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 vaguely recall hearing about an experiment one of the intel agencies did where they left flash drives around the parking lots of places like the FBI or CIA and tracked how many people just picked them up and plugged them in rather than turning them in to their superiors like they should have. Results weren't pretty.
edit- Aha, found it.
edited 31st Dec '16 8:51:51 AM by carbon-mantis
Celebrating the leaks as a triumph of democracy is completely daft. It led to a fascist being elected, and it runs on the assumption that the people reading these leaks are generally rational people. They are not, and never have been. All Wikileaks did was give the uneducated and thoughtless barbarians some red meat.
"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."I have no problem being unethical or being perceived as such, so let me say this to Series Of Numbers; the Russians did definitively hack us, and they did so to make sure their puppet was installed as President. I don't care about transparency or how supposedly pro-democracy these leaks were; the end result was the election of a fascist who will be the ruin of our republic.
The end result is what matters to me, not some pitiful hand wringing about ethics.
What we see here is a foreign dictator and his personally controlled puppets interfering in elections across the globe to create a network of Pro-Russia governments so as to make sure he can expand his country's borders at will.
It has been shown that every single time something was released, it was something that was going to hurt Clinton, and Wikileaks never once showed any information about a petty, violent and hateful man with New York Mob ties. To me, that speaks of bias and wanting to influence elections.
Morality and ethics are fine little notions to distract oneself with, but to me they are unimportant in comparison to the actual facts and intelligence - that being, Russia trying to influence elections.
edited 31st Dec '16 10:26:05 AM by NickTheSwing
I know what you were talking about. I stand by my previous post.
edited 31st Dec '16 11:22:46 AM 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.Honest question here.
You say you don't trust your own country's intelligence organisations. I assume that's why, whenever someone provides you with a source that happens to be the USIC or any individual member agency, you automatically dismiss it as a claim and potentially lying. Yet, whenever someone asks you for a source on your position, you consistently quote Wikileak content as an irrefutable source.
So, my question is this: given your reason for mistrusting government agency sources boils down to 'might be lying', why do you automatically trust Wikileaks and government whistleblowers as truthful, accurate sources?
edited 31st Dec '16 11:44:04 AM 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.Marco Rubio praises Russian Sanctions
.
That's 4 Republican Congressmen (Graham, Mc Cain, Ryan and Rubio) who actively support the Russian Sanctions. It's clear Trump isn't going to get rid of them without a fight.
@Kriegar 22, a few pages back: you addressed a post to me regarding Somalian intervention, as far as I remember, I wasn't involved in said conversation, so I'm a bit confused about it.
Regarding the hacking: hacking and leaking personal information is ABSOLUTELY a bad thing, if nothing in it was explicitly illegal, and it's a horrible breach of privacy. News flash, politicians in interviews are told what the questions are going to be ahead of time all the time, it's called a polite agreement between adults. I'd be surprised if there's any politician in America this doesn't happen to. And the DNC favoring Hillary over Sanders is information set after it was clear Sanders had no chance whatsoever of winning, and all he was doing was leading his supporters on and making the DNC look bad, hurting their overall chances of winning.
3 Senators, so? Well 52-3<48+3 so yeah, the evil dog will be one seat short in the Senate if everything runs along party lines.
edited 31st Dec '16 12:49:13 PM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanTrump wished everyone a Happy New Year, including his "many enemies".
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/trump-sends-new-year-wishes-to-all-even-his-many-enemies-1.3223153
Fuck this guy...
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Even even if you believe The Ends Justifies The Means? (Which I don't think it does or at least not in this case, but I'm just presenting this for argument's sake.)
edited 31st Dec '16 1:12:24 PM by kkhohoho
![]()
It depends. If your end was Trump winning the election, then obviously you don't care about the means, because your interest is not in the stability of the American political system.
Question: if by some miracle Trump turned out to be the most liberal guy ever who just exploited republican votes to get the office, would there be anything his (now former) supporters would be able to do to stop him from pushing liberal agendas?
(obviously this is far fetched, i'm just wondering what mechanisms there are.)
His supporters specifically wouldn't be able to do anything more to stop him then than you are now- which is to say, what they could do would be not vote for him in the future.
I think he'd have precious few allies in DC if he did that though. Maybe. It would be a real test of how strong partisanship is and to what extent people will allow it to override their principles.
![]()
Again, honest question, where does this "Obama uses lots of executive orders" thing come from? Obama has not issued any exceptional number of executive orders during his tenure as POTUS, and in fact has issued fewer overall than anyone since George H.W. Bush, who was a one-termer, and fewer per year than any president since Cleveland. Is there evidence that Obama's orders are more sweeping in scope or more Congress-bypassing than the more numerous orders of the various 20th century presidents (plus Dubya and McKinley)?

Not too many details released about it, but it could have been intentionally made visible as a "look what we can do" sort of warning following Obama's election day threat of hitting Russian infrastructure should they outright hack the election.
Given it was found on an employee's company laptop, the likely root was another idiot clicking the 105% legit free porn totally not bad things click here pls comrade link in their email.
edit- Part of me is left wondering if the US did order some sort of electronic reprisal. Strikes me as something the Russians would never publicly admit to had it happened.
edited 31st Dec '16 8:35:34 AM by carbon-mantis