The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Yes. I know a good number of posters here act like things that happened twenty years ago are not relevant to modern geopolitics. Americans have an extremely short attention span, and an extremely short sighted view of world history and geopolitics. It’s a good thing that never catches up with us. 

The problem with your hot takes is they neglect the consequences of the alternative courses of action.   It’s easy to make superficial historical arguments on Bill Clinton helping Yeltsin or Comey sending his letter to Congress when you ignore what would have likely happened if they didn’t make the decisions they did.  

It’s shallow disingenuous analysis where the only correct decision anyone could have made in the past is to not make a decision.

It’s bullshit. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Dp

Edited February 16, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Anastasis 23720]

Two obvious outcomes associated with the counterfactuals you highlight. 1) Putin would likely not be in power in Russia. 2) trump would not be president. Would there be other associated consequences? Sure. But those would be the headliners. 

41 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s shallow disingenuous analysis where the only correct decision anyone could have made in the past is to not make a decision.

Speaking of shallow disengenuous analysis. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

50 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Two obvious outcomes associated with the counterfactuals you highlight. 1) Putin would likely not be in power in Russia. 2) trump would not be president. Would there be other associated consequences? Sure. But those would be the headliners. 

Speaking of shallow disengenuous analysis. 

And you can't definitively say that. Too many variables at play to say how a chain reaction of events would unfold based on one strategy over another. You provide no other alternatives to running a large government in a global capacity other than, don't put your hands in other people's cookie jars. But that's how the games are played currently. Because regardless of our stance, people like Putin want to tear us down. And I'd rather find a way to subvert him first, before he does what he wants to do. And I get it, we make handshake agreements with bad people around the world to do bad things on our behalf. I'm not a fan of it either, but until a better way presents itself, it's what we can leverage to ensure our relative security.

I'd rather move to building a sustainable clean energy system so that we don't need to rely on oil and it's many ills it brings into the world. I'd rather our society not rely on religion and it's many ills it brings to the world. Greed, corruption, power, etc. All things that drive bad actors around the world, independent of our actions. 

[ndawg 1242]

The next time we get Anastasis to get up from out of the peanut gallery and actually propose how to make anything better will be the first.

Contrarians serve an important purpose, but at this point we need something more substantial than "look how we've done bad things, too."

[Anastasis 23720]

4 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

And you can't definitively say that. Too many variables at play to say how a chain reaction of events would unfold based on one strategy over another. 

Oh I agree. There is some form of a confidence interval around any Monday morning quarterbacking. I would put a much lower confidence on the former, and a pretty high level of confidence on the latter example. The oligarchs could have still intervened to prop up yeltsin and could have still rigged the election for yeltsin without American assistance.

 

And I am not totally opposed to realpolitik. I realize that the world does not operate in an idealistic framework. Let’s just be a little less jingoistic and honest with ourselves about it, from top to bottom. We don’t give a shit about democracy and self determination and the promotion of other such “American principles”. Every single time our principles are opposed by economic and/or narrow short term interest our principles lose. Often to our long term detriment. 

[Anastasis 23720]

11 minutes ago, ndawg said:

The next time we get Anastasis to get up from out of the peanut gallery and actually propose how to make anything better will be the first.

Contrarians serve an important purpose, but at this point we need something more substantial than "look how we've done bad things, too."

Bullshit. In nearly twenty years posting on these politics boards I have made detailed proposals on how to improve a broad range of things from domestic issues such as healthcare to broad foreign policy issues. But rhetoric points for you I guess. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Oh I agree. There is some form of a confidence interval around any Monday morning quarterbacking. I would put a much lower confidence on the former, and a pretty high level of confidence on the latter example. The oligarchs could have still intervened to prop up yeltsin and could have still rigged the election for yeltsin without American assistance.

 

And I am not totally opposed to realpolitik. I realize that the world does not operate in an idealistic framework. Let’s just be a little less jingoistic and honest with ourselves about it, from top to bottom. We don’t give a shit about democracy and self determination and the promotion of other such “American principles”. Every single time our principles are opposed by economic and/or narrow short term interest our principles lose. Often to our long term detriment. 

And I track with what you are saying generally. But I take issue with the bolded part. You, I, and 99.9% of our population, does not have the full story on what happens in the world. The classified actions of other governments and our own actions...and reasoning behind those actions. I'm not naive enough to think we are immune to those same ills I previously stated, but I have to rely on a system of generally good people to steer actions, based on available intelligence, to do the right thing at the time. 

