trump is a mythomaniac who appears to have systematically cheated customers of Trump University.
Clinton’s finances are a minefield, which we know because she has released 39 years of tax returns; Trump would be the first major party nominee since Gerald Ford not to release his tax return (even Ford released a tax summary). And every serious analyst knows that Trump is telling a whopper when he gleefully promises to build a $25 billion wall that Mexico will pay for.
Then there’s the question of foundations. Yes, Clinton created conflicts of interest with the family foundation and didn’t fully disclose donors as promised. But the Trump Foundation flat out broke the law by making a political contribution.
It’s also worth avoiding moral equivalence about the work of the two foundations: The Clinton Foundation saves lives around the world from AIDS and malnutrition, while the Trump Foundation used its resources to buy — yes! — a large painting of Trump, as a gift for Trump (that may violate I.R.S. rules as well).
The latest dust-up has been health care. Neither candidate has been very open about health, but Clinton has produced much more detailed medical records than Trump, and an actuarial firm told The Washington Post Fact Checker that Clinton has a 5.9 percent chance of dying by the end of a second term in office, while Trump would have a 8.4 percent chance.
So I wonder if journalistic efforts at fairness don’t risk normalizing Trump, without fully acknowledging what an abnormal candidate he is. Historically we in the news media have sometimes fallen into the traps of glib narratives or false equivalencies, and we should try hard to ensure that doesn’t happen again.
We should be guard dogs, not lap dogs, and when the public sees Trump as more honest than Clinton, something has gone wrong.
For my part, I’ve never met a national politician as ill informed, as deceptive, as evasive and as vacuous as Trump. He’s not normal. And somehow that is what our barks need to convey.
And anyway, as I already said:
More generally, much of that information is publicly available — you could dig it up yourself if you wanted to, or wait for journalists to verify it independently (unless you don't trust them, either). For the parts that aren't, well, I suppose you don't have any particular reason to trust that information.
But I hope you apply the same level of skepticism to Snowden's claims as you do Congress's.
edited 15th Sep '16 5:15:32 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
More that I don't particularly care if he's a Russian agent since, in my eyes, the United States does not have an intrinsic moral high-ground over its competitors.
![]()
Nobody argues that the US is intrinsically better, we argue that it is by and large factually better, we have evidence to support that argument, while you have just nihilism and hipsterism to support yours.
edited 15th Sep '16 5:21:50 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
Considering that Congress won't protect its constituents from rampant gun violence by introducing gun regulations to keep people who shouldn't have them from having them, a tactic that's almost unheard of in other developed nations and even Russia and China, I don't think that point would fully hold up. Granting human rights? Maybe. But actually protecting those rights? Not so much.
edited 15th Sep '16 5:25:27 PM by Mario1995
"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam Gallagher![]()
No, my position is not that Russia and the United States are "morally equal" whatever that even means, it's that the very concept of a "moral high-ground" in international relations is ludicrous. All actors involved are self-interested, and do what from their perspective is best for their own standing in the world. There's no "right" or "wrong" about it, and if the US seems "nicer" than its competitors, that's because it can afford to be. The particular circumstances of the modern United States allow it to rule with a relatively soft hand, but every so often (Iraq most recently, probably again within perhaps a month under Trump and about 50:50 within the next 8 years under Clinton) the masks slips and the US does something every bit as monstrous as its competitors to another nation, or occasionally its own people.
edited 15th Sep '16 5:28:22 PM by CaptainCapsase
You can't really blame America for invading Iraq when there was mass hysteria post-9/11 over Hussein having nuclear weapons at the time. The feeling was that something had to be done, or everyone felt al-Qaeda would try to strike yet again.
By the time we found out that we had been duped, it was way too late.
edited 15th Sep '16 5:29:19 PM by Mario1995
"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam Gallagher

Snowden wouldn't even be eligible for the death penalty, because he didn't commit outright treason (Russia isn't considered an enemy of the US, the only way to get charged with treason during peacetime is going over to a terrorist organization). He's still looking at a life sentence, or close to it, but there's no legal grounds to execute him.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.