Monday 24 October 2016
Terror in Europe
Last week Frontline televised a special on the various terror attacks in Europe. Obviously we are all concerned that such attacks can happen, anywhere. We have had our share as well. It doesn't hurt to examine the circumstances under which they have occurred. As free societies we have unique problems in dealing with such things, because we hope to maintain open, all inclusive forms of governments, and lifestyles. We shouldn't lose who we are in our search for solutions. If you haven't seen the special it is worth watching.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
211 comments:
1 – 200 of 211 Newer› Newest»George Friedman usually writes in Stratfor, but this time it's GeoPoliticalFutures.
Friedman gives us his take on Russia for the next decade or so. His conclusion: They're screwed.
(I did spot one popular error: Friedman repeated the CW faerie tale about how Ronald Regan forced the Soviet Union into an arms race it couldn't afford. That's a popular BS story that serves the interests of too many people to ever die. Truth is: The Soviet Union never tried to compete with Regan's arms buildup. They were already out of money. So, they didn't even try to keep up. Regan just blew that money, but nobody wants to admit that.)
I always thought the Soviet Union shot itself in the foot when it invaded Afghanistan. Hmmm...that sounds familiar.
I'll have to check out the article later...
…Reagan…
Regan was Reagan's Chief of Staff.
Lee: "Friedman ... Russia ... They're screwed.
What else is new? He's been saying that for close to a decade now. If you wanna make a point get a source that's not so addicted to his own beliefs.
Lynnette: "I always thought the Soviet Union shot itself in the foot when it invaded Afghanistan. Hmmm...that sounds familiar."
The Soviet Union was doomed long before that. Because it was a communist Empire enforcing its will on reluctant subjects. And it had an economic model where beruacrats decided production quotas and people were mere serfs. It was doomed from the get go and only survived as long as it did through fear and repression. And being an Empire it was expansionist - it wanted to draw in or invade further lands and serfs.
Now, Russia has some of those faults, but not all of them. I'd say that Russia today has one problem that looms over all: corruption. It COULD be a great place to invest and do business but it isn't because rights of ownership aren't solid, and the legal system is apt to be bought or bullied off.
But to compare it with the Soviet Union is folly. The underlying agenda is just not the same.
Michael Moore: Trump getting elected will be the biggest F-Y to the establishment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pADHLsECWxY&feature=youtu.be
As I said before. The "bring it all down" vote. It's potent.
Ya'll seriously overestimate normal polls.
"He's been saying that for close to a decade now."
I'm pretty sure you've not been following him for a decade now. I remember you asking about whether or not I subscribed to Stratfor when you first discovered that publication.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"The underlying agenda is just not the same."
Actually, the underlying agenda is exactly the same. Empire, domination of its ‘near abroad’ at a minimum, and as much further abroad as they can manage. They've dumped the communist philosophy, but their commitment to that philosophy was always questionable. So, the purported justification may have changed, but the agenda remains the same.
"Ya'll seriously overestimate normal polls."
I'll be listening for your explanations for how you managed to ignore what I've been tellin’ ya, and follow the idiots instead in about 15 days.
Lee: "I'm pretty sure you've not been following him for a decade now."
I have been. He's a regular on NYT which I happen to have sorta followed for way more than a decade. Friedman on Russia is not credible.
It's like asking Ted Cruz on abortions and putting his opinions up as TRUTH on the matter.
"He's a regular on NYT which I happen to have sorta followed for way
more than a decade."
I stand corrected then. We'll just have to disagree about his credibility then. The downfall of Putin's Russia if they don't change their ways has been clear for years now. (Rather too later for them to change now.) Friedman may have seen it coming earlier than most.
@ Lynnette,
Ready for the election to be over? Be Careful What You Wish For. We may be in for gridlock on a scale heretofore unseen. (Obviously, one might pray for a Democratic House of Representatives, but that's not real likely to happen.)
One of Hillary's problems was connecting to millennials who supported Bernie Sanders. One of Trump's problems is that his "such a nasty woman" interjection in that last debate may have helped with Hillary's problem.
I am thinking that some of those male Trump supporters aren't really aware that their wives are Hillary supporters.
We'll see how correct the polls were.
"…some of those male Trump supporters aren't really aware that their
wives are Hillary supporters."
Seems to be a lot of that goin’ on.
It’s also why, if the Senate remains Republican, President Clinton is likely to see just about all of her judicial nominations filed away in deep storage. Indeed, Arizona Sen. John McCain already promised as much, before stepping back from that position.
Why did McCain reverse himself?
And all of those moderate Republican Senators who are supposedly destined to lose their seats...who to?
I'd say that Russia today has one problem that looms over all: corruption.
Eventually that will be its undoing, especially if it is orchestrated from the top.
"And all of those moderate Republican Senators who are supposedly
destined to lose their seats...who to?"
It's shaping up to be a favorable year for Democrats in the Senate. Survivors who compromise with those incoming Democrats can look forward to getting ‘primaried’ from their right wing next time around.
I ran across a quote I found amusing; it's actually better on its own than as part of the article it came from, but I suppose I owe it to the author to include the link anyway.
"I am starting to think Trump’s election strategy involves getting all
Democrats to die of schadenfreude before casting their votes."
Salon
Oh no, there are other prize quotes in that article, Lee.
This:
I can personally testify that Republican women have, for years, fended off accusations from the Democrats of the party’s allegedly anti-woman beliefs. What did we get for it? The nomination — by way of a largely older, male voting base — of a brazen and unapologetic misogynist. […]
Why didn’t you defend women from this raging sexist especially after so many Republican women — for so many years — eagerly defended the party from charges of sexism? You must make us out for fools.
And this one is just classic:
In the more immediate short term, however, the GOP embrace of this misogynistic bottle of spray tan looks likely to cost the party, uh, bigly.
lol! "bottle of spray tan" Perfect.
But that article really does have a point. There is a gender gap in this election. For a lot of women out there this is shaping up to be a question of what do the men in their own lives really think of women? Their lending support to someone like Trump may be illuminating for many.
Two earthquakes in Italy.
A second powerful earthquake struck central Italy near Perugia, the US Geological Survey said Wednesday. The epicenter of the magnitude-6.0 quake was 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) from Visso and 58 km (36 miles) from Perugia, the USGS reported. Just a few hours earlier, a magnitude-5.5 temblor struck the same region.
"Why did McCain reverse himself?"
I passed that up on the grounds it was probably a rhetorical question, being as McCain's running for re-election against what's shaping up as a fairly strong Democratic challenge this year. But, now there's this to go along with it.
"In a vintage return to his confrontational style, Sen. Ted Cruz
indicated that Republicans could seek to block a Democratic president
from filling the vacant Supreme Court seat indefinitely."
Politico.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Well, I guess this is one way to look at it…
"Conservative politicians and media personalities are stuck in a
double bind now, where they are too afraid of comeuppance to tell
their audience the truth."
NYMagOnline
But, like the author, I think we're just gonna havta live with these clowns going forward. On the brighter side, they're already a minority, too small to get Trump elected, and they're dying off at an accellerating rate. The author doesn't seem to mention that part.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"…some of those male Trump supporters aren't really aware that their
wives are Hillary supporters."
RCP Might wanna look ‘bout quarter-third maybe of the way down where they get to the North Carolina couples.
A few weeks ago I noticed a review of a science article (astrophysics) which called into question the existence of ‘dark matter’ with the observation that there seemed to be an exact correlation between the amount of normal matter in a galaxy to the rotation speed of that galaxy (the rotational speed of galaxies was what caused physicists to theorize up ‘dark matter’ to begin with). Since rotation speed seemed to be somehow tied to normal matter, then it would appear that whatever was missing was an explanation involving normal matter, not the imagined up ‘dark matter’.
Now two astrophysicist types have come up with an explanation that ‘saves’ the dark matter hypothesis. They simply find a method by which normal matter impacts the imagined up ‘dark matter’. Forbes.com I.e. they assume that the explanation nobody could think of is that the normal matter works on the dark matter via a ’positive feedback loop’ and this produces the effect they were attributing to ‘dark matter’ all along. The physicist who wrote the article is obviously delighted that ‘dark matter’ has been saved.
Except, it seems to this layman finding a way to save the ‘dark matter’ theory wasn't the point of the theory in the first place. In fact, I'm pretty sure that didn't come up with the theory of ‘dark matter’ just so they could have a theory to save when it got attacked. That wasn't the original point of coming up with the theory in the first place. But, he's got his priorities I guess. The rest of us may perhaps remain dubious of this new effort to save ‘dark matter’. Maybe they're right, but then again, they seem to be pursuing the wrong goal.
I may be the only one here who follows that sort of stuff ↑↑, but ya never know…
Hiding from ISIS
The small dorm room in Kirkuk, with gray-speckled terrazzo floors and wooden cots, was home to Monaly Najeeb and six other Christian women after ISIS took hold in Mosul and they were forced to abandon college.
