If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

The Trump news network in indie folk:
[youtube][/youtube]

deLurch wrote:

d4m10n wrote:Question for the pro-Trump folks here. What level of campaign collusion with Russian intelligence would put you off, and would sort of evidence would it take to convince you?

If Trump requested the Russians hack the electronic voting machines for him to win.

So if Russian hackers coordinated with Kushner's campaign data unit to time and target releases of DNC dox, it's no problem in your book?

free thoughtpolice wrote:

deLurch wrote:

d4m10n wrote:Question for the pro-Trump folks here. What level of campaign collusion with Russian intelligence would put you off, and would sort of evidence would it take to convince you?

If Trump requested the Russians hack the electronic voting machines for him to win. (If anyone under him had done so, they should get a long jail sentence).

As far as evidence, video recording of Trump doing so, and competent digital forensic evidence that the act had indeed occurred by a Russian actor.

Trump didn't publicly ask Putin to hack the voting machines but he did ask them to hack and leak Clinton's emails (illegal by the way) not long after the now controversial meeting.
[.youtube][/youtube]

GMAFB. Seems more hypotheticals and sardonic commentary than a specific call to action. Asking Russia to find the 30,000-odd emails that Hillary just seems to have "lost" hardly looks treasonous - as Trump said, it would have been a boon to the Press and probably the country. Sure looks like you're less interested in taking Trump to task for any justifiable cause than whitewashing Clinton.

d4m10n wrote:

deLurch wrote:

d4m10n wrote:Question for the pro-Trump folks here. What level of campaign collusion with Russian intelligence would put you off, and would sort of evidence would it take to convince you?

If Trump requested the Russians hack the electronic voting machines for him to win.

So if Russian hackers coordinated with Kushner's campaign data unit to time and target releases of DNC dox, it's no problem in your book?

You have any evidence that that was what actually happened, or is that just idle speculation?

In any case, while America frequently seems to have the moral high ground, that isn't always the case, and is becoming less so every day. And the events of the last while suggest that the rot, in both the American government, the "Military-Industrial Complex", Academia, and the Press goes rather deep. Not sure that I'd trust any of them if they were tell me that two plus two equals four.




http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=146915




American journalism is collapsing before our eyes

This Election Has Disgraced the Entire Profession of Journalism

Time for the Academy To Put Its Pencils Down: American academia is beyond salvation

More than a few warts on old DJT. But at least he's making some effort, and getting some success, in draining the proverbial swamp.

Steersman wrote:

d4m10n wrote:

deLurch wrote: If Trump requested the Russians hack the electronic voting machines for him to win.

So if Russian hackers coordinated with Kushner's campaign data unit to time and target releases of DNC dox, it's no problem in your book?

You have any evidence that that was what actually happened, or is that just idle speculation?

Neither one nor the other. It was something called a hypothetical, designed to test whether hacking voting machines is really the only thing that matters in terms of blameworthy collusion with foreign agents.

Steerman wrote:

GMAFB. Seems more hypotheticals and sardonic commentary than a specific call to action. Asking Russia to find the 30,000-odd emails that Hillary just seems to have "lost" hardly looks treasonous - as Trump said, it would have been a boon to the Press and probably the country. Sure looks like you're less interested in taking Trump to task for any justifiable cause than whitewashing Clinton.

Projecting as usual. I've always admitted Clinton is skeevy. IIRC you were in denial about the Russian government hacking the DNC emails which is now believed to be true by every republican, including Trump during his more lucid moments.
Remember, this statement was made after his campaign was in meetings with Russians (which they conveniently forgot on their disclosure forms). How do you think the Russians would have found the "lost" emails without hacking her account or getting them from someone else that was hacking or otherwise committing espionage?
Trump can do no wrong by you because some time ago you made up your mind that he would be a good choice and you are the type of person that will stick to your initial beliefs no matter how often and completely you have been proven wrong.

d4m10n wrote:So if Russian hackers coordinated with Kushner's campaign data unit to time and target releases of DNC dox, it's no problem in your book?

Let's break this down:
* if Russian hackers
Official Russian government hackers? Or script kiddies who live in Russia?
So say YOU of your own volition opt to break into some Swedish political party's servers and steal information, is that really the fault of the United States? Or is the responsibility all on you. Sure, we all hope that each nation state will assist in bringing to justice bad actors. But we can't blame the United States government for every bad act.

* coordinated
What do you mean by coordinated? If the individuals asked for someone to hack into some servers and they did it, I would take far more issue with their level of responsibility. But news media & wikileaks accept leaks all of the time. I don't blink an eye at that at all. I regularly consume and enjoy those leaks (primarily to satisfy my own curiosity). But I also feel free to use those leaks to try and push my own political stances (not that I can think of having done so) as do many many other entities all of the time.

* with Kushner's campaign data unit
I am not sure who Kushner is. I assume he is somehow related to Trump. Working on his campaign directly, or through some SuperPAC? And since you say campaign data unit, I assume you mean they did not talk with him directly. So was this data unit some 3rd party company? Was it just some low level schlub in that data unit?

* to time and target releases of DNC dox,
I thought that Wikileaks timed the data release for maximum impact and exposure.

At the end of the day, reliable facts about this are far and few in between from my point of view. An insider leak such as a disgruntle Bernie supporter is still very possible from my point of view (a la Seth Richards {but my stock in Seth having been murdered for this is much lower due to lack of credible evidence}). And it could have been an independent hacker.

It is hard for me to get upset without solid facts.

And my primary line will be if someone directed something to be hacked or did the hacking themselves, not simply accepting leaks.

d4m10n wrote:Neither one nor the other. It was something called a hypothetical, designed to test whether hacking voting machines is really the only thing that matters in terms of blameworthy collusion with foreign agents.

Nope. There are plenty of issues that could arise. I was asked for one, so I picked a more clear cut example.

d4m10n wrote:

Steersman wrote:

d4m10n wrote: <snip>
So if Russian hackers coordinated with Kushner's campaign data unit to time and target releases of DNC dox, it's no problem in your book?

You have any evidence that that was what actually happened, or is that just idle speculation?

Neither one nor the other. It was something called a hypothetical, designed to test whether hacking voting machines is really the only thing that matters in terms of blameworthy collusion with foreign agents.

Fair enough. But is that just Russian foreign agents? And would that apply to American ones as well?

Iran: Regime Change is Within Reach
by John R. Bolton July 3, 2017 at 10:00 am

The following is a transcript of Ambassador John Bolton's speech to the Grand Gathering of Iranians for Free Iran, on July 1, 2017.

It's a great pleasure and an honor to be with you again here today. ....

There is a viable opposition to the rule of the ayatollahs, and that opposition is centered in this room today. I had said for over 10 years since coming to these events, that the declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the mullahs' regime in Tehran. The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change, and therefore the only solution is to change the regime itself. And that's why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!

Thank you very much.

Seems rather remarkably hypocritical if not dangerously clueless about history - at best - for so many Americans to be getting their knickers in a twist about supposed Russian interventions in US politics when the facts suggest that Americans have been leading that hit-parade for literally decades if not more:

America's Coup Machine: Destroying Democracy Since 1953

U.S. efforts to overthrow foreign governments leave the world less peaceful, less just and less hopeful.

There is maybe some justification for thinking that, in principle at least, America more frequently has the moral high ground, that it is, maybe arguably, the last best hope of humanity. But sure looks like they've lost the thread, that grubby pork-barrel politics and untenable "conventional wisdom" is more the order of the day.

As Yogi Berra is (erroneously) reported to have said, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is."

free thoughtpolice wrote:Steerman wrote:

GMAFB. Seems more hypotheticals and sardonic commentary than a specific call to action. Asking Russia to find the 30,000-odd emails that Hillary just seems to have "lost" hardly looks treasonous - as Trump said, it would have been a boon to the Press and probably the country. Sure looks like you're less interested in taking Trump to task for any justifiable cause than whitewashing Clinton.

Projecting as usual. I've always admitted Clinton is skeevy. IIRC you were in denial about the Russian government hacking the DNC emails which is now believed to be true by every republican, including Trump during his more lucid moments.

I think "believed" is the operative term, as in "Jesus is believed to have walked on water and been resurrected".

free thoughtpolice wrote:Remember, this statement was made after his campaign was in meetings with Russians (which they conveniently forgot on their disclosure forms). How do you think the Russians would have found the "lost" emails without hacking her account or getting them from someone else that was hacking or otherwise committing espionage?

Seems clear that Trump was presenting a hypothetical - IF the Russians hacked the DNC then maybe they know where "lost" emails are hiding - and not basing it on "sure and certain" knowledge of "espionage".

free thoughtpolice wrote:Trump can do no wrong by you because some time ago you made up your mind that he would be a good choice and you are the type of person that will stick to your initial beliefs no matter how often and completely you have been proven wrong.

How do you get that idea? I've frequently said DJT has lots of warts and worse - a recent comment here for example - and I've objected to or raised an eyebrow at his bombing Syria for a supposed gas attack, and at his authorizing some $100 billion worth of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, along with several other of his "policies" or actions.

But since you admit that Clinton is "skeevy", maybe we can agree that the US "... 'democratic process' has produced two candidates widely despised by the American people" - with some justification on both sides. However, I wonder whether you're willing to even consider that Trump is the proverbial "lesser of two weevils", and by a very large margin.

Oh, one more thing that would turn me against Trump. If the Democrats or Republicans fielded a significantly better candidate. And not just wishful-thinking better, but with some solid clearly defined policies and goals expressed as to how the candidate is going to improve how the US is run, how our political system itself is run.

Too many candidates are good at setting up their words & support groups to give all of these niche interest groups the impression that said candidate is really-on-their-side. But it is nothing but tapping into individual's desires to see a candidate that will fulfill their pet desires. Nothing but fluff. Too many candidates take advantage of people's willingness to self-delude.

deLurch wrote:Oh, one more thing that would turn me against Trump. If the Democrats or Republicans fielded a significantly better candidate. And not just wishful-thinking better, but with some solid clearly defined policies and goals expressed as to how the candidate is going to improve how the US is run, how our political system itself is run.

Too many candidates are good at setting up their words & support groups to give all of these niche interest groups the impression that said candidate is really-on-their-side. But it is nothing but tapping into individual's desires to see a candidate that will fulfill their pet desires. Nothing but fluff. Too many candidates take advantage of people's willingness to self-delude.

So did Trump, to be fair, only with different niche interests.

Kirbmarc wrote:

deLurch wrote:Oh, one more thing that would turn me against Trump. If the Democrats or Republicans fielded a significantly better candidate. And not just wishful-thinking better, but with some solid clearly defined policies and goals expressed as to how the candidate is going to improve how the US is run, how our political system itself is run.

Too many candidates are good at setting up their words & support groups to give all of these niche interest groups the impression that said candidate is really-on-their-side. But it is nothing but tapping into individual's desires to see a candidate that will fulfill their pet desires. Nothing but fluff. Too many candidates take advantage of people's willingness to self-delude.

So did Trump, to be fair, only with different niche interests.

Maybe. To some extent. Though I think with a notable difference - Trump has actually made some steps toward, and is having some success with, draining the proverbial swamp. For examples:

DeVos sets stage to rewrite Obama-era sexual assault guidance

Nikita Vladimirov Jul 14, 2017 at 2:52 PM EDT

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos on Thursday blasted President Obama’s sexual assault policy for failing to foster an environment of safety and fairness on college campuses.

Following a series of meetings with both victims and individuals who have been falsely accused, DeVos articulated the need for new federal guidelines that balance the rights of both parties. ....

YOU’RE FIRED! Trump’s VA Terminates 500, Suspends 200 For Misconduct

Five hundred and forty-eight Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees have been terminated since President Donald Trump took office, indicating that his campaign pledge to clean up “probably the most incompetently run agency in the United States” by relentlessly putting his TV catch phrase “you’re fired” into action was more than just empty rhetoric. ....

And then there is the travel ban from several Muslim-majority countries, and his "Defend Western Civilization" speech in Poland.

No doubt a bunch of swings and misses - being charitable - and some things in that first list might be a bit of a stretch. But do you really think things would have been anything other than "business as usual" under Clinton? Do you not think that at least several of Trump's initiatives are - finally, at the brink of disaster - a belated but welcome step in the right direction?

Kirbmarc wrote:So did Trump, to be fair, only with different niche interests.

I suspect that many people who voted for Trump knew he was a crap choice. But people were so fed up with all the other crap choices, they were willing to suck it up and vote for something that was a red thorn in both party's sides.

InfraRedBucket wrote:[.tweet][/tweet]

:lol:


But somewhat apropos of which, and of my arguments about partisan politics and the lesser of two weevils:

Revisionism on Russia from the New York Times

A brush-back pitch aimed at honest Democrats.
Noah Rothman July 17, 2017

At the root of the Democratic Party’s attacks on Donald Trump’s Russia policy is a crippling contradiction. The logic of their assault on Trump’s posture toward Moscow leads the observer to conclude that Democrats believe Trump should act more aggressively to avenge Vladimir Putin’s attack on American sovereignty in 2016. It follows, then, that the president’s predecessor failed in his most sacred charge: defending the United States from the designs of foreign adversaries.

If Trump’s most prominent liberal critics on the matter of Russia hope to maintain their credibility, they must cleanse themselves of their hypocrisy. In the pursuit of atonement, some prominent Democrats are starting to throw Barack Obama under the bus. “We Dems erred in ’12 by mocking Boot/Romney Russia worry,” declared Hillary Clinton’s former press secretary, Brian Fallon, last week. Jon Favreau, a former speechwriter for Barack Obama, agreed. “I’m willing to say that in 2012 when we all scoffed at Mitt for saying that, gee, Russia was our number one geopolitical foe, think we were a little off there.”

These cracks in the dam portend a torrent, and some liberal partisans won’t allow them to grow without mounting a response. It is through this lens that New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters’s effort to tar “the conservative movement” with the stain of pro-Putinism must be viewed. ....

deLurch wrote:

Kirbmarc wrote:So did Trump, to be fair, only with different niche interests.

I suspect that many people who voted for Trump knew he was a crap choice. But people were so fed up with all the other crap choices, they were willing to suck it up and vote for something that was a red thorn in both party's sides.

Yea - "lesser of two weevils" writ large. Time to throw the fox in amongst the chickens, and see who has what principles they're willing to defend and who is just along for the ride.

deLurch wrote:Official Russian government hackers? Or script kiddies who live in Russia?

Either, so long as they are being directed/influenced by the Kremlin.

deLurch wrote:So say YOU of your own volition opt to break into some Swedish political party's servers and steal information, is that really the fault of the United States?

Likely it would be seen as such, in my case, given a couple decades of working for the DoD.

deLurch wrote:What do you mean by coordinated?

For example, discussing when/where to drop the docs for maximum political effect.

deLurch wrote:I am not sure who Kushner is. I assume he is somehow related to Trump. Working on his campaign directly, or through some SuperPAC?

The campaign data unit run by Jared Kushner wasn't something I made up for the sake of the hypothetical scenario:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbert ... ite-house/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenberto ... y-probing/

http://www.newsweek.com/did-russians-ta ... elp-613612

deLurch wrote:I thought that Wikileaks timed the data release for maximum impact and exposure.

That strikes me as a safe bet. Question here is whether the specific timing was discussed between the Trump campaign and those who originally obtained the documents in defiance of federal law. There is a detailed analysis of this problem up a Lawfare.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

deLurch wrote:

d4m10n wrote:Neither one nor the other. It was something called a hypothetical, designed to test whether hacking voting machines is really the only thing that matters in terms of blameworthy collusion with foreign agents.

Nope. There are plenty of issues that could arise. I was asked for one, so I picked a more clear cut example.

Fair enough. I just wanted to make the point that there is more than one way for a campaign to run afoul of federal law.

How is it that Putin has so many "useful idiots" in the west across the political spectrum from Mano Singham and Marcus Ranum to Alex Jones and other Trumpophiles?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... tin-215387

free thoughtpolice wrote:How is it that Putin has so many "useful idiots" in the west across the political spectrum from Mano Singham and Marcus Ranum to Alex Jones and other Trumpophiles?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... tin-215387

I don't know. It might be because while Putin is an authoritarian cunt, and has geopolitical plans which are opposite to those of the US, he's been portrayed as Satan incarnate while he's just looking after the interests of himself and his cronies. An excess of negative rhetoric produces a reaction, just like the excesses of the SocJus in calling everyone a Nazi have actually increased the support of actual white supremacists like Richard Spencer.

Also I think that the US have behaved, on a geopolitical scale, like complete idiots, propping up regimes which produces threats to Western democracies, like Saudi Arabia and Wahabism, to enact frankly idiotic plans of "regime change" (the disaster in Iraq, the other disaster in Libya, then Syria). In Syria Putin's cynical and unfeeling pragmatism has paid off: today neither France nor the US consider regime change a priority, because it's clear that while Assad is a cunt many of the "rebels" are both cunt-ish and completely batshit insane (with the possible exception of the Kurds).

I'm no fan of Putin, but I can see why the tremendous stupidity of the US foreign policy, and especially its continuous alliance with Wahabi sponsors, have endeared many to the idea of Russia as a possible counterbalance. The US, if they want to find some of its lost international prestige and beat Russia, must take the head of their collective ass and ditch their Gulf State "allies". You can't be the paladin of democracy and the ally of the most insane theocracies on planet earth.

Also this piece of the article is laughably naive:

Meanwhile the Heritage Foundation, one of Washington’s most influential conservative think tanks and a former bastion of Cold War hawkishness, has enlisted itself in the campaign against George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist whose work promoting democracy and good governance in the former Soviet space has made him one of the Kremlin’s main whipping boys.

:lol: Yes, and PZ Myers is a suave and witty social justice activists, Anita Sarkeesian is a clever pop-culture critic, and Zinnia Jones is a brave trans rights advocate. I mean, come on, this is incredibly stupid. Soros is a one of the worst corporate cronies in the US, only the Koch brothers and the Saudi lobby are on his level.

free thoughtpolice wrote:How is it that Putin has so many "useful idiots" in the west across the political spectrum from Mano Singham and Marcus Ranum to Alex Jones and other Trumpophiles?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... tin-215387

Fair's fair - seems that up until the last election, it was the Democrats who were more the "Putin-ophiles":

If Trump’s most prominent liberal critics on the matter of Russia hope to maintain their credibility, they must cleanse themselves of their hypocrisy. In the pursuit of atonement, some prominent Democrats are starting to throw Barack Obama under the bus. “We Dems erred in ’12 by mocking Boot/Romney Russia worry,” declared Hillary Clinton’s former press secretary, Brian Fallon, last week. Jon Favreau, a former speechwriter for Barack Obama, agreed. “I’m willing to say that in 2012 when we all scoffed at Mitt for saying that, gee, Russia was our number one geopolitical foe, think we were a little off there.”

Though one might suggest that Islam is far more of a threat to "Western civilization" than is Russia.

I WISH the US were actually promoting democracy and human rights. But they aren't. They're allies with some of the worst violators of human rights around, and they paved the way for the worst of the islamic militias around. I don't think this was deliberate on their part, but it's the logical consequence of being allies with the Gulf Countries.

In these circumstances Putin looks better because while he's a dictator he's not pretending to spread democracy.

If the US want to regain part of their lost prestige as "leaders of the free world" they need to stop staying on the side of places like Saudi Arabia or Erdogan's Turkey.

Kirbmarc wrote:I WISH the US were actually promoting democracy and human rights. But they aren't. They're allies with some of the worst violators of human rights around, and they paved the way for the worst of the islamic militias around. I don't think this was deliberate on their part, but it's the logical consequence of being allies with the Gulf Countries.

In these circumstances Putin looks better because while he's a dictator he's not pretending to spread democracy.

If the US want to regain part of their lost prestige as "leaders of the free world" they need to stop staying on the side of places like Saudi Arabia or Erdogan's Turkey.

Amen to that:



Preach it, brother! ;)

Though one might suggest that Islam is far more of a threat to "Western civilization" than is Russia.

One might also suggest that cardio-vascular issues are more dangerous than cancer. It doesn't mean you ignore cancer.

[youtube][/youtube]
I would tell you more Comrade Steersman but the internet is watching.

free thoughtpolice wrote:

Though one might suggest that Islam is far more of a threat to "Western civilization" than is Russia.

One might also suggest that cardio-vascular issues are more dangerous than cancer. It doesn't mean you ignore cancer.

Wasn't arguing we should ignore the "cancer", and there's no evidence that Trump is either. From that Commentary article:

Two weeks ago, Donald Trump delivered a passionate speech defending Western civilization for which he received glowing and near unanimous praise from the right. In that speech, Trump directly called on Moscow to abandon “destabilizing activities” in Europe and end its support for “hostile regimes” in the Middle East.

The administration has antagonized Moscow by defining the conflict in Ukraine as one between two sovereign powers (not the “civil war” fiction peddled by the Kremlin). The White House has coupled sanctions relief with the demand that Moscow withdraw from occupied Crimea, which will never happen. His United Nations ambassador has pulled no punches in calling Moscow out over its dangerous support for rogue regimes, also to the applause of the pro-and anti-Trump right. The president is pursuing a deal to provide Poland with anti-ballistic missile batteries, and he facilitated the sale of liquid natural gas to Warsaw, both over Russian objections. ....

Does that really look to you like any evidence that Trump is in bed with Putin, that he's ignoring the problems due to Russia?

CNN wrote:Washington (CNN) [February 6, 2017] President Donald Trump appeared to equate US actions with the authoritarian regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin in an interview released Saturday, saying, "There are a lot of killers. You think our country's so innocent?"

Trump made the remark during an interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, saying he respected his Russian counterpart.
"But he's a killer," O'Reilly said to Trump.

"There are a lot of killers. You think our country's so innocent?" Trump replied. ...

But when you have limited resources it kind of makes some sense to put them where they're going to do the most good, where they're most likely to forestall or rectify the current crisis, and then worry about the others later - kind of the idea behind the lesser-of-two-evils principle. And it sure looks to me, and apparently no few others here including Kirbmarc, like Islam is the far more dangerous and immediate threat. Seems that Russia has more or less entered the 21st century, that it endorses and supports many of the principles and values of the Enlightenment - a fairly decent literary and scientific and religious tradition for several examples - whereas the Islamic world is still largely stuck in the 6th century - if they've made it that far - in those dimensions. You might give some serious thought to Pandavar's observations on the topic:

free thoughtpolice wrote:[.youtube][/youtube]
I would tell you more Comrade Steersman but the internet is watching.

LoL. Though clearly it was a jest, a shot at journalists, a bit of a self-deprecating comment about the conflict between leaders and the press - at least in most countries that have the least bit of a claim to possessing any of either class. [That is, excluding many if not most Muslim countries ...]

Wasn't arguing we should ignore the "cancer", and there's no evidence that Trump is either.

Putin not Trump

Does that really look to you like any evidence that Trump is in bed with Putin, that he's ignoring the problems due to Russia?

Read the news do you? FFS he's been sucking up to Putin from day one while attacking and insulting allies. If you haven't seen that already I'm wasting my time.

free thoughtpolice wrote:

Wasn't arguing we should ignore the "cancer", and there's no evidence that Trump is either.

Putin not Trump

Seems your analogy was that Putin is the cancer and that Islam is the cardio-vascular, the latter presumably worse than the former. Why I said that Trump is clearly not ignoring Trump - and gave evidence that that was the case - something you might consider doing yourself instead of just bloviating ....

free thoughtpolice wrote:

Does that really look to you like any evidence that Trump is in bed with Putin, that he's ignoring the problems due to Russia?

Read the news do you? FFS he's been sucking up to Putin from day one while attacking and insulting allies. If you haven't seen that already I'm wasting my time.

"Allies"? You mean all those who aren't pulling their weight in NATO but expect all the benefits of membership therein?

As for "wasting your time", you might try putting your evidence on the table instead of expecting people to have followed the same (limited) sources you apparently do.

Seems your analogy was that Putin is the cancer and that Islam is the cardio-vascular, the latter presumably worse than the former. Why I said that Trump is clearly not ignoring Trump - and gave evidence that that was the case - something you might consider doing yourself instead of just bloviating ....
"Therefore shoddy and inept application of words lays siege to the intellect in wondrous ways." Novum Organum

:lol: :lol: :lol:
It's almost as dumb if you insert Putin at the 2nd Trump.
Steers; go bloviate a dead goat.

free thoughtpolice wrote:

Seems your analogy was that Putin is the cancer and that Islam is the cardio-vascular, the latter presumably worse than the former. Why I said that Trump is clearly not ignoring Trump Putin - and gave evidence that that was the case - something you might consider doing yourself instead of just bloviating ....
"Therefore shoddy and inept application of words lays siege to the intellect in wondrous ways." Novum Organum

:lol: :lol: :lol:
It's almost as dumb if you insert Putin at the 2nd Trump.

So, I made a mistake - fixed it for you. But you clearly understood my intent - though you seem incapable of dealing with my argument. I've heard that dogma will do that to a person, and you certainly seem a case in point.

free thoughtpolice wrote:Steers; go bloviate a dead goat.

LoL. After you Alphonse.

Steersman wrote: But when you have limited resources it kind of makes some sense to put them where they're going to do the most good, where they're most likely to forestall or rectify the current crisis, and then worry about the others later - kind of the idea behind the lesser-of-two-evils principle. And it sure looks to me, and apparently no few others here including Kirbmarc, like Islam is the far more dangerous and immediate threat. Seems that Russia has more or less entered the 21st century, that it endorses and supports many of the principles and values of the Enlightenment - a fairly decent literary and scientific and religious tradition for several examples - whereas the Islamic world is still largely stuck in the 6th century - if they've made it that far - in those dimensions. You might give some serious thought to Pandavar's observations on the topic:

Uhm, no, Russia doesn't support the principles and values of the Enlightenment. Not even close. However Russia has more limited goals and ambitions than the global islamic insurrection. Also Russians abroad aren't infiltrated by people who preach a Russian takeover of society and to make the entire world Russian, no matter the costs. Russia is a rival of the US, but it's a known rival, and a rational one. You can come to a compromise or at least an equilibrium of fear with Russia. Not so much with the Salafi project.

I think that protection against intrusions (including teaching government employees how to effectively deal with phishing for example, and creating better firewalls) and a sane skepticism and caution towards Russia, plus protecting US allies through NATO, are good ideas to contain Putin. Also I think that Trump has some shady, possibly illegal ties to Russia, and that Putin is playing a diplomatic/geopolitical game to get the sanctions against Russia removed and assure stability to his allies.

Also Putin is a political troll just like Trump: sowing discord in the US benefits him. Hopefully the independent investigation by Muller will clear the air and reveal the truth behind the bullshit.

However the Saudis have played games and infiltrated institutions for at least two decades, and no one seemed to care. The Saudi lobby in the US is incredibly power and very shady, at least as shady as the Husky Russkies, and pretty much everyone who pointed this out has been dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist" and "islamophobic".

Everyone goes gaga about a Saudi shill like Linda Sarsour, and a Saudi apologist like Reza Aslan is revered as a "moderate muslim", while a good chunk of imams in the US are hardcore Salafis, and no one cares. Saudi Arabia is called "moderate" ( :lol: ), the US sell them loads of weapons and fight their war in Syria.

(There's also the matter of the Israeli lobby which is yet another can of worms, so I won't go there).

It's good to limit foreign influence over your government, but it should be done with all foreign governments, not just Russia.

Kirbmarc wrote:

Steersman wrote: But when you have limited resources it kind of makes some sense to put them where they're going to do the most good, where they're most likely to forestall or rectify the current crisis, and then worry about the others later - kind of the idea behind the lesser-of-two-evils principle. And it sure looks to me, and apparently no few others here including Kirbmarc, like Islam is the far more dangerous and immediate threat. Seems that Russia has more or less entered the 21st century, that it endorses and supports many of the principles and values of the Enlightenment - a fairly decent literary and scientific and religious tradition for several examples - whereas the Islamic world is still largely stuck in the 6th century - if they've made it that far - in those dimensions. You might give some serious thought to Pandavar's observations on the topic:

[.tweet][/tweet]

Uhm, no, Russia doesn't support the principles and values of the Enlightenment. Not even close.

Seems rather moot, although I'll readily concede that their record is a little spotty at best - see they're "ranked as 122nd of 167 countries in the Democracy Index", and "80th of 99 countries surveyed in terms of rule of law." However, my points of reference were more Russian literature, Russian arts, and Russian science. Relative to the latter:

The Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS; Russian: Росси́йская акаде́мия нау́к (РАН) Rossíiskaya akadémiya naúk) consists of the national academy of Russia; a network of scientific research institutes from across the Russian Federation; and additional scientific and social units such as libraries, publishing units, and hospitals.
<snip>
The Academy currently includes around 650 institutions and 55,000 scientific researchers.

And:

Science and technology in Russia blossomed since the Age of Enlightenment, when Peter the Great founded the Russian Academy of Sciences and Saint Petersburg State University, and polymath Mikhail Lomonosov established the Moscow State University, paving the way for a strong native tradition in learning and innovation. In the 19th and 20th centuries the country produced a large number of notable scientists and inventors.

The Russian physics school began with Lomonosov who proposed the law of conservation of matter preceding the energy conservation law. Russian discoveries and inventions in physics include the electric arc, electrodynamical Lenz's law, space groups of crystals, photoelectric cell, superfluidity, Cherenkov radiation, electron paramagnetic resonance, heterotransistors and 3D holography. Lasers and masers were co-invented by Nikolai Basov and Alexander Prokhorov, while the idea of tokamak for controlled nuclear fusion was introduced by Igor Tamm, Andrei Sakharov and Lev Artsimovich, leading eventually the modern international ITER project, where Russia is a party.

All rather different from the Islamic world - which has something like ten times the population, and which is, apparently, pretty much a basket-case in comparison.

While Russia might not have quite the same degree of commitment to all the principles of the Enlightement that many Western countries do, I rather doubt they would have made the same degree of contributions to and advancement of the arts and sciences if they had been as hobbled by the same or similar barbaric if not psychotic religious ideology that Muslim countries have been. Rather different kettles of fish.

Kirbmarc wrote:However Russia has more limited goals and ambitions than the global islamic insurrection. Also Russians abroad aren't infiltrated by people who preach a Russian takeover of society and to make the entire world Russian, no matter the costs. Russia is a rival of the US, but it's a known rival, and a rational one. You can come to a compromise or at least an equilibrium of fear with Russia. Not so much with the Salafi project.

I think that protection against intrusions (including teaching government employees how to effectively deal with phishing for example, and creating better firewalls) and a sane skepticism and caution towards Russia, plus protecting US allies through NATO, are good ideas to contain Putin. Also I think that Trump has some shady, possibly illegal ties to Russia, and that Putin is playing a diplomatic/geopolitical game to get the sanctions against Russia removed and assure stability to his allies.

Also Putin is a political troll just like Trump: sowing discord in the US benefits him. Hopefully the independent investigation by Muller will clear the air and reveal the truth behind the bullshit.

However the Saudis have played games and infiltrated institutions for at least two decades, and no one seemed to care. The Saudi lobby in the US is incredibly power and very shady, at least as shady as the Husky Russkies, and pretty much everyone who pointed this out has been dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist" and "islamophobic".

Everyone goes gaga about a Saudi shill like Linda Sarsour, and a Saudi apologist like Reza Aslan is revered as a "moderate muslim", while a good chunk of imams in the US are hardcore Salafis, and no one cares. Saudi Arabia is called "moderate" ( :lol: ), the US sell them loads of weapons and fight their war in Syria.

(There's also the matter of the Israeli lobby which is yet another can of worms, so I won't go there).

It's good to limit foreign influence over your government, but it should be done with all foreign governments, not just Russia.

You won't get much argument from me on that score, on those points. :-)

Bit of a follow-up to my previous comment:

Steersman wrote:

Kirbmarc wrote:

Steersman wrote: But when you have limited resources it kind of makes some sense to put them where they're going to do the most good, where they're most likely to forestall or rectify the current crisis, and then worry about the others later - kind of the idea behind the lesser-of-two-evils principle. And it sure looks to me, and apparently no few others here including Kirbmarc, like Islam is the far more dangerous and immediate threat. Seems that Russia has more or less entered the 21st century, that it endorses and supports many of the principles and values of the Enlightenment - a fairly decent literary and scientific and religious tradition for several examples - whereas the Islamic world is still largely stuck in the 6th century - if they've made it that far - in those dimensions. You might give some serious thought to Pandavar's observations on the topic:

[.tweet][/tweet]

Uhm, no, Russia doesn't support the principles and values of the Enlightenment. Not even close.

Seems rather moot, although I'll readily concede that their record is a little spotty at best - see they're "ranked as 122nd of 167 countries in the Democracy Index", and "80th of 99 countries surveyed in terms of rule of law."

A tweet of Cathy Young's which includes a bit of an amusing joke - maybe some gallows-humour if truth be known - on the state of Russian "democracy":

She subsequently provided a link to a 2006 Reason post of hers - The Tsars Come Out: A gloomy prognosis for Russian freedom - from which that tweeted joke comes:

Young wrote:During his talk, Zlobin noted that the resurgence of authoritarianism in Russia had also led to a resurgence of political humor. Fittingly, the question-and-answer period for the morning panel ended with a joke.

Answering a question about the future of democracy in Russia, Shevtsova said: "To add some optimism to my conclusions, I've got my favorite joke that, it seems to me, reflects the ambiguity of our democratic movement.

A sick man is picked up by an ambulance. He asks the doctor, 'Doctor, where are you taking me?' The doctor replies, 'To the morgue.' The man says, 'But I'm not dead yet!' The doctor says, 'But we're not there yet.'"

If this is Russian-style optimism, I'd hate to see what the pessimism looks like.

[youtube][/youtube]

So someone mentioned the boyscout's facebook page was getting baraged with complaints. It appears to have stemmed from this speech Trump gave at the National Jamboree.

[youtube][/youtube]

I don't know if there is anything more to it than Trump's speech, but Trump did a completely craptastic speech in front of a bunch of Scouts who probably could not care less about politics. Trump did not know his audience. He winged it and by default fell into treating it almost like a campaign rally. Trump talks about what he knows. And he obviously does not know scouts.

In all fairness, I bet many of the scouts were excited to here him talk. And some were probably pissed off. Personally, I skipped the the presentations at the Jamboree. If it sounds boring, why on earth would I go. Scouting is about hiking, camping, outdoors & lighting shit on fire.

deLurch wrote:So someone mentioned the boyscout's facebook page was getting baraged with complaints. It appears to have stemmed from this speech Trump gave at the National Jamboree.

[.youtube][/youtube]

I don't know if there is anything more to it than Trump's speech, but Trump did a completely craptastic speech in front of a bunch of Scouts who probably could not care less about politics. Trump did not know his audience. He winged it and by default fell into treating it almost like a campaign rally. Trump talks about what he knows. And he obviously does not know scouts.

In all fairness, I bet many of the scouts were excited to here him talk. And some were probably pissed off. Personally, I skipped the the presentations at the Jamboree. If it sounds boring, why on earth would I go. Scouting is about hiking, camping, outdoors & lighting shit on fire.

Seems to have been an enthusiastic crowd:

Although it also seems that not all were as impressed as others - almost like they didn't go to the same gathering ...

https://twitter.com/i/moments/889622520705552386

This is what an enthusiastic crowd really looks like.
[youtube][/youtube]

free thoughtpolice wrote:This is what an enthusiastic crowd really looks like.
[.youtube][/youtube]

So you're saying that because Kim-Jong & Trump both enjoy the adulation of crowds - rather like many if not most entertainers - then that means they're identical?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFn3yIfUAAAnJBW.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFn3yIfUAAAnJBW.jpg .... ;-)

You aren't very good at strawmanning, Steers. :roll:

free thoughtpolice wrote:This is what an enthusiastic crowd really looks like.
[youtube][/youtube]

Could anyone see at 1.00 whether that woman had her thumb over the guitar neck?

Bit off-topic but it made me think of Steersman [emoji1063]

www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/index.asp



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

d4m10n wrote:Bit off-topic but it made me think of Steersman [emoji1063]

Yea, Team Canada! ;-)

d4m10n wrote:http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/index.asp

I'll probably copy your post and my more or less direct response to your link over to the Islam & Islamist thread later, if I get some time. However, as a bit of "meta", I kind of wonder where you're coming from. Your comment seems a little sardonic, a little "nudge-nudge, wink-wink", as if you think I'm going off the deep end with my concern about and response to Islam & Muslim immigration.

I wonder, have you read any of the stories and links in that I&I thread? How about the discussions in the main thread on the topic, particularly the recent comments by Kirbmarc on Islamic encroachments, particularly by way of Saudi promotion of the barbarisms of Islam within Western Muslim schools? You think all of that, including Trump's "Defense of Western Civilization" is just so much Chicken Little squawking about the sky falling? Or you think there's some justification for those concerns and responses? Inquiring minds and all that ...

Steersman wrote:

d4m10n wrote:Bit off-topic but it made me think of Steersman [emoji1063]

Yea, Team Canada! ;-)

d4m10n wrote:http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/index.asp

I'll probably copy your post and my more or less direct response to your link over to the Islam & Islamist thread later, if I get some time. However, as a bit of "meta", I kind of wonder where you're coming from. Your comment seems a little sardonic, a little "nudge-nudge, wink-wink", as if you think I'm going off the deep end with my concern about and response to Islam & Muslim immigration.

I wonder, have you read any of the stories and links in that I&I thread? How about the discussions in the main thread on the topic, particularly the recent comments by Kirbmarc on Islamic encroachments, particularly by way of Saudi promotion of the barbarisms of Islam within Western Muslim schools? You think all of that, including Trump's "Defense of Western Civilization" is just so much Chicken Little squawking about the sky falling? Or you think there's some justification for those concerns and responses? Inquiring minds and all that ...

