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
It's kind of funny and sad at the same time that the spying that Snowden revealed always gets discussed in terms of US law. I wonder if tapping Merkel's phone in Germany was legal under German law. Or, you know, doing the same in France, Australia, the UK, China, etc. Some of these countries, or some companies or agencies in them, were cooperating with the spying; but some were not. Any of these countries would be within their rights to detain any American security officials involved in these spying operations, if those officials happened to be in those countries.
I'm not sure if there are any international treaties against this sort of espionage, but if there are it's quite likely that the NSA and CIA were breaking those treaties. Even if there are no such treaties, at the very least it's very likely they were breaking the laws of the target countries. It's appalling that they can and will get away with it, and in the country that committed these crimes - the US - the discussion will be exclusively about whether US laws were broken. It is, of course, the long-standing policy of the US that no crime they commit abroad is ever punished, as long as Congress agrees to let it go (or outright accepts it).
Again, I know what the most obvious response is: the other countries have a right to carry out counterespionage and capture or kill US agents, just like the US would do to their agents if necessary. That doesn't make it acceptable, though. I fully agree that all Western countries need counterespionage, and some espionage, to protect themselves against terrorists and other states that carry out espionage.
Spying on democratically elected leaders of countries that pose no threat, though, is simply wrong, and if the US wasn't so two-faced about this they'd track down, arrest, and punish the people involved in spying targets that should not have been spied on. This is one area where there's next to no difference between the US and its rivals like North Korea, China, and Russia - they're doing exatcly the same shit, but in a different scale. (The US seems to do it the most because they've got the most resources available for it.)
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.I believe he was playing himself. I'm not 100% on that, mind you - you'd probably have to check.
Oh God! Natural light!Just had to share this GIF
◊ of Trump stalking Hillary during the debate. It's of course sped up for humorous effect, but damn, does it look wrong. I didn't notice when I was watching the debate, but then, I was focusing only on what was said.
That's unlikely, such operatives would almost certainly operate under diplomatic cover, meaning they had diplomatic immunity, they could be expelled and any locals that helped them jailed, but to jail the officials themselves woudl be a massive breach of international law.
Actually the only publicly know treaty seems to have been kept to, that's being the 5 Eyes agreement, where the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Australia agree not to spy on each other. There has been no evidence of American intelligence operatives spying on the governments of said countries and any spying on their citizens has been done with the local governments permission.
Now much of that was shady as hell for the local governments, as they aren't allowed to spy on their own citizens but loopholed that by having the US spy on them, which while technically legal obviously went against the intent of the law.
That's highly unlikely, those agents working as part of foreign governments just get sent home and the US citizens working for them get jailed (or prisoner swapped as I believe has happened with several Israeli spies), nobody kills foreign spies, that's seen as rude.
Most democratic governments would be uncertain on that, the vast majority of democratic governments do spy on each other, often so as to steal technology (there are persistent rumours of British intelligence agencies spying on the development of French Aircraft Carriers), now spying on the specific leaders is going rather far, but it's not hugely out of line, most of NATO spies on each other.
edited 11th Oct '16 4:40:45 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![]()
![]()
I checked and, oh dear lord, this proves that God not only exists, he has a sense of humor. In that episode, quoted from the link below, "In a Days of Our Lives episode, Trump made an appearance as himself, and the character played by actress Arianne Zucker tries to get a job with his company. She lists off her business experience and flirts with him a bit, implying sexual favors and saying that she will be “a very willing employee working under you.” Trump says that this is an interesting proposition and that he’ll get back to her, although he takes that back at the end of the scene." I...nothing more can be said about how well this fits today. This...this could only be a result of a divine plan.
![]()
Dear lord, he looks like a creep. He looks ready to snap her neck or sniff her hair.
![]()
"Everybody does it" does not mean "It's OK". Of course there are many global issues where everyone lets everyone else get away with things that are wrong - pollution, for instance - and spying is one of these issues. Are we really going to accept that countries that are democratic and, for the most part, allow their citizens the rights that we demand all countries to give, and that are not dangerous to their own citizens or to other countries, will spy on each other's democratically elected leaders?
EDIT:
edited 11th Oct '16 4:39:50 PM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.LSBK, #143318
: The video is reasonably accurate. The big wildcard is the so-called "macroeconomic effects" of changes in tax and spending policy by the federal government, which various parties have applied different figures to. Hillary Clinton claims that her entire economic plan is "paid for"; that is, that it would not increase the deficit. The video claims that is inaccurate to the tune of about $200 billion.