They restarted their studies in the Kurdish-controlled city, in that humble room, where they could once again study, pray and even laugh.
The church-run residence for the displaced girls became a sanctuary.
Until one terrifying day last week.
The rest of us may perhaps remain dubious of this new effort to save ‘dark matter’. Maybe they're right, but then again, they seem to be pursuing the wrong goal.
Aren't there such things as research grants?
Dark matter may really exist, or maybe not. I will let those more knowledgeable on the subject speculate as to motives.
Asked how he and his wife would resolve their different views going forward, he replied, “We’re adults. We don’t cross a line.”
From Lee's Real Clear Politics article.
A wise man. I wish more people in the country followed that philosophy.
"I will let those more knowledgeable on the subject speculate as to motives."
I sometimes think that the guys who call themselves ‘theoretical physicists’ get more caught up in defending their comfortable theories than in pursuing the actual physics. I would cite the efforts to save ‘celestial spheres’, ‘phlogiston’, ‘caloric’, ‘luminiferous aether’ and even modern string theory as examples.
Physicists have been diligently searching for ‘dark matter’ for around four decades now. In spite of it being supposedly so much more prevalent in our universe than the normal matter we know about, they've yet to find a single iota of the stuff. Seems like there may be a hint in there somewhere.
It appears that many Republican partisans have come to believe in a ‘shy’ Trump vote that's lurking just outside of the polling numbers. Politico.com Marcus should be pleased (at least until the votes come in and he, and these optimistic Republicans, get disabused of their fantasies).
And you'll get a nasty surprise.
"And an Iowa Democrat suggested: “I think polls underestimate Clinton's strength because of the married women who tell their husbands they are for Trump to keep the peace.”"
Much more likely to be the other way around. Husband not openly voicing his intent to vote Trump to keep the peace at home.
Lynnettes' comment above illustrates that fairly well:
"For a lot of women out there this is shaping up to be a question of what do the men in their own lives really think of women? Their lending support to someone like Trump may be illuminating for many."
If you're a man and you want to vote for Trump because of trade, the wall or any other issue but your wife is completely pissed off at him because of some gender issue the media has blown way out of proportion, then you just shut up about it, maybe even say you're for Hillary, and wait until election day when you're alone in the voting booth - for the sake of peace at home.
"“He doesn't understand policy, he doesn't care about policy, and he's not a conservative,” a Virginia Republican added. “So you just handed a one-year-old an iPhone. He'll try to push the buttons but not in any manner that makes sense or works.”"
Funny then how Trump crushed all competition in the primaries and has again and again beat expectations so far. I'd say he knows pretty well which buttons to push and that it's worked pretty well so far.
BTW: That "you can grab them by the pussy"-remark was:
1. Said 10 years before Trump ran for office.
2. Guy banter, or "locker room talk", that really is something most red blooded males get into (and for that matter women are just as naughty when they think they are not overheard).
3. TRUE! It's absolutely fucking true that very rich and famous men can get away with stuff towards women (not ALL women, but women who are drawn to those men) that most men couldn't. Ask any Rock Star out there. You think Axl Rose in his prime couldn't have grabbed women by the pussy and not only would they not have been offended they would have fainted by excitment and bragged about it afterwards. Fact!
It's an absolute non-issue, and the media is only covering it and pushing it based on agenda and to steer the discurse away from the very REAL issues revealed by crooked Hillarys' E-mails at about the same time.
In my mind Trump is an OK guy. He's got a divorce or a few but that happens to a lot of people. His kids seem to like him so he must have been an OK father. His young "thophy wife", well that's pretty standard with the uber-rich and she's not too young for that to be a big deal and she does seem to actually love him and support him wholeheartedly.
Whereas Hillary throws tantrums and beats up on her cheating husband in the White House when he's been fucking whores and interns and before that raping women; but she still enables him and sticks with him on account of her very own hunger for political power. She knew that tossing the rapist out of the marital bed she herself could never rebound and get into any high office.
In that sense Hillary does sorta deserve the Oval Office - she's put up with more than any other to get there.
The FBI has just this afternoon announced that they have found more e-mails from the Clinton ‘home’ server that appear to be ‘pertinant’ to their investigation of Hillary Clinton, and they are reviewing them to see if they contain anything that would change their earlier conclusion that no prosecution was warranted.
The e-mails were discovered in the course of an unrelated investigation on ‘another device’.
In short, the case against Hillary has been re-opened for new evidence, but there's no indication that Hillary or her people were concealing the evidence. And there's no indication the ‘new evidence’ amounts to anything except some more e-mails that may amount to no more than all the others they've already seen. But, it is really bad timing for Hillary here--no time to clear her name I'd reckon, so this'll probably be still hanging when the election is held. (And, always the possibility that there'll be something prosecutable in the new e-mails--maybe not likely, but possible.)
Sean Hannity is having an on-air orgasm as I write this.
Oh, yeah, forgot. Need to provide a link
Lee: "And there's no indication the ‘new evidence’ amounts to anything except some more e-mails that may amount to no more than all the others they've already seen."
No of course. She deleting 33.000 emails and smashing up iPhones by hammer and doing expensive "acid washing" of the hard drives those 33.000 emails were on just as soon as she got a whiff of an investigation into the matter - that does show how truthful she is.
I mean, deleting 33.000 emails in no way whatsoever implies that there was anything in those emails she didn't want to be found out. Right?
Hillary is good!
Hillary is genuine!
Hillary is our gal!
When Hillary starts WW3 we are all behind her!
Right?
"She deleting 33.000 emails and smashing up iPhones by hammer
and doing expensive ‘acid washing’ of the hard drives those 33.000
emails were on just as soon as she got a whiff of an investigation into
the matter - that does show how truthful she is."
I delete my e-mails, on a regular routine basis, and I see to it that they are regularly cleared off of the server's computers too (to the extent I can control that). I destroy my used hard drives when done with them--usually involves a power drill and a propane torch rather than a hammer, but I've been known to hammer them. And the "expensive ‘acid washing’ of the hard drives" actually amounted to using a program called "BleachBits", which you can download for free. I don't use that one, but I do have a competitor's product which I use routinely.
Seems they were investigating Anthony Weiner (probably for some sexual malfeasance related to that 15 year old girl he'd been sexting) and they found some Clinton server e-mails on his devices that they'd not seen before--likelihood it has anything to do with Hillary is slim, probably some e-mails from his wife, Huma Abiden, who worked for Hillary Clinton and used that server too.
Sean Hannity is not dismayed though; he's just sure there's some meat to this on account of he wants it almost as much as Marcus.
- We would like to see those emails you, against protocol, stored on a private server.
- Wait a minute, I do what I want!
- No you don't Hillay, there ARE laws, now give us them emails.
- Oops, them there maily-thingies got deleted somehow. Not my fault, I'm just a strong woman in this here Patriarchy and even if I'm white then asking furter questions into this matter might be racist indeed.
- Right you are ´mam, racist or anti women is our main concern here, forget about them emails.
Lee: "I delete..blah, blah, blah,, shilling for Hillary, blahdiblah"
You don't see a problem with a high end State Official first of all using a private email server and only erasig the content once it got domestically politically risky?
"No you don't Hillay, there ARE laws, now give us them emails."
You are apparently unaware (most people are): If Hillary had kept her e-mails on a .gov server, owned by the government, it would have been her job to review her e-mails at the end of her employment and decide which were government e-mails and which were private e-mails, and she'd have then she'd have marked the government e-mails to be kept, and then deleted the private e-mails. It is the employee's responsibility to make the determination. Most folks don't seem to know that.
"You don't see a problem with a high end State Official first of
all using a private email server and only erasig the content once it got
domestically politically risky?"
Problem I see is that it is sloppy work. Should have been cleaned up as soon as she went back into private citizen status.
"…..blah, blah, blah,, shilling for Hillary, blahdiblah"
Yeah, well, Wiener is under investigation for maybe corrupting a minor, and Huma Abiden is his wife, and she did use the Clinton private server. You can call me a shill if you like, but those are facts.
Lee: "I delete my e-mails, on a regular routine basis, and I see to it that they are regularly cleared off of the server's computers too (to the extent I can control that)."
First of all, good work, but they're still retreivable (not that I imagine YOU nor I have ever penned together mails that anyone will bother with). Second Hillay never did that. She only stared to delete when she got found out.
Bitch almost got caught. Might still get caught. Wikileaks might still go nuclear on her ass in a way her bought and controlled media just cannot shield her from.
We'll see.
"Wikileaks might still go nuclear on her ass…"
Possible, but unlikely, Jullian Assange is not known for strong impulse control (hence those pending rape charges in Sweden). He hates Hillary for personal reasons (well, he thinks they're personal reasons anyway, but he's got an ego problem). If he had something real he'd have put it out there already, no impulse control.
"…but they're still retreivable…"
I think that depends on which server I use.
Trump is telling us the newly reopened FBI investigation is "bigger than Watergate". The FBI is saying they don't know if the new e-mails are ‘significant’, but they're lookin’ into it. Seems there's a difference of opinion there.
I'm guessing Marcus agrees with Trump.
Trump's got a new gropee accuser, former Ms. Finland; that makes an even dozen, so far.
Lee:
"Jullian Assange is not known for strong impulse control (hence those pending rape charges in Sweden)"
No he never should have had volontary sex with those two outspoken feminists who threw themselves at him because he was considered to be a "leftist hero" and then got jealous and rape-accused him.
Matter of fact: fucking outspoken "feminists" ought to be a no-no for any sane man, lest you end up in a legal bind.
If you do so in a country that aspires to be of the highest "human rights" on the planet but that will still render you to the USA for prolonged torture, then fleeing to a third world ebmassy might be the only option.
Assange took that option.
Lee:
"Trump's got a new gropee accuser, former Ms. Finland; that makes an even dozen, so far."
Heresay. Clinton on the other hand is ON RECORD shoving a cigar into the vagina of his intern in the Oval Office and then smoking it as she "smoked" him. And Hillary's been his staunch defender throughout the years.
So don't even go there. Right?
If Jullian Assange had adequate impulse control. He wouldn't have laid out all those teases about having stuff that'd ‘break’ Hillary and her campaign before the Russians actually came across with the stuff. When they stiffed him on that it made him look foolish.
"Heresay"
I believe you need to look a little deeper into what is and what is not ‘heresay’. You seem to be somewhat misinformed on that subject.
(However, I'd been wondering how the right-wingers were spinning Julian Assange these days--Marcus' reactions give us some indications.)
I'm listening to Sean Hannity getting orgasmic over the new e-mails and it occurs to me that if FBI Director James Comey was thinking that he'd get any slack from the right-wingers over this disclosure of a re-opening of the Clinton investigation then he was sorely mistaken. They're never gonna forgive him for not recommending prosecution the first time--ain't gonna happen that they ever cut him any slack, no matter how irregular it is for him to have announced this re-opening of the investigation.
@ Lynnette,
Hard to say for sure this early, but, given 11 days yet to the election, I'm thinking this is turning out to be the sort of thing Hillary can recover from. If it turns out as it looks to be now, then I'm guessin’ folks'll be discounting it pretty heavily by Monday or Tuesday.
I been thinkin’: It is kinda odd that Marcus is so cavalier about Trump's molesting women, when he was so eager before to define molestations upwards as to the equivalent of rapes (which he supposedly despises on principle).
The only difference I can make out is that Putin likes Trump, but Putin doesn't like Muslims.
Later news is that the investigation wasn't reopened on account of it wasn't technically a closed case before this came up. Had a few i's yet to dot and t's yet to cross, so this doesn't qualify as re-opening the investigation. Just FBI guy making news on account of nobody knows why.
After reading some of Marcus' earlier comments I did start to wonder about the discrepancy in his views. Apparently it's okay for a (supposedly) rich old white man to espouse the idea that forcing a woman is just a boys will be boys type of thing, but it's not okay for a young male immigrant who was raised in a more rigid gender role country.
While I have agreed with some of Marcus' statements in the past on some issues I don't believe I do on this.
That Putin is trying to interfere in our elections also does seem to be the case.
I will be glad when this election is over with. Even more so than any other that I have participated in, in the past.
I still cannot believe that there are so many people out there who would actually contemplate voting for a person like Trump. Even without his inexperience in government just the idea of having to listen to him speak for the next four years should be a deal breaker. He makes both our recent presidents, Bush and Obama, look like geniuses.
"I will be glad when this election is over with."
Perhaps you should consider Newt Gingrich and his prediction that it'll never be over. The Donald will just keep comin’ back for more.
Inside the tunnels of Mosul
Information filters out of Mosul in brief calls, smuggled messages and first-hand accounts from escapees. It's fragmentary and anecdotal, but a clear picture is emerging: ISIS leaders are preparing both for fierce battles and their own escape.
There are also stirrings of civilian resistance as conditions for the population become ever more intolerable.
It can take several hours of phone calls to get a few scraps of information on poor connections, sometimes against a background of explosions. People are terrified of being caught with cell phones. ISIS has announced that anyone found with a phone will be summarily executed.
But still, a courageous few take the risk to tell the outside world what is happening inside Mosul.
“The challenge for everybody’s going to be, 'What if he gets 48 or 49 percent?’” Gingrich said in a video interview for POLITICO’s “Open Mike” series. “And what if he says: ‘You know, I like this campaign and stuff. I ain’t leaving’? There will then be a Trump Party.”
My guess would be a no. Trump has been very good at cutting his losses in his business deals and leaving his backers holding the bag. I think it will be no different in politics if he loses. Unless, of course, he can get his silent supporter in this endeavor to pony up some under the table cash. But my guess is that wouldn't happen either, because he is rather stretched with all of his foreign adventures.
*sigh*
Gotta go pick up some more leaves before the rain comes. It's like they never end...
Now's when we find out if Hillary's been sitting on a bunch of oppo data on Mr. Trump (as some suspect). This'd be the time to do a data dump on him if she's got stuff still in reserve.
Lee: "It is kinda odd that Marcus is so cavalier about Trump's molesting women"
Because I've seen zero proof that Trump has ever molested a woman. Give me ONE clear cut and proven example. I hate sex-crime and rape above almost all else, as you know from before. That also means I find untrue allegations of sex-crimes a big deal, because they are so damning.
Trump saying that if you're rich and successful women will let you grab 'em by the pussy is NOT a sex crime. Not even close. It's a mostly true observation and while crude it was meant to reach a limited audience in a private conversation.
Lynnette: "Apparently it's okay for a (supposedly) rich old white man to espouse the idea that forcing a woman is just a boys will be boys type of thing"
Where did you get that from? I never said anything along those lines at all.
Trumps comment was:
"... they will let you grab them by the pussy."
Key: LET YOU
Not FORCE, lynnette. LET YOU. As in allow you to.
He's speaking about women who are so turned on by money, fame and power they will sexually sell out to moneied, famous and powerful men. You cannot be so naive to believe a guy like Trump or any other bigshot hasn't come across thousands and thousands of those women, now can you?
And he apparently shared that in a private discussion with another guy. Big deal.
It's just you drinking the mass-media Coolaid that tries to turn this into a woman hating thing, while in reality it's a completely harmless and frankly normal thing.
You've got the money? You get girls. You've got the looks? You get girls. You've got fame? You get girls.
How is that anything either new or disgraceful?
"Because I've seen zero proof that Trump has ever molested a woman."
That's because you're getting the information online. They're not gonna ship the proof to you, so you're never gonna actually see it. (Course this applies equally to the molestation reports you tried to trump up (no pun intended) into rape charges when it was Muslim men making the ass grabbings.)
It does take a certain kind of cucked Culture Relativist shrinkdick to equate the Great Donald making a few manly jokes with hordes of moslem men portraying themselves as needy children while sexually attacking and raping white women in the streets of Europe.
I do wonder how you can look in any mirror and live with yourself, Lee. Well, maybe you just look forward to the next unneccecary wars you get to commet on, if your preferred candidate wins.
"…to equate the Great Donald making a few manly jokes…"
Yeah, well, I wasn't talkin’ ‘bout his ‘manly jokes’. I's talkin’ ‘bout him thinkin’ he could just grab ‘em and handle ‘em without their permission, without even asking for their permission (and without any indication they's willing--that ‘permission’ thing can be tricky to interpret at times, but we're not talkin’ ‘bout misunderstandings here). And, yeah, I do equate that with the Muslim men also grabbing and handling women without their permission. Pretty much the same thing. ‘Cept you don't see it that way on account of one guy is a boorish, rich white guy, and the other guy is a boorish not-rich Muslim guy.
Well, whether you see it or not--it's the same thing. (And I'm not talkin’ ‘bout the real rapes here--just the maulings that you try to pretend are rapes when they're not, on account of the victims are white Swedish girls and the offenders are brown Muslim young men.)
Idiot. You don't see the difference by a Rock Star grabbing a willing (so willing she's leaving a snail trail after her on her way back from the concert) girl; to a girl on her way home after work sexually attacked by 12 Hazars from the deserts in northern Afghanistan? Moron. Dope. Idiot. Hateful ethno-masochist.
"You don't see the difference by a Rock Star grabbing a willing…girl…"
Trump ain't no rock star, and the women weren't willing. The willing ones (assuming such) presumably haven't come out to accuse him.
However, you are going for the wrong defense. Trump doesn't claim he was entitled (that's your argument--not his). He claims it never happened.
So, you need to argue that he's more believable on account of he's a rich white guy. Need to get your arguments in order here if you're gonna defend him.
Funny them accusations came about right about now. They'
re still heresay. Nothing proven. Whereas Bill Clinton shoving a Cigar up into Monica's pussy and then smoking it in the Oval Offife while she sucked on his dick - that's a fact. Proven fact. And he raped other women as well. And Hillary, well she fucked him up over it privately, maybe, but did NOTHING in aid of those women.
Most likely because she had Huma with her face in her crotch in order to further Islamic teachings in the USA. Guesswork though.
"…re still heresay."
Still not hearsay. You really ought to look that up. It doesn't mean ‘stuff I don't wanna hear’, which seems to be your definition for it.
Lee: "So, you need to argue that he's more believable on account of he's a rich white guy. Need to get your arguments in order here if you're gonna defend him."
I don't need to do ´nuthin´. Trump is an egotistical person and a mediocre buissnessman, but he IS a great showman.
Hillary on the other hand is a hateful, spiteful haggard who is very much in love with herself and apt to actually start WW3.
I'll go with the showman, and hope the deep state will rein him in.
"I'll go with the showman, and hope the deep state will rein him in."
Ah, so you are hoping Trump wins in spite of your claims otherwise in public (when you're calm enough to remember to deny it in public). Well that does explain your otherwise inexplicable insistence that there's a bunch of ‘shy’ Trump voters out there (there ain't, but we'll have that discussion in more detail after 8 November 2016).
(In fact, I kinda suspect that there's a certain contingent of Trump supporters who're gonna have second thoughts when it comes time to pull the lever for him. It's one thing to swear and shake your fist at ‘the system’ and quite another to actually vote for a totally unqualified fascist, just ‘cause you're pissed. I think there's a percentage of self-proclaimed Trump voters who'll not be able to go through with it. The tendency to hide being a right-wing crazy is probably more prevalent in Sweden than it is over here.)
Lee:"Trump ain't no rock star, and the women weren't willing."
Fuck yeah he is, and fuck yeah they probably were.
The Trumpinator has obviously aroused women long before this political phace, and he's had fame and he's had money, and while not looking like Leo Di Caprio he's still a decent looking guy. So obviously women have been throwing themselves at him. For decades. Might just as well be that the now accusers are slighted wannabe Trumpistas.
That you're a shrinkdicked loser in the dating world and have come to hope that "values" and "respect" is what turns women on, don't let that fool you into thinking that's reality.
"That you're a shrinkdicked loser in the dating world…"
You might as well have just run up the white flag.
Lee: "Ah, so you are hoping Trump wins in spite of your claims otherwise in public (when you're calm enough to remember to deny it in public)."
I'm about 50-50 on it. He's an idiot and she's an evil bitch. A choice between plague and cholera, a we say.
If I were an american I would be 100% Trump.
But your wall there doesnt help us buiod our wall here.
I just don't give a shit but am gonna make this election into furthering right wing ideas in Europe regardless of the outcome.
By the way, it's come out that neither the White House nor the Clinton campaign were given advance notice of FBI Director James Comey's letter to Republican leaders in the House regarding the ‘new’ e-mails (which, by the way, apparently weren't even off of the Clinton home server after all). If they weren't off of Hillary's ‘home’ server then their connection with the investigation of that server seems rather tenuous. And the fact that Comey notified the Republicans in the House, but didn't notify his boss (nor the ‘target’) is highly unusual; normally he'd give both a ‘heads up’ before dropping a political bomb on them. Somethin’ seems weird and out of place here.
"I just don't give a shit…"
That's what you say when you remember to say it. When you get worked up you say otherwise.
Here in The States the right-wing crazies don't have to hide their true inclinations the way you have learned to do. Which is why there's no ‘shy’ Trump voters out there. Right-winger Swedes can't vote for him, and his American supporters don't hide the fact.
"I just don't give a shit…"
And, just for the record, I recognize that as bullshit. You ain't foolin’ nobody.
You would rather have a female President and a tiny proportion of women get access to high office, while thousands of women are raped by moslem men, right?
Google Roterham where cucked lowlife nogoodfornothnings disregarded a long running sextrade where moslem men sold and raped and sold white young girls.
Enabled by people JUST LIKE YOU. Traitors.
Anyone know of a company that makes piano wire? I just foresee an increase in the demand for piano wire. And I'd like to invest.
"You would rather have…[and etc.]"
You have ceased to make sense entirely. That whole thing is a massive non-sequitur.
Quaere: Are all Swedes as bad at holding their liquor as you are? Or are you a special case?
The more I read on the military movements around Mosul, and even Raqqah, the more I begin to believe that the Iraqi (with Iranian support) and even the Obama administration, have come to the conclusion that now is the time, and the Syrian/Iraqi border country is the place, to brush back Erdoğan and the Turkish government. I'll be keepin’ a special watch on that as they move on to Raqqah.
Bit more follow-up on FBI Director James Comey's letter to the Congress: It seems that DoJ Secretary Lorretta Lynch was aware that they'd found e-mails on Anthony Wiener's computer. But, the e-mails they found were not from Hillary Clinton, nor were they routed through Hillary's ‘home’ server. As such, they don't seem to be very much related to the FBI investigation of Hillary's e-mail practices.
So, Secretary Lynch told FBI Director Comey to not inform the Republicans until they'd looked into the matter a little deeper, and figured out whether these e-mails had anything to do with the prior investigations, and, if so, what.
It seems Comey ignored those instructions (although, technically he supposedly reports to her; supposedly she's his boss), and sent the letter to the Republicans in Congress without telling her that he was defying her instructions. Bloomberg
This is gettin’ weirder by the day.
He's an idiot and she's an evil bitch.
An idiot? Yet you are forever telling us how smart he is to have come this far.
An evil bitch? For what? Being a woman who actually has the chance to become President of the United States?
As for Trump being able to "get" women because he is wealthy or famous, yes I am sure there are enough shallow, materialistic women out there who would be thrilled to allow themselves to be "got" by such a man. However, that does not give him licence to force himself on anyone who is unwilling, which is what he was describing in that tape. If people were willing to try to impeach Bill Clinton electing Trump seems to be rather hypocritical.
As for Hillary starting WWIII I think just the opposite. She has the foreign affairs knowledge that would help us steer clear of the riskier entanglements. Yes, I understand she has advocated for our involvement in Syria, but I doubt it would be beyond what Obama has already done. No, if there is anyone who is really at risk of starting WWIII it is Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It further appears that the Clinton campaign has had about enough of Director Comey's unusual departures from protocol. They're fixin’ to start sayin’ bad things ‘bout him if he don't come up with an explanation for what the hell he's up to, and real soon. Politico.com He's already pissed off the Republicans; he can't afford to have the Democrats on his case too.
What he's doin’ makes no sense to me.
This is gettin’ weirder by the day.
That does appear to be the case.
"No, if there is anyone who is really at risk of starting WWIII it is
Russian President Vladimir Putin."
I'd say that Trump constitutes an even greater danger than Putin. Trump doesn't know what he's doing, he's basically clueless about international affairs; he doesn't know how to back down, and he is entirely unpredictable and apt to ‘corner’ an adversary when it's not wise to do so.
What the undecideds are thinking
With policy considerations seemingly at such a remove from the national discussion, they saw the election as part of a broader cultural malaise. Terry Ragsdale, a 62-year-old IT worker, saw the country as still unable to grapple with the negative events that began with 9/11. “Osama did what he sought to do”—sending the country into disarray—“and we’ve never quite recovered.” Several, including Burak, 35-year-old welding technician Jon Johnson, and 47-year old banking analyst Sabrina Tucker, were deeply worried about Facebook, Twitter, and other social media tearing apart the social and political fabric of the republic. When Hart asked whether the next generation would be better off than the previous, no hands went up.
I'd say that Trump constitutes an even greater danger than Putin.
On the US side, if elected, yes. I went with Putin because he is already in power and traveling down an dangerous path.
"an" should be "a"
"…if elected…"
Well, yeah, there is that.
Had an overnight thought…. I'm wonderin’ if Marcus’ attitudes explain why Sweden has such a low prosecution rate for sex crimes committed by blond Swedish males?
Another large earthquake (6.6 magnitude) in central Italy, where the earlier quakes occurred.
Hillary tops Trump by 2% points in a new poll, taken before the email thing came along.
*sigh*
I don't want to live in a country that would elect a Donald Trump. That's not my America. That guy represents the worst of us.
Remember to watch the averages at this point, not swing with every new poll. RCP averages are 4.3% and 3.4% (two-way and four-way respectively). Trump's not gonna win. He's probably not gonna get within 4.3%.
Lynnette:
"An idiot? Yet you are forever telling us how smart he is to have come this far."
Dude's a moron completely in love with himself, but he does know marketing and he does that well. And in any case he's speaking to an audience that's not too bright.
"An evil bitch? For what? Being a woman who actually has the chance to become President of the United States?"
Not for being woman of course. You went there straight away, showing YOUR colours Lynnette. I hold several woman very high in regard and Marine Le Pen higher than all - possibly challenged by Marion Le Pen who WILL be president in France in a not too distant future. Maybe co-ruling with Ivanka Trump across the pond even, that would be just great!
Hillary though. A liar, a crook, a ladder-climber within a bought system, a future war-criminal. No thanks!
Lee: "Had an overnight thought…. I'm wonderin’ if Marcus’ attitudes explain why Sweden has such a low prosecution rate for sex crimes committed by blond Swedish males?"
No, the reason for that is there aren't any women left for us to rape because the browns have already gangraped 'em all and we don't like second servings. Plus, white men do not do gangrape to begin with, in case you hadn't noticed. It's a thing almost soleley popular with pigment-handicapped dudes. So sorry - you can dream all you like but reality just won't change Lee.
Plus: I'll ROTFLMAO wn Trump Totally wnz an all. Juz cauz yall so in bed wid dat bitch, LOL.
Lee: "Remember to watch the averages at this point, not swing with every new poll. RCP averages are 4.3% and 3.4% (two-way and four-way respectively). Trump's not gonna win. He's probably not gonna get within 4.3%. "
Polls, scmolls. The Great Leader is probably way ahead at this point. The polls are as crooked as Hillary. You're gonna have to work real hard come day after election day to explain how Trump won inn a landslide.
"No, the reason for that is…"
You may be unaware, but that was not a real convincing denial. It absolutely reeks of exactly that sort of sexism that would natuarlly lead to low prosecution rates for sexual crimes by blond white guys.
I'll just leave the typo.
"You're gonna have to work real hard come day after election day to
explain how Trump won inn a landslide."
Yeah, right. We'll get back to that on the morning of the 9th, or as soon thereafter as you're willing to show your embarrassed face.
Here's a tidbit that would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. The FBI is still trying to get a warrant to read Huma Abedin's e-mails on that laptop. They haven't even seen them yet--got no friggin’ clue if they're pertinent to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's home server, or not, in spite of Director Comey's assertion that they were.
I have no friggin’ clue what he thinks he was doin’ there.
Mort Zuckerman does a fairly competent and complet take-down of Donald Trump. (Zuckerman's a Republican.)
Gonna leave that typo too.
It seems that Director Comey has known about this laptop and about the fact that it had some of Huma Abedin's e-mails on it since at least early September.
For some reason he never sought a warrant to let him look at the e-mails nor did he reveal that he even had this stuff in his hands until right on the eve of the election. I find this inexplicable.
This story is getting weirder and weirder.
In the ‘weirder and weirder’ vein on the recently renewed e-mail ‘scandal’… It now appears (I got this off of FoxNews on-air) that Anthony Wiener voluntarily surrendered the laptop in question to the FBI. That means they didn't need a warrant to look at those e-mails. But, they still haven't looked at the e-mails, but Director Comey has gone public with statements on the subject anyway. I have no clue what that sucker's thinkin’. This is just too weird.
Harry Reid has taken an open shot at Director Comey. Politico.com He's not shy ‘bout this sort of thing.
So, one day my leaves will be done, I'm sure.
Here's an interview with General Votel, who is running the war against Daesh. It's an interesting read.
As US-backed Iraqi forces move closer to wresting control of Mosul from ISIS, plans are already underway for striking the heart of the terrorist group's would-be "caliphate," the Syrian city of Raqqa.
Both cities are the major objectives in a new and largely untested kind of American military strategy to defeat ISIS' terrorist army in the Middle East. Rather than commit substantial land forces, the United States is providing Special Forces, intelligence resources and substantial air power to Iraqi and Syrian fighters on the ground.
The last time the United States used this approach in a substantial manner was a decade and half ago in Afghanistan, where a similar combination of US Special Forces working with their Afghan allies on the ground combined with large-scale American airpower led to the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the months after 9/11.
I have no clue what that sucker's thinkin’. This is just too weird.
In learning that the FBI knew about these emails for over a month I too have to wonder at his timing. I am not usually one to be overly concerned with political maneuvering, but this does seem odd for what is supposed to be a neutral law enforcement agency.
Hillary though. A liar, a crook, a ladder-climber within a bought system, a future war-criminal. No thanks!
Please Marcus, all of those things could very well apply to the Donald, judging by his business dealings in the past and his rhetoric during this political campaign.
I understand there are many out there considering protest votes against the status quo of our system. As such they are considering voting for Donald Trump. What they don't seem to realize is that, while he is not a political insider to be sure, he is just as much a part of the system they are railing against. He has spent his entire life attempting to amass a fortune and living large. Do they really think he will be any different if he assumes elected office? Do they really just want to be pawns in his quest for more power?
"Here's an interview with General Votel…"
He's a little vague on just how the attack on Raqqah is gonna go. Probably good reason for that. I've been reading that we've begun setting up for the attack on Raqqah to follow on immediately after Mosul falls, but nobody's agreed upon who is going into Raqqah to take and hold the place (the Turks are adamant that it not be the Kurds--we've apparently not promised them that--may turn out to be a point of some serious contention).
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Please Marcus, all of those things could very well apply to the Donald…"
No shit. Rather more applicable to The Donald. So far as I can recall, Trump is the first and only Presidential candidate ever to have campaigned on the express promise to order the commission of war crimes by our intelligence and military services. That deserves special mention.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Speculation as to what the hell got into FBI Directory James Comey has begun to gel into a theme. There's a hard right wing version, and a ‘more liberal version. There will, no doubt, be further developments along these lines now that some folks have rooted out an explanation for Comey's peculiar behavior of late.
Lee: "That means they didn't need a warrant to look at those e-mails. But, they still haven't looked at the e-mails, but Director Comey has gone public with statements on the subject anyway. I have no clue what that sucker's thinkin’. This is just too weird."
WSJ was hinting at at close to mutiny within parts of the FBI after the Justice Department shut down the investigation last time around. Clearly there are agents wanting to push this forward.
http://archive.is/VpV4I#selection-4975.0-5093.233
(If you haven't already, read the whole thing. Quite interesting)
Lee: "They haven't even seen them yet--got no friggin’ clue if they're pertinent to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's home server, or not"
Supposedly metadata on the files show at least a couple of thousands of those emails have been sent to or from the private server in question.
And wound up on the personal laptop of an absolute security-risk of a sexual deviant, pervert and likely sex-offender.
And you think the FBI should just throw the lid on that? Without bothering to find out if any classified intel is in those emails. Really.
Dough Shoen retracts support for Clinton:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/30/democrat_doug_schoen_is_reconsidering_his_support_for_hillary_clinton_because_of_fbi.html
"As you know, I have been a supporter of Secretary Clinton... But given that this investigation is going to go on for many months after the election... But if the Secretary of State wins, we will have a president under criminal investigation, with Huma Abedin under criminal investigation, with the Secretary of State, the president-elect, should she win under investigation.
Harris, under these circumstances, I am actively reassessing my support"
I have to wonder when the next dirty bomb aimed at Trump will explode. Monday? At the start of the news cycle? Perhaps that's a bit too late to have maximum impact.
Friday then? Closing the week with a Trump scandal so people have that to talk about over the weekend? More likely I think.
Because for sure there must be more. Otherwise the "grab 'em" tape would have been saved for later.
"WSJ was hinting at at close to mutiny within parts of the FBI…"
Radio-Right-Wing has been making the claim straight out, but the WSJ has to protect their reputation, so they only hint at it--making for plausible deniability later. It's beginning to look like Comey's hard cultivated reputation for being ‘non-political’ is merely a mask for him having absolutely no political skills. When put under political pressure he choked and succumbed to the pressure. (Doesn't make it better that the pressure came from below rather than above. Man can't handle his subordinates, ain't a good sign for his continued hold on his job. I'm guessing he's a goner no matter who wins the presidential election; his subordinates have discovered they can roll ‘im.)
"Supposedly metadata on the files show…"
This is the FBI not the NSA. It's not likely they've got the metadata. Much more likely that somebody's just makin’ that stuff up ‘cause it's now 7 days ‘til the election.
"Clearly there are agents wanting to push this forward."
FBI agents tend to be conservatives. There have been agents running rogue investigations of Hillary for many months now, trying to find something to derail her campaign. (They kept coming forward with half-baked cases and half-baked theories, and getting shot down.) They weren't likely to let this go easy. Comey's job to keep ‘em in line, not buckle under to ‘em.
I'm trying to figure out if Anthony Weiner willingly gave the laptop to the FBI to look at (as FoxNews has said), or if the FBI seized the laptop pursuant to a warrant. If it was the former, then they don't need a warrant to look at Huma Abedin's e-mails. If it was the latter, arguably they might need a second warrant--it's a stretch, but it's arguable (that's not the way it's been before; there's the ‘plain sight’rule about these things); but, electronics are a new area of privacy law and they sometimes get real cautious and get warrants they don't actually need when they've already got the electronics in their possession. They can afford to take the time on account of they've already got the electronics in hand--they ain't goin’ nowhere, so….
So far I can't pin that down.
And, given what we know about Comey refusing to discuss what the FBI does or does not know about Trump's connections to the Kremlin, I'm going to be interested in what comes of that investigation after the election. I'm fairly certain Hillary won't push to have the FBI go after Trump for the sake of getting back at Trump. But, there might be something there, and I don't think she'd let Trump walk either.
Lee: "This is the FBI not the NSA. It's not likely they've got the metadata."
You don't seem to know what metadata means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata
It could be file-names, file-size, file-format and any other "data about data". If they have the files then of course they can discern metadata without being the NSA. Obviously the NSA might be able to find out more detailed metadata but that's not the issue here.
I imagine the FBI could just do a search in the email-files for the IP or name of Clintons server and see if they get any hits. If they do then they have have metadata suggesting emails to and/or from that server are among the 650K batch, without having to go through the actual emails and read them.
"You don't seem to know what metadata means."
Rather, I know what ‘search warrant’ means, and I know what the ‘plain sight’ doctrine means. They've no more right (nor any less right) to review or read what you're calling ‘metadata’, and what we usually call the ‘internet headers’ to e-mails, than they do review or read the actual documents themselves. If they're waiting for a warrant, then they have to wait for a warrant, whether it's for the actual file contents, or for the ‘internet headers’ (what you're calling ‘metadata’) on that file, on the computer. If they've gone for the ‘metadata’ on the laptop then they might as well have just opened the file--same evidentiary problems will or will not arise. You may not know this, but the FBI does.
(Snagging the same or similar data off the ISP or the server is another matter entirely.)
"I imagine the FBI could just do a search in the email-files for…"
See, therein lies the problem, the doing the search part. That's closely related to the name ‘search warrant’ which is what we call the paper that gives them permission to do such things with those files; there's a reason for that close name relationship. The FBI will understand this, even if you do not.
I imagine the FBI could just do a search in the email-files for the IP or name of Clintons server and see if they get any hits.
It is highly likely, I am thinking, that many of the emails that are on this server are duplicates of what has already been accessed, just ones that Hillary Clinton sent to Huma Abedin.
I have to say that kids now are very creative in their costume choices. I enjoyed giving out candy last night and seeing the various costumes they were wearing.
I even had a few "Anonymous" door knockers.
Lynnette: "It is highly likely, I am thinking, that many of the emails that are on this server are duplicates of what has already been accessed, just ones that Hillary Clinton sent to Huma Abedin."
Could well be. Could also be copies of some of the deleted ones. Who knows. Probably best to look into them, no? See what's what. In any case, them ending up on the private laptop belonging to disgraced sleazeball Weiner is kinda damning in its own right.
New polls out:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-tied-democratic-enthusiasm-dips/story?id=43199459
"In the latest results, 46 percent of likely voters support Trump, and 45 percent are for Clinton. With the data taken to a decimal place for illustrative purposes, a mere 0.7 of a percentage point divides them."
Looks quite a bit fishy how a 12 point lead got vaporized in a week. Unless that 12 point lead was... rigged?
"In any case, them ending up on the private laptop belonging to
disgraced sleazeball Weiner is kinda damning in its own right."
I'd reckon that depends on what's in them.
And then again, there's the question of whether or not Sleazeball Weiner could even access them--like did he need a password to access her profile on that computer, were the e-mails encrypted?
Did he actually have anything more than the ‘metadata’ on the e-mails; i.e. were the texts actually downloaded onto that computer or is that just a list on there?
So, you may well be jumping to conclusions there.
(Just ‘cause the guy can take a selfie with his smartphone don't mean he's got any computer smarts.)
(Just ‘cause the guy can take a selfie with his smartphone don't mean he's got any computer smarts.)
Judging by his behavior in other areas I wouldn't think him very smart, so his techie skills would definitely come into question.
I see Kasich voted for McCain, as a write in. Probably a nice choice for those Republicans who couldn't vote for either Hillary or Trump.
The FBI has today publicly released documents on a 15 year old investigation into a questionable pardon made by Bill Clinton. Politico.com Hillary's so-far stayed well clear of accusing Director Comey of intentionally putting his finger on the scales in this election, but if this stuff keeps up, she may re-think that position.
The Republicans are setting up the groundwork for Congressional investigations of all things Clinton, including yet another investigation of her ‘home-brew’ server. (Politico.com) I ‘spect they'll be investigating her breakfast choices eventually, and investigating the cook who cooks it. Hillary's gonna havta just accept it as a cost of doing business. I guess the rest of us might as well get used to it too.
"If they have the files then of course they can discern metadata
without being the NSA."
You may have been right about them having the metadata on Huma's e-mails from the computer itself. But, you fell into being right quite by accident. You got the wrong reason.
It's being said that the FBI ran the metadata on all e-mails incident to the warrant they had on Anthony Weiner, and were surprised to find indications of Huma's e-mails on there. So, they fell into that by accident too. So far nobody knows what's in those e-mails, but they're certain it's all very scandalous--after all it's Hillary and they been Hating Hillary for 20+ years now, so it must be scandalous, otherwise they wouldn't be hating on her, would they?
Or, to be more specific…
"I imagine the FBI could just do a search in the email-files for
the IP or name of Clintons server…"
It's said they weren't, in fact, searching for the IP or server name of the Clintons' server.
Rather: They were looking for all Weiner's e-mails and then somebody recognized Hillary's IP or server name when it came up. "What's this doin’ here?" they say. And so it goes….
Lee: "So far nobody knows what's in those e-mails"
Seems like a good idea to find out then. If only to clear poor Hillary who is being so unfairly treated for no reason whatsoever.
From Wikileaks latest batch:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-01/podesta-mills-we-are-going-have-dump-all-those-emails
"In today’s, 25th, Wikileaks release of hacked Podesta emails, one of the notable highlights is a March 2, 2015 exchange between John Podesta and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills in which the Clinton Campaign Chair says “On another matter….and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have to dump all those emails.”
The email, which may indicate intent, was sent at the same time as the NYT story “Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules” – which for the first time revealed the existence of Hillary’s email server – hit, and just days before Hillary’s press conference addressing what was at the time, the stunning revelation that she had a personal email account, and server, in her home."
Podesta: "WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DUMP ALL THOSE EMAILS"
At the same time as NYT broke the story of the secret server.
You Hillary fanboyz 'n fangirlz don't get just a little bit uneasy about stuff like this?
This was pretty good I thought:
http://theweek.com/articles/658640/clinton-presidency-going-miserable-slog?utm_source=links&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=twitter
An interesting excerpt:
"And it is true that Republicans have an ongoing grudge against Clinton. But let’s posit the existence of a vast right wing conspiracy that hates President Obama just as much as it hates the Clintons. Why is it only able to turn up news-driving scandals on the latter? Could it be that Obama, however detested by conservatives, conducts himself with higher ethical standards than Bill and Hillary?"
More polls, these show a clear shift recently in just about every demographic group:
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
Let's enjoy a song:
https://youtu.be/n4RjJKxsamQ?t=23
"‘WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DUMP ALL THOSE EMAILS’"
In Washington D.C. political/media parlance the public disclosure of a large cache of documents is called a ‘document dump’. The language you quote is actually referring to the possible need to take all the documents public at one time (which would have been a good idea) rather than letting the information dribble out in drips and drops. Clinton should have done this. Your source almost certainly knows this and has misled you intentionally. You should patronize better sources.
To a large extent she did ‘do this’, but the deletion, by her own lawyers, of those documents she deemed ‘private’ has haunted her, even though she'd have been making exactly that same determination if she'd have used a government server (i.e. which were private documents to be deleted (or moved to private memory storage) and which were public documents to be turned in).
So, without accepting the characterization that I'm a ‘fan’ of Hillary Clinton (I'm just firmly in the #NeverTrump, at all costs, camp)…
‘Yeah, I'm fine with the idea of them doing a document “dump” of her e-mails.’
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Could it be that Obama, however detested by conservatives,
conducts himself with higher ethical standards than Bill and Hillary?"
That's one possible explanation; there are other, reasonable and factually supportable explanations out there.
I would note in passing that you have, on several occasions, written ‘bout how you do not take public positions that you do not actually believe in. (This will become relevant on the 9th and thereafter when you try to pretend that you were either not rooting for Presidency of Donald Trump, or didn't really believe the bullshit about him actually having a chance.)
Oh, and just by the way, polls coming in yesterday and today (and maybe even tomorrow) will be reflecting the immediate aftermath of FBI Director Comey going public with his new ‘scandal’ regarding Clinton.
You may recall that I said at the time that by Monday or Tuesday the reaction would have shifted to largely discounting the supposed new scandal. (Fri Oct 28, 04:55:00 pm, supra, ↑↑)
Point being, you're celebrating too early. The polls you love will have begun to reverse themselves by the end of the week. By Tuesday next, it'll have largely blown over, as the voters absorb the knowledge that Comey got nothin’ and that he went public with nothin’, pretending it was somethin’.
Lee: "I would note in passing that you have, on several occasions, written ‘bout how you do not take public positions that you do not actually believe in."
Sure I do. Have I said I didn't? I will on occation take a contrarian viewpoint just fo the hell of it and since even Pete now seems a goner and it's only you, me and Lynnette left, and you both shill for Hillary, it kinda brings that out in me. (that I detest Hillary helps)
Lee: "Point being, you're celebrating too early. The polls you love will have begun to reverse themselves by the end of the week."
I guess we'll see. I think there could be more bombs dropped though. From either side. Or from both sides.
BTW: what "polls you love"? Am I not allowed to link to polls to try and annoy you and make you second guess your previously die-hard beliefs?
"Sure I do. Have I said I didn't?"
Yes, in fact, you have said exactly that, more than just once, in some of your more self-aggrandizing moments. (So has Petes, but he lies too.)
Yeah maybe I have but then I lied. I sometimes lie.
On another topic I feel a strong Trump-wind in the Internet-air. Look in the comment sections of political news outlets and blogs. In the Pro-Trump ones there's basically a consensus these days that Trump will win. In the ones opposed to Trump, there's where the debate and the divisions are to be found.
Now, I know the pro-Trump blogs/outlets are smaller in number of both sites and visitors, but it's still a sign of which side is on the offence and which side is on the defence.
And all-in-all the American public generally likes the guy on the offence.
MAGA!
"…but then I lied. I sometimes lie."
No shit.
Lee: "some of your more self-aggrandizing moments."
Oh Lee, my poor blogging opponent, I feel just about zero importance regarding my self based on what I write here or what YOU or anyone else think about it.
Haven't you seen me before when I (albeit rarely) make a stupid argument, how I can just retract that and go on without any shame whatsoever? I just say that was wrong, or I was drunk, or I have had second thoughts. No problem at all for me.
That differs from you Lee who feels compelled to defend every single statement you make because... well you probably think it matters. It doesn't.
I am here to banter, to share ideas, to pass time when I'm bored, and to generally hold on to a political idea at any given moment. For my own entertainment. Nothing else.
"That differs from you Lee who feels compelled to defend every single
statement you make…"
More lies. Apparently you think it matters that you were obliged to admit you lie. Ah, well, not like we'd not figured you out.
On the other hand, your full-tilt advocacy for Trump is beginning to look rather silly in the full light of day. That's always a problem with you ideologues; ya'll never know when to dial it down, and then ya always get pissed when ya get called on it successfully.
And, just for a closing dig for the day… We currently have a negative illegal immigration rate. That is, we have more illegals going back to Mexico than are coming north. That means it's stupid to put up a wall to cut down on the illegal immigrants. (At least for now.) If they think they'll be stuck in Mexico forever, it might make them a bit more reluctant to return home. (We ran into just that problem with the migrant workers when we made it significantly harder for them to cross over to follow the crops--they quit going home for the winter on account of it was getting too hard to get back for the next crop cycle.)
Here's a fella just may have a point about Hillary. She ain't flashy, but she is often effective.
It appears that The Donald shares in Marcus’ tendency to indulge in ignorance driven overconfidence. If he maintains this delusional stance until election day….
I am here to banter, to share ideas, to pass time when I'm bored, and to generally hold on to a political idea at any given moment. For my own entertainment. Nothing else.
But that is not true. It is also for your reader's entertainment.
But really that is why we are all here. We have no thought whatsoever that we could actually change anyone's ideas.
I would add that, for me, it is interesting to hear other people's ideas and thoughts on current events.
Obama on FBI: We don't operate on innuendo
Speaking to NowThisNews in an interview released Wednesday, Obama said he didn't want to meddle in the law enforcement process. But he criticized any action that might allow intimations or suggestions -- rather than facts -- to pervade the public's view of the case.
"I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations, we don't operate on innuendo and we don't operate on incomplete information and we don't operate on leaks," Obama said in the interview, which was taped Tuesday. "We operate based on concrete decisions that are made."
Obama did not mention FBI Director James Comey by name, although he was asked a question specifically about Comey's decision to make the information public days before the presidential election. And he wasn't outwardly critical of any specific move made by the department, noting that he didn't want to be seen as influencing the investigation.
But he did downplay the implications of the Clinton email investigation, saying the matter had been resolved.
"Obviously, it's become a political controversy," he said. "The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton, having been in the arena for 30 years, oftentimes gets knocked around and people say crazy stuff about her and when she makes a mistake, an honest mistake, it ends up getting blown up as if it's some crazy thing."
"I trust her. I know her," Obama continued. "And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity and making sure that young people have a better future."
Well spoken. As Trump is want to say Hillary Clinton has been in public service for 30 years. During all of that time she was never a security risk.
"It is also for your reader's entertainment."
Watching him get all bent ‘bout that certainly amused me.
By the way, rumors are running around that Anthony Weiner is ‘cooperating’ with the FBI investigation, including giving them permission to look through his laptop. This would ordinarily mean that they do not need a warrant to go through Huma Abedin's e-mails on that computer (his computer; his right to privacy), but they're being cautious and getting a warrant anyway. This suggests that maybe Weiner couldn't actually access those e-mails himself (probably needed a password he didn't have or an encryption key he didn't have) and the FBI is worried that a good lawyer might convince a judge that his permission was thus not quite enough. (As I mentioned before, the privacy law on electronics it still in a fairly unsettled state.) We can assume the Clintons can afford the good lawyers.
Germany drowning in immigrant crime:
"Their report said: 'During the first six months of 2016, migrants committed 142,500 crimes, according to the Federal Criminal Police Office. This is equivalent to 780 crimes committed by migrants every day, an increase of nearly 40 per cent over 2015. The data includes only those crimes in which a suspect has been caught."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3893436/Angela-Merkel-pressure-refugee-policy-revealed-migrants-committed-142-500-crimes-Germany-six-months-2016.html
Thanks Merkel!
One wonders what the crime rate is for German natives as compared to immigrants (not the capture and conviction rate--which will undoubtedly be higher for immigrants--immigrant commits a crime they'll likely capture and convict somebody who's dark skinned).
Politico is doing their own polling here of late, at the very least commissioning analyses of new polls. They say the ‘shy’ Trump voter is a mirage. Article Poll This pretty much agrees with all other studies of polling data on the subject.
Let's try that poll link again.
Wall Street Journal article on how FBI agents were wanting to pursue the Clinton Foundation (following up on the Brietbart/Fever Swamp induced novella ‘Clinton Cash’). This being the Wall Street Journal, they treat the book as if it's more than the trash it is, but that's not the scary part. Scary part is we've got FBI agents who've gone full Brietbart, and they can't be made to listen to good sense.
I forgot, the Wall Street Journal link will have to go through Google for folks to get in.
Putin is baffled by European migration policies and says Russia won't be copying them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uMQZnQR1TU&feature=youtu.be
The case Putin refers to can be read about here:
https://www.thelocal.at/20161021/verdict-on-swimming-pool-rape-case-overturned
It is indeed completely insane and I understand how Putin can hardly believe it.
Lee: "Politico is doing their own polling here of late, at the very least commissioning analyses of new polls. They say the ‘shy’ Trump voter is a mirage. Article Poll This pretty much agrees with all other studies of polling data on the subject."
We will see. I still maintain there's a hidden Trump vote of a few % out there. I still believe that the office worker in an environment where supporting Trump will get you shunned, or the teacher in a school, or several others will just lie and claim they will vote Hillary or not vote at all. That a larger portion lie in telephone polls than in Internet polls should show you right there that it's a real thing. They feel more secure in online polls (maybe they shouldn't but they do) that their answer won't come out in public. Same thing here really.
Again: I'm basing this idea on polls versus results for an un-PC choice (that'd be the Sweden Democrats here at home). I think the "shy vote" is less in the US but I still believe it exists.
Well, I've basically said the same thing now 4 or 5 times now and I stick with it. We'll find out in days time wether I was right.
"I have to wonder when the next dirty bomb aimed at Trump will
explode. Monday? ***
"Friday then? ***
"Because for sure there must be more. ***"
Marcus @ Tue Nov 01, 05:10:00 am ↑↑
I don't think there'll be another bomb aimed at Trump. The shock of FBI Directory Comey's unprecedented incursion into the election is wearing off, and she's still on a path to win it. She'll not rock the boat; she'll play it to win; no gambling. No bombs. (Doesn't mean she don't have ‘em, but, she'll hold ‘em back; she's not gonna set ‘em off.)
If she doesn't have anything real, something outrageous, on Trump then it's a done deal. Trump wins.
The only way Trump does not win is a scandalous new revelation. And it can't just be a minor financial deal or a tape of him uttering the word n*gger or something like that. It needs to be REALLY bad.
BTW: have you seen the Anonymous threat that they're gonna bring the Clintons down real hard on the 5'th? I mean nuclear hard.
I can't be sure if that's for real but the threat's out there.
"BTW: have you seen the Anonymous threat…"
Not until I looked for it specifically. I'm not worried (might worry ‘bout you a little bit; you're gettin’ to where you're real gullible these days).
The New York Times poses a question I had not thought to consider. I.e.: ‘What's the chance that FBI Director did not know that his announcement of ‘new’ Hillary e-mails would prejudice the election’?
Is it possible he was surprised by that result? I rather doubt it.
Is there an Aleppo/Mosul equivalence? The British publication Spectator suggests we're imposing a double standard on two similar situations.
Why is it evil for Russia to do in Aleppo what we are doing in Mosul? That's their point anyway. It's an interesting argument (bogus I think but interesting).
It is an interesting argument. The results, death and destruction, are the same in both situations. One hopes that if the government does regain control of a contested region that it will improve the lot of the people within the territory. Somehow I am not confident that Assad's government would actually do that, though. I still have some hope that maybe the Iraqi government will in the case of Mosul.
‘What's the chance that FBI Director did not know that his announcement of ‘new’ Hillary e-mails would prejudice the election’?
I doubt that too. His behavior is rather disappointing.
1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year.
2. The laptops of Clinton aides Cherryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them. The investigation has interviewed several people twice, and plans to interview some for a third time.
3. Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton's secret server on Anthony Weiner's laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.
4. Sources within the FBI have told Baier that an indictment is "likely" in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, "barring some obstruction in some way" from the Justice Department.
5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information have been taken from it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html
"5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server
has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies…"
That last one has always bothered me. (Comey publicly ‘assessed’ that to be ‘likely’ before, in testimony before the Republican House Oversight Committee.). My problem with that is that we know that the State Department server has been hacked. They can find the traces of those hacks. But they can find no traces of successful foreign hacking on the Clinton.com server (there is evidence of attempts that didn't get through).
So, how come the hackers were supposedly successful in concealing their hacks on the Clinton.com server, but not on the State Department's official server?
Nobody's ever explained that to my satisfaction.
They have explained, to my satisfaction, rogue, overzealous FBI agents making up stuff on account of the FBI agents tend to be conservatives and Republicans (Comey, for instance, was a registered Republican when Obama appointed him head of the FBI).
"4. Sources within the FBI have told Baier that an indictment is ‘likely’
in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation…"
Contrary to what's being suggested here, the FBI cannot issue indictments, not in the case of the Clinton Foundation, not against anybody, not ever. They simply do not have that authority; they have never had that authority.
One other thing…
"5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server
has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies…"
If the Russians have hacked the Clinton.com server, why does WikiLeaks not have that stuff to leak?
Closing comment on that article, ‘fbi_sources_tell_fox_news’….
This is what ya get when the subordinates find out they can roll the boss. They're not afraid of him anymore. They're putting their thumbs on the scales out in the open now. This is why I think James Comey has lost his job no matter who wins the election. They've got his number; he won't recover from that.
"I know I’m not the first to notice this, but Donald Trump really does
sound a lot like Vladimir Putin."
Michael Hayden, former Director of the NSA (1999 through 2005) and
former Director of the CIA (2006 through 2009)
Okay now, come Wednesday there's gonna be a whole new set of problems to deal with. I'm just gonna think out loud as it were on a couple of them.
The Republicans are gonna have one hell of an internal fight. Hillary proved to be incredibly vulnerable with ‘millennials’, young voters who don't remember the Republican assaults on Bill Clinton, but who've grown up, politically, with a steady background noise of Hating Hillary; noise always there; they assume there must be something to it or it wouldn't always be there.
Republicans are gonna be real pissed that they nominated Donald Trump and blew their opportunity to take advantage of that. (Although, their second place finisher, Ted Cruz, wasn't much better looking than Trump, and might have done just as poorly.)
Anyway, the Republicans are gonna have a fight over that--who actually runs the Party anyway?
Unless, of course, they get distracted by fighting with Hillary. Which will be tempting on account of it'll take some of the internal pressure off. So, there's that: They may decide to fight with Hillary as a diversion from fighting among themselves. They may try to do to her what they did to Obama--launch an all-out obstructionist campaign over the course of her entire four-year term. That will be unfortunate and ugly.
But, on the bright side, it will also mean we avoided the disaster that would have been a President Donald Trump.
"Matthews [MSNBC] ended the segment by saying, “You know what I think? I’m going to be more judgmental than Beth who’s a straight reporter. I’ll make a judgment. Every time I watch a politician engage in a certain pattern of behavior before they go to the White House, they continue to engage in that pattern afterwards. People don’t change because we swear them into the White House. They become that person big-time. And the Clintons were raising money like this hand over hand, hand over fist, back in 1996, using—we called it Motel 6. They were hoarding them in, pulling them in by train loads of contributors and then letting them sit in the Lincoln bedroom for a while and charging them by the hour. You can still vote for Hillary Clinton, but remember, you’re getting this as part of the package, because that’s been their pattern.”"
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/10/27/matthews-hillary-wont-change-if-she-wins-the-clintons-will-sell-the-lincoln-bedroom-again/
Yeah, Breitbart again but a quote's a quote regardless of messenger.
Top comment:
"When Chris Matthews and MSNBC turn on a Democrat, the person they have been propping up for over a year, you know it's bad and she has lost."
Lee: "They may decide to fight with Hillary as a diversion from fighting among themselves. They may try to do to her what they did to Obama--launch an all-out obstructionist campaign over the course of her entire four-year term. That will be unfortunate and ugly."
Not just the republicans. The FBI, the NYPD and Eric Prince (which might mean parts of the CIA - as he surely has connections there) and who knows who else, maybe the Pentagon too (since Hillary wants a no-fly zone over Syria and the Pentagon has warned this means war with Russia). The "deep state" seems to be all up in arms and not against Trump but against Hillary.
You sure you're on the right side here Lee?
"Yeah, Breitbart again but a quote's a quote regardless of messenger."
I assume that statement makes some sense to you, but probably only to you. It doesn't seem to me that quoting Breitbart somehow fixes the fact that it's Breitbart you're quoting.
"The ‘deep state’ seems to be all up in arms and not against Trump but
against Hillary."
You seem to be having a serious fantasy attack here. Yeah, I'm sure I'm on the right side #NeverTrump even at the cost of voting Hillary.
"Not just the republicans. The FBI…"
I believe you're being redundant there.
Lee: "Yeah, I'm sure I'm on the right side #NeverTrump"
That's gonna suck for you for the next 4, maybe 8, years then. Prolly 8.
I'll remind you of that come Wednesday (maybe Tuesday night--she may put him away early).
Lee: "It doesn't seem to me that quoting Breitbart somehow fixes the fact that it's Breitbart you're quoting."
Vid in the link is from MSNBC and the quote I posted is said there.
Lee: "I'll remind you of that come Wednesday (maybe Tuesday night--she may put him away early)."
I have already hinted at work that I might take Wednesday off, at least before noon, so that I can follow the race. I'm gonna buy a sliced pizza from New York Pizza (close to where I live) and two sixpacks of that watery american beverage ya'll call beer. Make an evening out of it. MAGA!
Who funds Daesh?
https://youtu.be/k9xbokQO4M0
And who are they in bed with?
"…the quote I posted is said there."
Say what?
"When Chris Matthews and MSNBC turn on a Democrat, the person
they have been propping up for over a year, you know it's bad and she
has lost."
Wanna go for that again?
FoxNews has retracted (and apologized for) that report you put up there for us saying that an indictment was likely. (Politico.com) I'm not sure what the apololgy's for; they've been putting their thumbs on the scales for a good week/ten days now. A false claim that an indictment is coming down the pike isn't any worse than most of it.
Wait… This is Friday; wasn't the hacker group Anonymous claiming they were gonna drop a deadly thunderbolt on Hillary today? Why isn't Marcus celebrating that?
Lee: "Wait… This is Friday; wasn't the hacker group Anonymous claiming they were gonna drop a deadly thunderbolt on Hillary today? Why isn't Marcus celebrating that?"
It's the 4'th today. The "nuclear bomb" was to go off at the 5´th.
That said: when I read about that "nuclear bomb" I read about just that. Since then I have looked into what the "threat" was all about and I too now believe it to be a bad attempt at a hoax. Anynonomous being Anynonomous I thought it'd be a hack that revealed maybe something about the Clinton Foundation.
Probably just a hoax.
I been reading Andrew Sullivan (Republican, gay Republican, but a Republican nonetheless) ranting against Trump, and it occurred to me… It is at least possible that Trump will just lose it come Tuesday night/Wednesday morning.
Post a Comment