You don't go off the deep end by saying that there are concerns about those things. You go off the deep end by supporting deportations and Qu'ran pissing tests.

Kirbmarc wrote:

Steersman wrote:

d4m10n wrote:Bit off-topic but it made me think of Steersman [emoji1063]

Yea, Team Canada! ;-)

d4m10n wrote:http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/index.asp

<snip>

I wonder, have you read any of the stories and links in that I&I thread? ....

You don't go off the deep end by saying that there are concerns about those things. You go off the deep end by supporting deportations and Qu'ran pissing tests.

See the I&I thread for an answer (in the works).

It wasn't the Russians that hacked the election, it was the Ruffians!
Ruffia has been causing trouble for a long time and innocent Russians like Vlad Putin and Stalin have been taking the blame.

That's odd. I can't get on the main thread. I get a big red warning page saying deceptive site ahead and that www.007james.com is trying to phish.

free thoughtpolice wrote:That's odd. I can't get on the main thread. I get a big red warning page saying deceptive site ahead and that http://www.007james.com is trying to phish.

Many people are experiencing the same thing. Apparently the address of the website of an image that was posted in the main thread is flagged as a potential phishing by Google Chrome.

Thanks Kirb, I'll try another browser.

free thoughtpolice wrote:It wasn't the Russians that hacked the election, it was the Ruffians!
Ruffia has been causing trouble for a long time and innocent Russians like Vlad Putin and Stalin have been taking the blame.

Bunch of thuggees ...

Links to:

Although, as I suggested, seems to be a lot of that going around in the U.S. "corridors of power" - although that looks more like everyone riding off in all directions - at least up until recently:

Thinking Through Assassination

So the US Deep State killed this guy because he was going to prove that Trump wasn't in bed with the Russians? I'm not sure what sort of motive the Americans would have to kill him. :think:

free thoughtpolice wrote:So the US Deep State killed this guy because he was going to prove that Trump wasn't in bed with the Russians? I'm not sure what sort of motive the Americans would have to kill him. :think:

LoL. Expect it was the "Ruffians" who were responsible for that - at least most probably. My point with the Guardian & NYT articles was that the US was - and probably still is - hardly blameless in the department of "extra-judical" assassinations of one sort or another. Think the US generally has the higher moral ground, and may even be the last best hope of humanity. But there seem to be some deep pockets in that territory that detracts from that claim, and which shouldn't blind us to some "problematic" aspects and consequences.

Speaking of which:

Haven't read the article yet - might be behind a paywall - but, given the source, there is probably some justification for thinking there's a problematic fire smoldering away somewhere behind that smoke - so to speak.

From what I read, the dossier was originally was originally commissioned by someone in the GOP then after Trump won the nomination adopted by the Dems. Whether there is anything illegal or unethical remains to be seen. The org that was commissioned was American and was presumably paid for by the parties. Different than accepting a gift from a foreign source as is suspected in the Trump Russia thing.
The fact that the head of the research firm refused to testify at the Senate Russia hearing is a little suspicious but not that uncommon.

free thoughtpolice wrote:From what I read, the dossier was originally was originally commissioned by someone in the GOP then after Trump won the nomination adopted by the Dems. Whether there is anything illegal or unethical remains to be seen. The org that was commissioned was American and was presumably paid for by the parties. Different than accepting a gift from a foreign source as is suspected in the Trump Russia thing.
The fact that the head of the research firm refused to testify at the Senate Russia hearing is a little suspicious but not that uncommon.

Yea, not at all like the millions of bucks Clinton accepted ...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFn392lVoAAlL4e.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFn392lVoAAlL4e.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-2XW0fXUAghIdY.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-2XW0fXUAghIdY.jpg

Steersman wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote:From what I read, the dossier was originally was originally commissioned by someone in the GOP then after Trump won the nomination adopted by the Dems. Whether there is anything illegal or unethical remains to be seen. The org that was commissioned was American and was presumably paid for by the parties. Different than accepting a gift from a foreign source as is suspected in the Trump Russia thing.
The fact that the head of the research firm refused to testify at the Senate Russia hearing is a little suspicious but not that uncommon.

Yea, not at all like the millions of bucks Clinton accepted ...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFn392lVoAAlL4e.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFn392lVoAAlL4e.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-2XW0fXUAghIdY.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-2XW0fXUAghIdY.jpg

Clinton isn't more clean than Trump, but she is smart enough to avoid getting in legal trouble. Anyway the "but Clinton!" thing is getting tiresome.

Yea, not at all like the millions of bucks Clinton accepted ...

Unlike the Trump foundation, that Trump used as a personal slush fund, there is nothing to show the Clinton's personally profiting from their foundation. You really seem to have a lot of red herring jump into your boat.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 02556.html
Even if there is wrongdoing by the Clintons, so what? That doesn't excuse wrongdoing that may have been committed by the Orangeutan.

free thoughtpolice wrote:

Yea, not at all like the millions of bucks Clinton accepted ...

Unlike the Trump foundation, that Trump used as a personal slush fund, there is nothing to show the Clinton's personally profiting from their foundation. You really seem to have a lot of red herring jump into your boat.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 02556.html
Even if there is wrongdoing by the Clintons, so what? That doesn't excuse wrongdoing that may have been committed by the Orangeutan.

I'm pretty sure there's nothing illegal with the Clinton foundation. Clinton is a sharp lawyer after all, she knows how to cover her tracks so that any Pay for Play transaction is done without directly violating any US law.

Anyway you're right, the "whataboutery" is irritatingly out of place. The best argument that Trump supporters seem to have is "he's not Hillary Clinton", which isn't really that much.