[softlynow 1894]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

And I am not totally opposed to realpolitik. I realize that the world does not operate in an idealistic framework. Let’s just be a little less jingoistic and honest with ourselves about it, from top to bottom. We don’t give a shit about democracy and self determination and the promotion of other such “American principles”. Every single time our principles are opposed by economic and/or narrow short term interest our principles lose. Often to our long term detriment. 

So we have no principles, those non-existent principles lose a lot, and many times when these things that don't exist lose, we're harmed. 

Who said you can't divide by zero?

[bolverk 30325]

13 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

And I track with what you are saying generally. But I take issue with the bolded part. You, I, and 99.9% of our population, does not have the full story on what happens in the world. The classified actions of other governments and our own actions...and reasoning behind those actions. I'm not naive enough to think we are immune to those same ills I previously stated, but I have to rely on a system of generally good people to steer actions, based on available intelligence, to do the right thing at the time. 

I think a good argument could be made that Obama approving the provision of air cover in Libya, as well as the decision to back the Arab street in Egypt, were well within the American self-determination wheelhouse and actually ran against our short-term economic interests. Qaddafi had been relatively well-behaved over the preceding decade and was inviting foreign investment to keep the oil flowing. Egypt, too, was stable and being a good neighbor to Israel. In both of those cases, our decision to back the opposition was very risky and did indeed upset the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" applecart.  

[Anastasis 23720]

52 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

And I track with what you are saying generally. But I take issue with the bolded part. You, I, and 99.9% of our population, does not have the full story on what happens in the world. The classified actions of other governments and our own actions...and reasoning behind those actions. I'm not naive enough to think we are immune to those same ills I previously stated, but I have to rely on a system of generally good people to steer actions, based on available intelligence, to do the right thing at the time. 

Reasonable post. Every single time is hyperbole. But your point is well made. Our system requires us to put faith in people with good intentions to balance hard decisions. Our system also requires a series of checks and balances. So good people in charge and institutionalized protections. How would you assess we are doing on those counts?

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

17 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Reasonable post. Every single time is hyperbole. But your point is well made. Our system requires us to put faith in people with good intentions to balance hard decisions. Our system also requires a series of checks and balances. So good people in charge and institutionalized protections. How would you assess we are doing on those counts?

Couldn't tell you. Again, too complex and too many unknowns of what justifications were made for any single action on our part. We'll never be able to understand what path we would be on, currently, for any inaction/action on any given military or diplomatic decision. 

I don't agree we should have gone back into Iraq. I don't like how we fought the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't like that we rely on China for our industry. I don't like that we are overly reliant on fossil fuels. I don't like that the NSA passes all traffic on the internet through its data centers. I don't like a lot of things we do. But I can only see these actions from the outside. I don't know the true justifications for these strategies. I have to rely on the people I vote for to make those calls. 

Edited February 16, 2019 by SmokeyTheBear

[David Dennison 19542]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Reasonable post. Every single time is hyperbole. But your point is well made. Our system requires us to put faith in people with good intentions to balance hard decisions. Our system also requires a series of checks and balances. So good people in charge and institutionalized protections. How would you assess we are doing on those counts?

I think the second part implies that our system does not, in fact, assume the first part.

[Brisketexan 106900]

Reasonable post. Every single time is hyperbole. But your point is well made. Our system requires us to put faith in people with good intentions to balance hard decisions. Our system also requires a series of checks and balances. So good people in charge and institutionalized protections. How would you assess we are doing on those counts?

Well, we love on an earth populated by humans, full of nations run by humans.
I want I hold us to an absolute standard - that should always be a goal. BUT....we also need to grade on a curve, relative to other nation states, adjusted for situation and strength. In other words, how would, say, Poland have handled our decision points had it been in our shoes?
Saying “I’m not opposed to realpolitik” is chickenshit. There’s effectively nothing on earth BUT realpolitik. EVERY nation state generally acts in a self-interested manner.
We can and should do better. But we are who we are, through history and circumstance. Just like everyone else.

[Anastasis 23720]

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I think the second part implies that our system does not, in fact, assume the first part.

Fair enough. Would be nice if that second part was actually functional. 

[Anastasis 23720]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I want I hold us to an absolute standard - that should always be a goal. BUT....we also need to grade on a curve, relative to other nation states, adjusted for situation and strength. 

And adjusted for other factors like “how much do we need their oil” and “do they threaten the petroleum dollar” or “but what about the eschaton”. 

[David Dennison 19542]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Fair enough. Would be nice if that second part was actually functional. 

Agreed. 

[Brisketexan 106900]

Dp

[Brisketexan 106900]

And adjusted for other factors like “how much do we need their oil” and “do they threaten the petroleum dollar” or “but what about the eschaton”. 

Translation: adjusted for economic self interest and dominant religious beliefs. You know, like every other nation on earth.

[Anastasis 23720]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Translation: adjusted for economic self interest and dominant religious beliefs. You know, like every other nation on earth.

I was told America was the shining beacon of democracy on the hill. Like I said. Let’s just put down the jingoistic nonsense. That’s really all I am asking of our leaders as a first step.  We value certain economic and hegemonic ends over things like democracy, fair dealing and self governance. We appear to agree on this. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

We get it. You hate America 

[Brisketexan 106900]

I was told America was the shining beacon of democracy on the hill. Like I said. Let’s just put down the jingoistic nonsense. That’s really all I am asking of our leaders as a first step.  We value certain economic and hegemonic ends over things like democracy, fair dealing and self governance. We appear to agree on this. 

We do and we don’t.

It’s similar to where I’ve been on things like basic healthcare, free vaccination programs, etc. - doing good is also often good business. Look at Marshall plan results - we did “good.” We helped rebuild nations, built democratic institutions, and laid the groundwork for future prosperity. That also created more juice in the global system, built strong trading partners, etc. “We all do better when we all do better” also works on the global scale. In fact, I would suggest that our most successful foreign actions (in terms of benefit to us, long-term) have been of that character.

[Celery Man 21098]

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Bullshit. In nearly twenty years posting on these politics boards I have made detailed proposals on how to improve a broad range of things from domestic issues such as healthcare to broad foreign policy issues. But rhetoric points for you I guess. 

Ahh, yes, the Both Sides Manifesto. 

[Captainant 28539]

4 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Ahh, yes, the Both Sides Manifesto. 

you can tell what it is because its printed double sided

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Gap03 3386]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

21 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

[Player 4611]

Let me tell you something else. I’ve seen a lot of spineless dudes. And this guy’s a fake...a fucking goldbricker.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13629]

 

[elfenix 34752]

On 2/14/2019 at 7:27 PM, EMAWesome said:

You really need to go back and retake a high school civics class.  Circumstantial evidence is normally not allowed as presentable evidence in a court of law.  This board is more out of touch with reality than the Flat Earth Society.

#selfownageof2019

[horncyclist 1391]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Surprised he can still afford Dr. Sebastian Gorka, PhD as his personal assistant considering all the asset forfeitures.

 

[Atx71 146]

1 hour ago, horncyclist said:

Surprised he can still afford Dr. Sebastian Gorka, PhD as his personal assistant considering all the asset forfeitures.

 

"Personal assistant "......is that what they are calling it these days?.

[Homercles 10206]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I hope she has a good attorney.

 

”Patten and Kaiser were involved in a controversial election campaign in Nigeria in January 2015, which former Cambridge Analytica employees say had “unsettling” parallels to the US presidential election.

The Guardian revealed that the data firm had worked alongside a team of unidentified Israeli intelligence operatives on the campaign. Ex-Cambridge Analytica employees described how the Israelis hacked the now-president of Nigeria’s emails and released damaging information about him to the press weeks before the election.”

Edited February 17, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[yaqdum 182]

the pot thlickens.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

From Robert Mueller's sentencing memo for Paul Manafort. 

"Given the breadth of Manafort’s criminal activity, the government has not located a comparable case with the unique array of crimes and aggravating factors."

[Degenerate Gardner 4159]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

From Robert Mueller's sentencing memo for Paul Manafort. 

"Given the breadth of Manafort’s criminal activity, the government has not located a comparable case with the unique array of crimes and aggravating factors."

The BEST people.

[deech 2391]

On 2/16/2019 at 4:53 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

[TDunk 590]

 

Edited February 18, 2019 by TDunk

[Post Oak 20568]

8 minutes ago, TDunk said:

 

Seth apparently reads Surly.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Last post on page—>

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Doc Reeves 6434]

Oh, that seem wise

 

hes banking on a pardon obviously 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Time to revoke bail. 

[jimmyjazz 47205]

Wow . . . a bit perverse, even for that freak.

[jimmyjazz 47205]

It is a nice feature of social media, though.  Now the idiots can actually hang themselves in public.

[Player 4611]

That is indeed a bold fucking strategy, Cotton. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It’s been the GOP/Trump strategy for years.  Attack and discredit anyone that might hold you accountable. 

See also Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe, Strozk, Ohr, Page, the 9th circuit, Sessions, Democrats, and the Media.

Kim Jong Un, Xi, Putin, and Nazis however, very fine people.