I’ve posted a petition to change.org
Immediately rescind Donald Trump’s security clearance to receive U.S. intelligence briefings.
Please consider reading, signing, and sharing. Thanks very much.
- Did she turn Libya into a war zone? Yep.
- Did she deliberately set up Americans to be killed? Nope, but without (1) they would still be alive.
- Did she make up a 100% bullshit story about how it was the fault of an internet video? Sure did.
Here ya go.
I’m trying to care, but…I’m having a hard time. I was debating putting up a list of links to all recent (say, just the last six years or so) really-well-known lies that the NSA, the CIA, and FBI have repeated (y’know, like to Congress, to all sorts of media, etc). These people don’t follow the law, they don’t follow the US Constitution, don’t know squat about ethics, and they don’t have any qualms about using their power to quell legitimate protest, peace movements, or ‘deviant behaviour’.
Why believe them? They should be forced to earn their trust. Or does the US public really have a such a fetish about a man in uniform (or even a business suit)?
But I don’t have to. Jack Goldsmith assembled his tweets about this DNC hack. From what I can see, he’s also having a hard time getting exercised about it.
Edited to add: but he’s, um, disappointed by the US security agencies’ diligence.
All by herself, no less! (After strong urging from France and Britain and some Arab nations, but let’s not let that block the narrative of Clinton as a bloodthirsty lone warmonger.)
Last February the NYT ran a detailed analysis of the context for Clinton’s Libya decisions. While it doesn’t whitewash the consequences of the decisions, it certainly makes it clear that HRC wasn’t acting irrationally or even especially hawkishly.
7 Likes
Based on what I have seen on Twitter and Facebook and this thread, I better start working on my Nazi salute and saying “Heil Trump!”
However, I reserve the right to throat punch any Bernie supporter who says they don’t understand why Trump won.
1 Like
Because the Democratic establishment and the corporate media kept a thumb on the scales during the primary in order to block the candidate who could’ve easily beaten Trump?
Don’t waste your time practising salutes, start working out how many Muslims you can hide in your attic.
3 Likes
Thanks for reminding us of that the polls showed that Saunders was the best bet to defeat Trump and that the DNC did everything it could to thwart the, again, well-known wishes of the public.
Now, that public will exact its revenge in a few months…
1 Like
Social media (and especially comment threads) are a poor representation of the general public’s attitudes. A lot can happen between now and November. Plenty of time for Trump’s tax returns to get discovered in a Russian bunker. I naively believe that when the public sees Trump and Clinton one-on-one and can actually compare them side by side, they won’t choose the orange turd.
2 Likes
Revenge is so sweet: 
4 Likes
If you don’t want to vote for Hillary, fine. But at least vote in your local elections (especially if they are for Congress or Senate seats) and make Congress the opposite of the White House. That will blunt anything that Drumpf can possibly do (until he dissolves it that is).
5 Likes
If Trump wins, the GOP will retain control of the House as well. And anyone who expects a GOP House to restrain him hasn’t been paying attention for the last decade.
10 Likes
I guess it’s no surprise that Assange proudly admitted that Wikileaks specifically timed their release of the emails to damage Hillary as much as possible.
8 Likes
Then what’s your goal in posting here?
Also, you didn’t answer my second question:
Why should anyone consider you to be a more credible source of information than the media?
2 Likes
Care about what? The emails? Convincing people who don’t already agree with you? Then why are you commenting at all?
I agree with all of that, but it is all irrelevant.
US intelligence and some private sector analysts claim that the emails were released by a state-connected Russian hacker or hackers, and they presented evidence for this claim. Your counterclaim is:
“I don’t know who released the emails or why, but it definitely wasn’t state-connected Russian hackers.”
The only “evidence” you present for this counterclaim is that US intelligence says it, therefore it must be false. This is not a reasonable way to try to understand the world. If someone from the CIA said: “In 2003, the US went to war in Iraq,” would it make sense to retroactively disbelieve in the Iraq war? Even the most prolific liars spend most of their time stating true facts. (In fact, the most effective liars must spend most of their time telling the truth, or no one would believe their lies.)
Again, i completely agree that US intelligence are a bunch of liars who believe they are above the law. But that’s not a good reason to assume everything they say is a lie – it’s a good reason to be skeptical of their claims, to demand evidence, to – in your words – force them to earn our trust.
In this case, they have presented evidence. No one else has provided evidence that they are wrong. No one has proposed a plausible alternative theory for who released the emails. Not to mention the fact that it is not just US intelligence who says this, but third party private sector analysts as well.
Edit: Thanks for posting the Goldsmith comments, pretty good perspective I think. Note he does not express any special skepticism regarding the conclusion that this leak was a state-connected Russian hacker. The point he is making seems to be more that we shouldn’t be joining US intelligence in moral outrage about this violation of our national sovereignty because that would be hypocritical given US intelligence’s past in this domain. I agree with this entirely – in fact, I argued the same point at length with emo_pinata above.
2 Likes
Yeah, I was asking that person to link it for others because I read that story when it came out over a year ago.
The story regurgitates the premise of a book by an author from the right-wing Hoover Institute. However, this story is all headline and goes nowhere. There isn’t any evidence that the Russian government benefitted from a donation to a foundation. Moreover, the reason The NY Times couldn’t find this link is that decision-makers for the Uranium One deal were from various countries, including the U.S. Also, in order for this conspiracy to work there had to be many other Americans who had to sign off on the deal for the U.S., separate and apart from the State Department. That’s an awful lot of people.
It would be more useful to cite a story that has smoking gun rather than innuendo and speculation.
4 Likes
User was too new to link anyway.
2 Likes
Fun update: today Trump literally asked Russia directly if they could hack more emails and send them to him. So yeah, he’s not even pretending.
9 Likes
But let’s worry about Hillary! Foreign nationals hacking our computer systems mean nothing!
3 Likes
Sure! 'Cuz the DNC actively colluding with the Clinton campaign to subvert the will and silence the voice of the Democratic voter is such small potatoes, right?
No, I’m not crazy about Russia hacking us. But I’m pretty sure we’re busily hacking Russia right back as we speak. I’m far more angry at what’s been uncovered.
And yes, this behavior of Trump’s is reprehensible and he shouldn’t be allowed in the White House even on a tour.
1 Like
