News Us politics - read first post before comment

[Friday]

but I fail to see where she committed treason.

Seriously?

If I’d mishandled even ONE Secret, much less one Top Secret document, I’d have spent the next 20 years in prison. Just mishandling. Not putting them on an unsecure public server (for every employee of that private company/their family/friends/god knows whom else, and any tech savvy 12yo dorking off online -and therefore every intelligence agency in the world- to have full access to); not handing them to people without the clearance to even know about, much less be in possession. She didn’t mishandle one... but thousands. The FBI investigation into just the servers? Had 22 TopSecret, 65 Secret, & over 2,000 retroactively classified documents (as in, they were unmarked. Should have been classified & sent over secure servers, but nope! Not surprising that when she ignored security protocols for already classified documents that she’d skip bothering to get new documents properly classified. And that’s not a oopsie. When you take or distribute meeting notes, from a classified meeting? Or even want to discuss the meeting itself? Those notes, and all discussion of the meeting, are ALSO -or should be- classified.). I’d have to dig to find ballpark numbers from the number of IRL breeches, but I’ve never cared enough to look into what’s public knowledge. Because what I already knew was too much. The woman was a national security train wreck. A human seive. Foreign operatives wet dream. Thousands of breeches, when even one? Would be enough to land most Americans in prison, and those who were serving in sworn positions, under oath? Stripped of their rank, positions, security clearances, and then thrown into prison. What she did was utterly unconscionable & inexcusable. I can understand why they wouldn’t want to put her through standard protocols (because half of Washington would be under investigation as accessories), but that she is ever allowed access to sensitive information ever again? Allowed to serve in any capacity of authority or position of trust? Is a sign the system is broken. What do you do when caught distributing secrets to our enemies? Run for president! Madness.

 

[LuckiLee]

The woman has been corrupt since the beginning of her career. (All the "accidental deaths and suicides" related to them is what is scary to me.)

I think there's been a witch hunt for Trump because they can't control him. He doesn't owe anyone anything.

When our government is hell bent on getting him out of power it makes me wonder... Why? Because he has the power to bring their failures and crimes to the surface. They aren't worried about the American people. They're worried about covering their ass'. He has nothing to lose. They do!!

You do realize he made that phone call to find out what the Biden's were up to, right? Another corrupt family.

 

[Mee]

More than one person can be inadequate.

To take a partisan approach to looking at such matters is devoid of integrity.

As soon as you start comparing x the democrat to y the republican , there is a problem. One, both or neither can be in violation of what is required of them and in raising them in opposition you raise your own bias.

Integrity should have you examine your own candidate at least as harshly as one of a party you would not vote for.

Imo you guys were shafted in the last election: not because Clinton was treasonous. My opposition to her was, ironically on a women's rights basis. Either candidate was very poor on that stance. Sayingyou aren’t and having the appropriate equipment doesn’t make the difference. Clinton was both victim of sexual deception by her husband and tolerated ( understandably but nonetheless sadly) victim blaming of an indefensible power difference that in 2016 was starting to be recognised for what it was more truthfully.

Besides which - enough of the dynastics in politics. Are you a democratic republic or a feudal state ? Fresh, not privileged blood! It’s what its what be the essence of the US should be! It’s what limited terms are meant to encourage. The things you guys get right are good, so why go behind the spirit of them?

I wonder, would trump supporters elect Ivanka? It’s an interesting question.

 

[siniang]

Ahhh... I love me some conspiracy theories with my morning coffee.

And this is exactly what’s wrong with this country. Just a kindly outsider’s view

 

[Ronin]

And that's precisely why so much of the world is such a profound mess... people confusing facts and literal acts, with their implications, for theories... and made up nonsense for actual and relevant facts.

 

[somerandomguy]

Wow! Hit a nerve there.

 

[Mee]

Wow! Hit a nerve there.

??

 

[mumstheword]

And that's precisely why so much of the world is such a profound mess... people confusing facts and literal acts, with their implications, for theories... and made up nonsense for actual and relevant facts.

I know right? Like, just look at the mainstream news and all the shit they made up about Trump? All the "The Russians are out to get us and Trump is their man" stuff they perpetuated for the last two years. All the "Everyone that voted for him is a racist" (coz deplorables, remember, Hillary told y'all).

All the oooooowww he's digging up dirt on Joe Biden (when the Russia thing didn't pan out, quite the way they wanted it to) when that is EXACTLY what the Dems in congress are doing to the POTUS!!!!
Trying to "dig up dirt" with their complicit media (nearly every mainstress channel) kinda hypocritical, don't cha think?

And really? How is Joe a threat? Bumbly, grabby, Joe Biden is such a threat to Trump? Have you seen the size of his rallies?

And I'm not even American.

But I see how they twist everything he says, take it out of context, NEVER show his events with black and hispanic Americans, coz that would contradict the narrative they've been trying to sell y'all the last 2 years plus.

When it comes to "conspiracy theories" the mainstream media takes the cake.

Just watch anything Rachael Maddow did/said the last few years if you don't get what I'm saying. Just sayin'.

 

[Neverthesame]

2016 CNN: Breaking News! Orange Man is bad!
365 similar headlines later...

2017 CNN: Breaking News! Orange man is bad! Impeach him!
Yet another 365 similar headlines later...

2018 CNN: Breaking News! Orange man bad! Bet you didn't see that one coming.
A fresh batch of 365 similar headlines later...

2019 CNN: Breaking news! Orange man bad!
Featuring 365 new reasons to bash your face into the wall...

Now I'll predict the 2020 campaign trail is going to be rife with another 365 headlines to ensure the rigid black & white ideological thinking holds strong, to make sure nobody can have a civil conversation about anything outside of their tribe. God forbid someone might actually learn something positive about the other side. Nope, can't have that, that would be silly.

 

[Sideways]

I think maybe I'm weird like this, but - I'd probably be voting based on stuff like, is their climate policy rock solid? Do I think the direction taken with China relations is sensible? Do I want someone in charge of the warheads who has attitude A to international diplomacy, or attitude B to international diplomacy?

Do I have a grudge against past candidates? Nup, wouldn't register for me as an issue. And whether or not Trump has put his own personal agenda ahead of handing out foreign aid? Yeah, it's important, but even if the allegations are entirely true, it's consistent with Trump's approach generally to international relations, so not particularly surprising, given his approach with Turkey/Syria, North Korea and China and (I could keep going!). He's consistent in that regard - US first, the rest of the world can take care of themselves.

Some people think that's a rock solid approach for the US.

But, the question of whether he's using foreign aid to dig dirt on the son of a political rival and am I gonna get all hot and bothered about whether that's treason? Sheesh! Probably if I get squeemish about Trump it would be about something like how he put the entire world one Tweet away from nuclear war with Iran (who are rebuilding their nuclear arsenal now, just as a side note!).

It's sad that personality politics is so often the decider in this world, ahead of policy. Ahead of the issues that will shape the future.

 

[mumstheword]

I think maybe I'm weird like this, but - I'd probably be voting based on stuff like, is their climate policy rock solid? Do I think the direction taken with China relations is sensible? Do I want someone in charge of the warheads who has attitude A to international diplomacy, or attitude B to international diplomacy?

Do I have a grudge against past candidates? Nup, wouldn't register for me as an issue. And whether or not Trump has put his own personal agenda ahead of handing out foreign aid? Yeah, it's important, but even if the allegations are entirely true, it's consistent with Trump's approach generally to international relations, so not particularly surprising, given his approach with Turkey/Syria, North Korea and China and (I could keep going!). He's consistent in that regard - US first, the rest of the world can take care of themselves.

Some people think that's a rock solid approach for the US.

But, the question of whether he's using foreign aid to dig dirt on the son of a political rival and am I gonna get all hot and bothered about whether that's treason? Sheesh! Probably if I get squeemish about Trump it would be about something like how he put the entire world one Tweet away from nuclear war with Iran (who are rebuilding their nuclear arsenal now, just as a side note!).

It's sad that personality politics is so often the decider in this world, ahead of policy. Ahead of the issues that will shape the future.

Yes, nationalism is an antidote to the one world government/ new world order agenda of the deep state/ bilderberger group/CIA/council on foreign relations, empire building, war mongering that everyone else has so resented USA for since they started interfering in, just about, every other country and basically, with their regime change meddling? Started a whole bunch of shit in too many countries.
The fact that Trump wants other countries to pay, as well, if they want this centrailzed power and are anti Russia (the EU is an example) as well, in places like Ukraine? Is more about him pulling out of the globalism agenda than anything mean towards other countries (IMO). He's the ONLY President in how long? That HASN'T started a war with anyone.

And IMO? Environmental issues are best addressed locally.

 

[Sideways]

@mumstheword - I think if I was American, I'd have a hard time disagreeing with you. And even though I do, you're coming at it from a strong policy, scale-appropriate perspective.

Personally I don't think the world will ever successfully return to fundamentally independent nation-states since the League of Nations was created. And while we haven't got a foothold in any kind of peacefully coexisting global system yet, that's not necessarily a reason to abandon the concept entirely.

I think that probably we can all agree that any attempt to generate western style democracies throughout the Mid East is doomed to failure - the ethnic/tribal based divisions run far deeper than the past best intentions ever really had an appreciation for.

The only problem is that while it may suit the US (arguable either way I'd say) people to abandon actively expanding their global presence, that doesn't by any means leave the rest of the world a more stable place.

While Trump's administration is, as you've pointed out, returning its focus to within its national borders (to a degree), there are other countries around the world itching to take the place of global superpower.

If we set aside the Mid East for a moment for arguments sake, China is making no attempt to hide its active expansion throughout the Pacific and take America's place as global superpower. And as superpowers go, they're not shy about sweeping up citizens en masse and torturing them into compliance. The world has somewhat given up on 'freeing Tibet', which makes sense given that China now has military, fiscal and political control throughout the Pacific.

So yeah, if I was an American? I'd potentially leave the rest of the world to it, and approach the question based on which party has the best policies to take the nation forward, rather than which are the best global policies.

Only, I'm an Australian, so inherently biased in favour of global influence remaining predominantly democratic!

I suspect that nationalism v's internationalism approaches are probably both doomed to the same fate - humanity seems to like being at war with itself, and will find continue to find reasons to do so into perpetuity as we have since the beginning of time.

The ideal of 'democracy for all' was nice while it lasted, even if it was misplaced, ineffective and in many parts of the world a dismal failure!!