Trump's plan would increase deficits by 4 to 7 trillion dollars over the time period being measured (I forget if it's five or ten years). In this, it shares the basic principle, if not the magnitude, with most economic plans presented by Republican policymakers over the past ten or so years. They all contain a large volume of smoke and mirrors — what Paul Krugman calls "magic asterisks" — assumptions that their savage cuts in revenue and spending will be made up by economic growth caused by the sudden liberation of the business sector from burdensome taxes and regulations. This idea is widely debunked but persists nevertheless.
edited 11th Oct '16 4:42:59 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Like I said the leadership thing was crossing a line, that's why the German goverment was upset, but I'm trying to give context, it wasn't out of line because it was spying on an ally, it was out of line because it was an out of line kind of spying on an ally.
Sure there's a strong argument for all spying on allies being a waste of money, that's why the 5 Eyes agreement exists in the first place, but the context of the actions is important, as some of the revelations of spying on democratic countries were not out of line for standard practise in international relations (like the fact that the UK spies on Argentina, you know, the country it had a war with over a territory dispute that still continues to this day).
edited 11th Oct '16 4:46:58 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.” ~ CyranWomen are the main demographic that appear to be blocking Trump's path to the White House. A few polls have Trump losing women so badly that they imply an Eisenhower or Johnson landslide is coming.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-women-are-defeating-donald-trump/
Trump is doing about as well with men as Romney did, but that isn't enough to make up for his weak numbers with women, minorities and those with post high school education.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Re: taxes, a cartoon to explain just how bad the deficit would be made by Trump's tax plan
(though it's using a median worst-case number of 5 trillion.)
It is useful because humans are bad at visualizing big numbers and 200 billion vs trillions is huge.
edited 11th Oct '16 4:56:54 PM by Elle
@The Article On The New Face Of Pro-Life: I think that this is actually a step forward for the abortion controversy in that it is taking men out of the argument. Even a woman who is Pro-Life is going to have a better understanding of women's issues than a man on either side would.
However, this does bring an interesting possibility that the future of the right is that young millennials that lean right will increasingly couch their viewpoints under the same terms that the left currently uses rather than the terms used by the old right.
Wizard Needs Food BadlyAs far as I know, it's simply false.
The Clinton Foundation emails are mostly stuff that look bad until you put them in context and then they're totally benign. The biggest one that looked bad was the sale of a uranium mine to Russia, but that sale had to go through something like 8 other agencies to be approved as well and could not have gone through on just her say-so.
One of the most common allegations against Clinton is that donations to the Clinton Foundation could increase the donor's odds of getting to talk in private with one or both of the Clintons - and then, as with traditional lobbying, to get them to use their connections and power to do that donor/lobbyist a favour.
I've not heard of any evidence of this actually happening, but I know of one detail that proves that the belief that you can buy favours by donating to the Clinton Foundation is very widespread among the financial elite: Donal Trump has donated quite a lot to the Clinton Foundation.
edited 11th Oct '16 5:08:17 PM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.I can do a summary if you like but it's not that long an article so I won't bother unless you want me to.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.US ambassadorships do have a reputation as being for sale though, it's far from a Clinton thing, the minor ones (to nations that consist of say only a few pacific islands) are often given to big donors as a political exchange,
edited 11th Oct '16 5:22:48 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.” ~ CyranYou know, seeing much how attention the Clinton Foundation and her FUCKING emails were getting, I'd was expecting something among the lines of "secretly killing off families and poisoning their puppies and kitties and then selling the corpses to Iran and North Korea so that they could make a Ultimate Nullifer so that they could annihilate Earth Prime" or something. Finding out that, when you have proper info, it's all just annoying bullshit...what in the hell is up with the news?
Trans rights are human rights. TV Tropes is not a place for bigotry, cruelty, or dickishness, no matter who or their position.The Clinton Foundation is a charitable foundation, which is why I'm particularly annoyed when people claim she's selling favours for donations. Neither of the Clintons controls that money. They don't have a debit card that they can insert to an ATM to withdraw cash from the Foundation. The Foundation controls its own money and uses it for charitable purposes.
If you want a fishy charitable organisation, why not talk about the one that's actually under investigation, has been told by a judge to stop soliciting donations in the state of New York, and has actually been proven to have spent money on the organisation's namesake's vanity (in the form of portraits) and personal affairs (bribes and legal fees for his businesses.) I am, of course, talking about the Trump Foundation.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Yeah if Clinton was soliciting donations for access then that means she was offering access to foreign dignitaries in exchange for them helping do things like combat AI Ds in Africa, sure not legal, but far from as shady as has been alleged.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Considering Trump is mostly of German descent, I think the odds of him being a Germanphobe are low. I'd expect plenty of nasty, mysogynistic comments towards Merkel or whatnot, but not Germany and the German people at large.
edited 11th Oct '16 4:06:02 PM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |