Edward Snowded should...

Edward Snowded should...

get a ticker-tape parade!
4
13%
get a ticker-tape parade!
4
13%
not be proscecuted.
0
No votes
not be proscecuted.
0
No votes
be offered asylum in any decent country.
3
10%
be offered asylum in any decent country.
3
10%
be ignored. Water under the bridge and all that.
3
10%
be ignored. Water under the bridge and all that.
3
10%
be brought to the USA, to answer for his crimes.
3
10%
be brought to the USA, to answer for his crimes.
3
10%
be killed, the fucking traitor, if need be abroad.
2
7%
be killed, the fucking traitor, if need be abroad.
2
7%
 
Total votes: 30
User avatar
Sasi
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:16 am
SL Name: Sasi

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby Sasi » Mon Feb 06, 2017 3:24 pm

Oh, it's wonderful, the -so-called- president (if he can call a Federal Judge, a "so-called judge", guess we can return him the same courtesy), immature, hypocrite, pathological liar, uncompetent who proved in 15 days he was a disaster, as well for his own country, for the climate changes, who might cause a war with China by the way he is handling the issue with the fake islands in the South China sea and potentially another conflict with Iran, whose decisions to close the frontiers of the USA to those Muslim countries with which he doesn't have business ties are totally useless and just separated families, who rants on twitter almost every day like a teen,who blasted away at Ted Cruz during the primary for his Goldman Sachs ties (his wife works for GS) and attacked Hillary Clinton for receiving donations from G. S. employees, but has now an administration which is taking on a G.S. hue, who is trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (especially the clause about the pre-existing conditions) but has no solution of replacement and decided to stop funding the NGO which help women in the world to abort (and they will still abort, just, without a doctor), whose ridiculous project of a wall on the Mexican frontier will cost 20 billions of dollars to the taxpayers (when most illegal Mexican migrants enter in the country by plane, with a legal visa), should be given his chance because.... Because.....

He will remove sanctions against Russia and re-open the business with this country which is not even in the World Top 10 Economies and led by an ex KGB officer (and maybe should the Europe offers Putin the whole Ukraine, now). Thanks Lord! According to Danika, the world is saved!

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for he relaxes his taxe returns as any previous president before him and for he and his family bring back the jobs they created in China and Mexico, to the USA.

But yes, Democrats, stop whining against your legitimate president (who still lost the popular vote with a record never equalled of more 2 500 000 of votes)!

Image
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby Glaucon » Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:48 pm

Danika Stenvaag wrote:And that other thing about Russians hacking, I know they didn't because their finger prints were all over it and communications were in Russian so you know they didn't do it. A state sponsored hack wouldn't be that stupid to leave behind their own finger prints. They'd leave the other guy's finger prints and language in the communications. The media is biased.


That logic isn't... quite up to Spock-standards. A suspected murderer could not have done it because they found his fingerprints on the murder weapon and that proves he was framed? Because he was too smart to leave any fingerprints?

'Russia' (probably silly to talk about it like it was some monolithic entity in this case) had motive. Putin doesn't like Hillary. Putin had good reasons to want a guy sympathetic to him and his style of autocratic leadership (and little commitment to alliances such as NATO) to win, just as he wants anti-EU nationalists to win elections in Europe. Divide and Conquer. And get sanctions lifted. Sanctions imposed because he was responsible for some bad shit. Invading parts of other countries, inciting civil war in other countries, sending his soldiers out to fight posing as rebels (and accidentally shooting down Malaysian airway planes out of the sky while doing that). More importantly... Russia has been doing this stuff, for a while, many experts seem to be saying. Inside their own country, too. There is plenty of evidence that there is state-sponsored hacking going on there. So, they did have 'people' for it in place. So... opportunity.

And 'fingerprints'... few of actually have any idea what those 'fingerprints' might look like. I am not sure the FBI and the CIA (or whatever parts of them that were involved) have the smartest IT guys in the world working for them, or if they might have an agenda), but I doubt they were all in the pocket of either the one or the other party. I think that they believed that Russia was involved, somehow, themselves. And as for the quality of their experts... Snowden used to work for them. And he seems fairly smart and to know a little bit about computers and such.

Can you Blame Trump for it? No. Unless it turns out that he knew about the hacks. If so, it would be worse than Watergate. Some signs some high in his campaign knew something, or pretended to. At any rate, him refusing to be interested in the mere possibility of these hacks being from a foreign power offers a nice view of what 'America first' really means to him.

Assange? I admire the ultimate goal of WikiLeaks, but the man himself is an oddball and a prima donna, to say the least. He was VERY MUCH against Hillary, openly so, and has been refusing to speak out against Putin (who leads the very sort of government his organization was supposed to be combatting). You can say many things about him, but you can't accuse him of not having clear biases. And I am not sure he really can be called a rapist, but I think it is fairly clear he can be called a bit of an asshole. So say most of those that have worked for him.

And hey, wasn't he going to leave that embassy, now that Trump took office? What happened to that, eh?

As for Trump (and creepy dudes like Bannon and all): The guy is ... ah, I could say many not-so-flattering things about him, and they would probably all be true. I am not sure if I should just go along with the people from older generations that call what he stands for plain good old fascism or if I should just consider him a clueless egomaniac that is unwittingly doing his bit to drag his country and the world down the gutter (at the moment he is, with the stupid boasting about crowd-sizes and the constant lying). I can only hope he settles down, some, soon. And if not, I can only hope that US institutions and republicans will prove to have enough power and spine to curb his enthusiasm. It would be a shame if it turns out over 200 years of democratic/republican traditions can be brushed aside by an angry TV celebrity that wants to be emperor instead of president, but... similar things have happened in history.

I am still shaking my head, every day nearly, at the thought that Americans (nearly half of all that voted) could have elected that creature for president.
User avatar
Danika Stenvaag
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:31 pm
SL Name: Danika Stenvaag
Caste: Panther
Role: Valkyrie Torva Chieftess
Home Stone: Valkyrie Forest
Contact:

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby Danika Stenvaag » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:38 am

You could be right and you make some good points in your arguments, but in the nicest of ways, I respectfully think you're using logical fallacies. And making appeals to probability (and emotions based on common sentiment). Ya, there's motives there and Putin would have lots to gain. Kinda like saying, all organisms with wings can fly. Penguins have wings. Therefore, penguins can fly. It isn't true. Your arguments for Putin and Russia's history on the face of it seem valid but aren't really sound. The premise people make that Russia and Putin are evil isn't solid even if the argument appears valid... it isn't really sound. Putin was elected to office, he didn't seize power. Russia looks after its interests just as the United States looks after its interests, and France, and the UK. Putin is looking out for the interests of his country. He's a politician and statesman. But to be fair, my argument was a logical fallacy too... mainly because I'm too lazy to write a thesis for the forums (and my posts are already too long to read and I'm sure as usual I come off full of myself) and I'd rather go surfing ha ha...

Crimea belongs to Russia and the people living there voted to stay with Russia. Nikita Khrushchev was fond of the Ukraine and offered Crimea to the Ukraine as a gift... so long as they remained part of Russia. The United States meddled and stirred unrest in the Ukraine and worked to lure them to break away from Russia and their own Eurasian Economic Union and more into the European Economic Community and western financial interests. It's like a page out of Game of Thrones... It's about money, power, betrayal. Who can blame Russia? The United States meddled in their affairs. And now we point fingers and conveniently blame Russia and seek to punish them in a witch-hunt trial for something we caused.

So, I'll appeal to emotion just as you did and say McAfee in those videos made some excellent arguments and sold me. It's too sloppy to be a state sponsored hack. And even in the worst case scenario if it were true, so what? The DNC did it to themselves. It was a self-inflicted mortal wound inflicted by that scheming bitch (ooops sorry) Debbie Wasserman Schultz the head of DNC and all the other corrupt leaders inside the Democratic party that pushed Hillary through and illegally blocked Bernie Sanders - someone that even Trump feared and that more people including myself wanted to vote for - someone that likely would have won the presidency (despite the dumber than trees Americans who fear and don't know what a Democratic Socialist really is and confuse it with communism).

When I was a young and stupid teenage girl (and most of you still remember how young and stupid I was on the forums when I first started out), I actually admired and looked up to Hillary Clinton and wanted her to be the first woman president of the United States. Foolish me. This was before I discovered (over a period of years) what a money grubbing, power hungry, selfish, hypocritical, deceitful, human being she was - her hands blood soaked from all the suffering and deaths she helped facilitate in places like the Middle East. Debatably, worse than anything Trump has done.

So what choices did we really have in this election? If we're going to make a Faustian bargain, we might as well do it with a devil that better knows what they're doing and knows how to conduct business and make deals, especially with the Russians, rather than a war mongering pretender.
Image
What is hidden in snow, is revealed at thaw. ~ Viking proverb

http://www.valkyriepanthers.com
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby Glaucon » Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:36 am

Danika Stenvaag wrote:The premise people make that Russia and Putin are evil isn't solid even if the argument appears valid... it isn't really sound. Putin was elected to office, he didn't seize power. Russia looks after its interests just as the United States looks after its interests, and France, and the UK. Putin is looking out for the interests of his country. He's a politician and statesman.

I don't think 'evil' is a really useful category when it comes to people like Putin (and most people in general). Nor do I think that being elected into office makes someone non-evil. Simple fact is that most of those that stood against Putin (opposition leaders, business men, reporters and all) ended up dead or in prison. The list is pretty long. We kind of know who is behind some of these murders too (all round bad-guy/thug and Putin fanboy Ramzan Kadyrov and puppet-president of Chechnia is clearly implicated in some of these). We know Putin's government is very corrupt (lots of evidence of his friends having large sums of money oversea, money they never could have earned with their jobs, for example). We know he uses his tremendous power to shut opposition parties down. He has been systematically shutting down all news outlets not reporting favorably about his government. Reported wide-spread fraud in most elections. He even had a puppet play president while he ruled as prime-minister for a while to get around the term limits in Russia's constitution. He has diplomats beaten up over slights. He may very well have orchestrated terrorist attacks against Russians to boost support for his fight against Chechnia's anti-Russian former government/rebels during the start of his 'reign'. He threatens a whole list of neighboring countries with invasion saying he does it to 'protect' ethnic Russians living there (where have we have heard that excuse for an invasion before, again?) and invaded part of one of those countries and send soldiers to incite a civil war in another part of that country.

Russia is not a real constitutional democracy by modern standards. There is no true division of powers, there are no functional checks and balances, no real freedom of the press/expression. There is no rule of law when it comes to politics. And Putin very clearly rules as a strongman autocrat. He may very well have the political support of most people in the country, but so did most kings and emperors. Given the concentration of power, wealth and his control of the media, at the moment it is hard to see how he could be removed from power through normal democratic means.

I can't say for sure that that renders him evil, or that Russians would have been happier with a 'normal' democratic system of competing parties and such, but it is pretty clear what we are talking about. So, I do find it interesting that it has now become the 'fashionable' among Trump supporters and others around the internet and in the media to suddenly start arguing that Putin's style of rule 'isn't that bad, really'. I mean, maybe there are arguments to be made for autocratic strong-man rule (most would disagree, but maybe there are), but that type of rule has been one that the USA has been rejecting, historically, from Washington and Jefferson et all down to more recent times (including, at least, up until very recently, the GOP). I thought you guys didn't want that sort of thing.

And more on topic: What you described isn't really an argument AGAINST Russia being involved. More a justification. And it being too sloppy to be a state-sponsored hack? We don't know how 'sloppy' it was. Besides, most likely, it isn't the Russian secret service doing it themselves, directly, but rather government sponsored but semi-independent groups of hackers (many such in Russia, from what I hear) being encouraged/directed (and paid) to try to see what they could do. Or at least, that seems to be how this stuff often is done, in Russia. Putin doesn't murder his own opponents himself, like Francis Underwood. He gives a nod to some of his cronies, who give a nod to someone else, and so forth. That is how he gets rid of his political opponents, so, I think this would be no different.

As for the Bernie.... sure. In hindsight, the Dems were foolish to go for Clinton instead of him. They fought he was too much of a risk, I guess, and they figured they would win with her, I guess. Wrong call, clearly, but one most people probably would have made as well. I never liked her much. Few people I know did. I don't think she would have been a very good President. But at least, she would have been a normal one.

That is the thing I really don't get. People KNEW what Trump was. It was (and is) obvious. But somehow, they managed to convince themselves that the other one was 'just as bad'.
User avatar
Sasi
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:16 am
SL Name: Sasi

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby Sasi » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:53 pm

Danika Stenvaag wrote:


When I was a young and stupid teenage girl (and most of you still remember how young and stupid I was on the forums when I first started out), I actually admired and looked up to Hillary Clinton and wanted her to be the first woman president of the United States. Foolish me. This was before I discovered (over a period of years) what a money grubbing, power hungry, selfish, hypocritical, deceitful, human being she was - her hands blood soaked from all the suffering and deaths she helped facilitate in places like the Middle East. Debatably, worse than anything Trump has done.



Just this statement makes clear that you're still a young and stupid teenage girl.



Image
User avatar
Oor
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:33 pm
SL Name: Oor Breen
Home Stone: ROIAF: GoT RP

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby Oor » Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:58 pm

There are many valid reasons to dislike Donald Trump, Sasi. Venerating Hillary Clinton is not one of them. She is a vile woman with an abhorrent past, and deserves more than a passing sneer of disgust for her part in the current state of affairs in the ME.
I call my vagina "New Yorker cartoon" because it's dry and a handful of people have laughed at it.

Flix
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby Glaucon » Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:05 pm

I am not a fan, but... the current growing would-be consensus that all the problems of the middle-east are the result of things H. Clinton did wrong seems to be way over-the-top. The 'Arab spring' thing caught everyone by surprise, as such things tend to do. The USA didn't really know what to do with it. Embrace it? That might put it at odds with local dictators in their 'friends' column. Reject it? They could hardly do that, seeing as it appeared to be a mostly urban 'rising' of the somewhat more educated classes against lack of democracy and corruption and such. The sort of thing they claimed to have gone to war in Iraq over (aside from WoMD's) and which they tell the whole world they are all about, have been for years.

It leading to a long and bloody civil war in Syria certainly wasn't anything Clinton planned. Or could have prevented. Not really the US sphere of influence, either, Syria.

Egypt was more their sphere of influence. They did 'do' some, there. It ultimately led to a new military dictatorship/quasi democracy that probably is no worse than the situation that existed before. Religious groups were beaten out of power again and are oppressed. But for Egypt, that is same old.

Lybia... is chaos, now. In some ways, the situation before Gaddafi was toppled was probably much better than the situation there now. America did assist in an intervention. Then again, that was when Gaddafi was about to start bombing and use artillery against cities that had risen up against him, and the USA did try to minimize their involvement, the intervention mostly spear-headed by France and the UK. Of course, the US attempts to steer things in a beneficial direction didn't really pan out, but that shit is hard to do, and the USA has never been great at it. No reason to assume that another foreign secretary had done a much better job. And oh yeah... American lives were lost. A diplomat, even. Tragic, and all, but... some jobs entail a degree of risk. Diplomats are aware of that. They get paid accordingly. Still crappy when it goes wrong, sure... but the focus on that one death seems to be a bit... morally suspect.

And then... ISIS... that somehow was Clinton's fault. That is silly. Partially the fault of the US, sure. Invading a country, disbanding the army (and thus creating the perfect local resistance/terrorist recruiting base)... promising lots and delivering not-so-much, picking the wrong local friends to give power to... all that happened before Clinton was involved. Withdrawing again, after the moderate success of the surge... also not Clinton's decision (rather: Obama's campaign promise). 'Nipping ISIS' in the butt would have been pretty hard as well, as it more or less started in east Syria. And as usual, the sudden spread of it in Iraq took most by surprise too.

What else? Israel? Well... that is a pretty hard one. A really really hard one. So, what else? The US always propping up friendly dictators in the end? Same old. Drone attacks on weddings in the hunt for terrorists? Hmmm... not sure that is wise, but that was a continuation of the 'borderless' war on terror started before.

Like I said... I never liked her much. Never figured out what she had to bring to the table, what she could offer as president, besides a lot of ambition. But I also never really figured out why it is so often claimed she made such a terrible mess of things in the middle east & northern Africa. Sure, things did BECOME something of a clusterfuck, partially during her watch. But I don't know a lot of valid and realistic 'if only she had done this instead of that' arguments.
User avatar
Sasi
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:16 am
SL Name: Sasi

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby Sasi » Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:51 pm

Oor wrote:There are many valid reasons to dislike Donald Trump, Sasi. Venerating Hillary Clinton is not one of them. She is a vile woman with an abhorrent past, and deserves more than a passing sneer of disgust for her part in the current state of affairs in the ME.


I don't venerate Hillary Clinton, but I will not share your opinion about an abhorrent past. She is a politician, not worse than many. And actually, despite millions of dollars spent by the republicans, no proof of corruption has never been found. She is either the best crook in the world, or she did nothing illegal.

But whatever people think of Hillary Clinton, it's still deeply stupid to consider she is worse than Trump. No, she is not.

Glaucon, I tend to agree with you (tired of agreeing with you, these days......). Plus, people are quick to accuse H. Clinton of having blood on her hands. Ok, but who bombed Alep, in Syria, without caring about the civilians? Not the USA... But people are not prompt at denouncing Putin, in this mess.
As for Benghazi, if the Republican Congress had provided a budget to increase security for all US embassies as requested by Hillary, because it was necessary due to the current situation in the Middle East, perhaps this tragedy wouldn't have happened. The emails affair was not one. Seriously, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used private email servers on which the State Department said that they definitely handled classified information, Bush's administration deleted 22 millions internal White House emails held on a private server run by the Republican National Committee and still, no FBI investigation...
Even the fundation Clinton has been defamed when it's rated A+ and "Gold Standard" by Charity Watch.
Etc etc.

She approved the Iraq war? It has been proved that Trump as well. So did most of politicians and people in the USA (France was loathed enough, in USA, in the public opinion, I remember, for its refusal to go to Iraq...).

And as for her ambition, see, it always puzzles me when people point out her ambition... Personally, I see nothing wrong with her having ambition. Is "ambition" something which is usually reproached to a male politician? To a CEO? Is Trump less ambitious...?
User avatar
Leah
Posts: 1047
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:14 pm
SL Name: Liara Edring
Role: Rebel
Owner: My Internet Connection
AkA: Lailah, Lia, Liara
Location: Somewhere in Eorzea
Contact:

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby Leah » Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:24 pm

Trump and his handlers are reportedly using private android devices for their communications, which is hilarious. :lol:
This isn't fucking Survivor. We aren't a tribe.

If I won't put up with an in-character owner trying to control my OOC life, what makes you think I'll put up with you trying to do that?

My Store: https://marketplace.secondlife.com/stores/165499
User avatar
Danika Stenvaag
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:31 pm
SL Name: Danika Stenvaag
Caste: Panther
Role: Valkyrie Torva Chieftess
Home Stone: Valkyrie Forest
Contact:

Re: Edward Snowded should...

Postby Danika Stenvaag » Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:31 am

Never said Hillary Clinton was the woman on the red beast or the cause of all the woes in the Middle East. I meant she has blood on her hands and she was part of the same mindset, part of the same process and the problem. She could have done more as head of the State Department to offer alternate solutions. She presented herself as some big social activist and defender of civil rights but from my point of view, her track record is disappointing. She comes off as fake to me. A phony. Same as if some big spiritual leader - a guru or something like that - a Sri Make'afastabuck'rippoff'ananda came along promising a thousand years of peace on earth and his or her financial supporters are broke as jokes ploughing for pennies, in pursuit of pesos, scrounging for shrapnel while the great spiritual leader lives in million dollar mansions and gets driven around in a private fleet of Mercedes limos. I'd call this person fake too. A phony.

A few years ago, I did post on the forums the irresponsibility of the Republican congress to allocate more money for embassy security and protection such as Benghazi. It's this kind of stinginess and boneheaded planning that contributed to the tragedy at Benghazi. I don't blame everything on Hillary.

It's the policies of the United States and foreign interventions (and bullying) that made a bigger mess of the Middle East than there already was, upsetting the balance of power, and created vacuums. Also, when a big, powerful country (the USA) lies about things (oh, such as the existence of weapons of mass destruction), when it makes up reasons to bomb and raid countries that didn't exactly have much to do with 9/11 and WMDs, it creates power vacuums that quickly fill up with violently pissed off people rushing to fill those holes like rainstorm waters rushing down a storm drain. It helps to create angry groups like ISIS. The CIA uses a sanitized term for that: blowback.I'm not an apologist for Trump or Russia. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I didn't vote for Trump. I just look at things practically. As they say, take Trump seriously, not literally. If he opens up more trade and friendship with Russia, I don't think opposing it because we suspect some mean things might have happened in Russia is enough reason to block reaching out to them. Trump opposes the AT&T-Time Warner merger because he says it creates a monopoly and isn't fair to other businesses. That's good! I agree with him. Maybe he has personal reasons, too - he doesn't like CNN. I don't care, I just hope he doesn't flip flop because a lot of Americans are pretty pissed off at the lack of choices, the lack of competition for cable services and are often stuck with one mediocre service provider or nothing at all. And this service provider knows they're the only game in town and often don't really give a frog's fat ass about their customers. Like I said, time will tell.

But I was really disappointed in Hillary Clinton over the years and I believe we were in great danger of a nuclear war if she had won the election, kept to her declarations to oppose Russia, declared a no fly zone in Syria, and other such dangerous nonsense. That's the nightmare alternate reality. And who laughs at the death of a national leader? Below is a video of Hillary laughing when she's told about Gaddafi's death. Shame on her. And further down, she laughs during her Benghazi hearing. I don't find any of that funny.

Hillary on Gaddafi - "we came, we saw, he died." laughing? What an Embarrassment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U

Hillary Clinton Laughs Hysterically During Benghazi Hearing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBdqxMUQByU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBdqxMUQByU
Image
What is hidden in snow, is revealed at thaw. ~ Viking proverb

http://www.valkyriepanthers.com

Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron