|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trump seems more like someone that uses his voice, body-language, posture, and other physical clues, (his temperament), to intimidate threats down, rather than to actually blow up and loose his reason.
Right, as he demonstrated just this week with his 3am tirade against Alicia Machado where he told us all to go find a sex tape that doesn't exist. Now there's what I call not blowing up and using reason!
Another really big threat they are concerned about is Hillary essentially starting another civil war, this one probably less intentional and more of her blundering it up over things like the right to own Firearms.
*laughs*
|
|
If what Julian and Co. have is patently true and very damaging, releasing it sooner would be better.
If what Julian and Co. have is likely true and/or somewhat damaging, releasing it later in the month would be better.
I think if they had anything worthwhile they wouldn't be announcing it. The point of the October Surprise is, you know, the surprise. I think Assange is just hoping to psyche Clinton out and whatever it is will be a big pile of nothing, same as the DNC leaks.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ummm, DM Beckett I don't know who you're quoting but it wasn't me.
It was me, I think.
So, here is the thing, and I'll be upfront and mention that this is very small population and very much based on my personal experiences, but the vast majority of the folks I speak to in the military, where I work, generally agree that they think Hillary is significantly more likely to get us into a war than Trump. Trump seems more like someone that uses his voice, body-language, posture, and other physical clues, (his temperament), to intimidate threats down, rather than to actually blow up and loose his reason. If Trump does get us into a war, it's more likely to be one we want to be in, with an actual goal, and one that will be very mindful of the financial strain that war brings.
Well, I'm willing to believe that you are accurately representing your sample group, but I'm afraid that I disagree with their assessment. For one thing, we've actually seen Trump "blow up and lose his reason" several times in the course of the campaign. For example, we saw that with the Khan family, and we saw it more recently with Alicia Machado; I could produce other examples, but so can your own search engine. More generally, what you call "intimidat[ing] threats down," I call "bluffing," and the problem with bluffing is that sooner or later you will run into someone who can and will call your bluff, and what do you do then?
Or, more accurately, what will Trump do then? He doesn't seem to have good exit strategies when his bluffs are called.
I've already outlined one path-to-war that I take very seriously. He's threatened to pull out of defending NATO allies if they don't spend more on their own defense, and, of course, the various Baltic States are all NATO members that Russia has had its eye on for decades.
I already outlined some of the military forces that Russia has within an easy walk of Estonia. (And I mean it literally -- an easy walk.) The only thing that keeps Putin out of Estonia and Latvia is (as far as I can tell) fear of international retaliation, which in turn means NATO. If Putin believes that the US will not defend Estonia, can Germany and France provide an effective deterrent? And so, what happens if Putin calls Trump's bluff on defense of the Baltic States?
I think you answered your own question. Trump will try "to intimidate [Putin] down," and we both know how that will work. (Trump has already said that Putin won't move [any further] into Ukraine on his (Trump's) watch, so there's another flash point....)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I already outlined some of the military forces that Russia has within an easy walk of Estonia. (And I mean it literally -- an easy walk.) The only thing that keeps Putin out of Estonia and Latvia is (as far as I can tell) fear of international retaliation, which in turn means NATO. If Putin believes that the US will not defend Estonia, can Germany and France provide an effective deterrent? And so, what happens if Putin calls Trump's bluff on defense of the Baltic States?
If Russia were to just invade Estonia, or the other two Baltic States, I extremely doubt that even Obama would go to war over them, any more than the West did so when the Russians did it the first time.
More than likely Putin would create a situation where the Ethnic Russians in those states would call for a "rescue".. pretty much the Texas strategy the US used on Mexico.
I already outlined some of the military forces that Russia has within an easy walk of Estonia. (And I mean it literally -- an easy walk.) The only thing that keeps Putin out of Estonia and Latvia is (as far as I can tell) fear of international retaliation, which in turn means NATO. If Putin believes that the US will not defend Estonia, can Germany and France provide an effective deterrent? And so, what happens if Putin calls Trump's bluff on defense of the Baltic States?If Russia were to just invade Estonia, or the other two Baltic States, I extremely doubt that even Obama would go to war over them, any more than the West did so when the Russians did it the first time.
Perhaps, but the rest of the NATO membership would be pretty appalled. NATO is one of the few alliances in history where the mutual defense clauses (specifically, in this case, Article 5) have teeth and are taken seriously.
As Sissyl pointed out, people put up with the US "because the US is powerful, at least vaguely sane, and above all predictable." Backing out of Article 5 does not enhance any of those three...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NATO was willing to invoke Article 5 over September 11th, but were talked out of it.I already outlined some of the military forces that Russia has within an easy walk of Estonia. (And I mean it literally -- an easy walk.) The only thing that keeps Putin out of Estonia and Latvia is (as far as I can tell) fear of international retaliation, which in turn means NATO. If Putin believes that the US will not defend Estonia, can Germany and France provide an effective deterrent? And so, what happens if Putin calls Trump's bluff on defense of the Baltic States?If Russia were to just invade Estonia, or the other two Baltic States, I extremely doubt that even Obama would go to war over them, any more than the West did so when the Russians did it the first time.Perhaps, but the rest of the NATO membership would be pretty appalled. NATO is one of the few alliances in history where the mutual defense clauses (specifically, in this case, Article 5) have teeth and are taken seriously.
As Sissyl pointed out, people put up with the US "because the US is powerful, at least vaguely sane, and above all predictable." Backing out of Article 5 does not enhance any of those three...
My understanding was that Article 5 was indeed invoked.
If so, that would make Trump's unwillingness to stand by Article 5 doubly ironic, given that the only time Article 5 has ever been invoked was as a result of an attack on the US.
Were they?
NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
|
|
Five people are out of their jobs at the DNC. So, what exactly do you mean by "big pile of nothing"?
1) the DNC leak didn't actually show anything substantial, despite all the eyebrow waggling from Assange & people who already hated the DNC. Some officials complaining about Sanders, one guy's ugly (and solitary) email about using his atheism against him (which no one responded to). Zero evidence of any kind of wrongdoing, certainly not a smoking gun for a rigged primary.
2) What does five people being fired prove? Like DWS, they were sacrificial lambs. This is politics, and Clinton's camp wanted to extend the olive branch to Sanders' camp. Same reason Bernie got to name 1/3 of the party platform committee, it was a concession.
Anyway, my point is that whatever Assange has isn't a knockout blow or he wouldn't be talking it up. He'd wait until mid- to late-October and then drop the hammer. Whatever it is might very well be inconvenient, but that's par for the course for political campaigns. Dude's an annoyance and a distraction at best.
Were they?
NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.I remember Dubya wanting to go it as close to alone as we could manage, mainly to combat the 'America is weak when actually hit' stance that was percolating in the terrorist worldview at the time.
That they were involved in Afghanistan makes the entry into Iraq look even more stupid (and I already thought it was an epic blunder to begin with).
Wasn't so much an epic blunder but deliberate design to exercise regime change in order to get an oil pipeline built.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Him having an axe to grind doesn't make him more relevant.
Clinton has repeatedly advocated for his arrest and imprisonment. Stands to reason he took it personally.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude's an annoyance and a distraction at best.Of course that's all he is. He just happens to live in the Ecuadorian Embassy because he likes the Arroz con Pollo.
Um,... what? He's living in the Ecuadorian embassy because he will be arrested the minute he sets foot on British soil. That doesn't actually mean he's more than an annoyance, since swearing out an extradition warrant is one of those things that bureaucrats do routinely.
One of the problems with the modern state is how mechanized the process of law enforcement has become. A person is arrested for public urination and spends the rest of their life as a registered sex offender. That doesn't mean that public urination is anything more than an annoyance and a distraction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Him having an axe to grind doesn't make him more relevant.Clinton has repeatedly advocated for his arrest and imprisonment. Stands to reason he took it personally.
But that doesn't actually make him effective...
|
Dude's an annoyance and a distraction at best.Of course that's all he is. He just happens to live in the Ecuadorian Embassy because he likes the Arroz con Pollo.Um,... what? He's living in the Ecuadorian embassy because he will be arrested the minute he sets foot on British soil. That doesn't actually mean he's more than an annoyance, since swearing out an extradition warrant is one of those things that bureaucrats do routinely.
One of the problems with the modern state is how mechanized the process of law enforcement has become. A person is arrested for public urination and spends the rest of their life as a registered sex offender. That doesn't mean that public urination is anything more than an annoyance and a distraction.
Hasent he already outlasted the earrent by now (Pretty sure it only had a certain valid length of time)
Hasent he already outlasted the earrent by now (Pretty sure it only had a certain valid length of time)Dude's an annoyance and a distraction at best.Of course that's all he is. He just happens to live in the Ecuadorian Embassy because he likes the Arroz con Pollo.Um,... what? He's living in the Ecuadorian embassy because he will be arrested the minute he sets foot on British soil. That doesn't actually mean he's more than an annoyance, since swearing out an extradition warrant is one of those things that bureaucrats do routinely.
One of the problems with the modern state is how mechanized the process of law enforcement has become. A person is arrested for public urination and spends the rest of their life as a registered sex offender. That doesn't mean that public urination is anything more than an annoyance and a distraction.
I'm not familiar with English and Welsh laws (which is the relevant jurisdiction), but in the jurisdictions with which I am familiar, fleeing to avoid prosecution causes the clock to stop. One of the shortest laws in the US Federal Code is 18 U.S. Code § 3290, which states, in its entirety, "No statute of limitations shall extend to any person fleeing from justice." In other words, if you are charged with a Federal crime and flee, you can still be brought to trial years or decades afterwards, even if the crime you were charged with is using a 4-H club badge improperly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Julian Assange is a biased, rapist a~@@$+*. I can't wait until he eventually gets arrested and I never have to hear about him again.
Julian Assange is a biased, rapist
Every argument i've seen to back that allegation has been patently ridiculous with the clear purpose of impugning what he says and does and providing an excuse to arrest him because he hasn't actually broken any laws.
As much as I understand your sentiments, KC... I feel like those types of comments are edging towards what the mods would prefer we not post. Perhaps it would be better to simply state that you believe he is in fact a criminal, and ought to be arrested, without any insults to go with it?
As much as I understand your sentiments, KC... I feel like those types of comments are edging towards what the mods would prefer we not post. Perhaps it would be better to simply state that you believe he is in fact a criminal, and ought to be arrested, without any insults to go with it?
The word I used is not meant to be used flippantly, or as slang, such as "this movie _______ed my childhood". That said, it is not censored, so my assumption is that it is okay to use it in a literal context.
Calling him a biased a*+&@*%, on the other hand, is just calling a shovel a spade. People can argue over semantics, but at the end of the day, it's just what he is. There are plenty of government whistleblowers who have made real sacrifices, who truly deserve our respect, and who have not "committed crimes against" women in Sweden. Chelsea Manning. Edward Snowden. I am so tired of hearing about Assange.
While I fully respect your effort to keep the argument civil, Assange is fully worthy of insults. And he's not on the forums, so I'm not attacking other Paizonians. So I say again: What an a%+~~&!.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every argument i've seen to back that allegation has been patently ridiculous with the clear purpose of impugning what he says and does and providing an excuse to arrest him because he hasn't actually broken any laws.
Alternative take: he's using a narrative of govt-getting-back-at-me to provide cover for his avoidance of rape charges. It's a Swedish warrant, not an American one. Maybe the charges are trumped up, or maybe they're on the level and just didn't come to light until various agencies started digging in to who the heck this Assange guy was back in 2010. I find the latter to be more plausible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This election has done a lot to trump up Assange.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think holing up in that embassy has resulted in Assange living in an echo chamber - he probably really believes the things he is saying now.
I suspect it's simpler than that; his living conditions in the embassy have literally driven him insane.
maybe [the charges] on the level and just didn't come to light until various agencies started digging in to who the heck this Assange guy was back in 2010. I find the latter to be more plausible.
The timeline doesn't really work out for that one, I'm afraid. The arrest warrant was dated August 2010, based on events that allegedly happened in 11-20 August, 2010. That's not a set of old charges that just happened to be dug up.
This election has done a lot to trump up Assange.
You can't spell Assange without a-s-s.
Alternative take:
No. You do not get to just make up a story to fit a narrative.
The facts of the case do not support the charges, at all.
In the case of Ms. Ardin, she kept him as a houseguest for six nights after the incident, and even threw a crayfish party for him. In the case of Ms. Wilen...(slightly adult stuff delted)
She then went out and bought the two of them breakfast oats and orange juice.
They didn't accuse him of rape, they wanted the police to force him to take an HIV test after they found out about each other.
This election has done a lot to trump up Assange.
I haven't heard about him much this election at all.
Alternative take:
No. You do not get to just make up a story to fit a narrative.
The facts of the case do not support the charges, at all.
Well, this is where the procedural matters get weird. Until Assange is actually interviewed, basic fairness to the alleged victims demands that the case be pursued. (We'd all be up in arms if an accused college rapist simply took a trip to Mexico and the local DA shrugged his shoulders and said "whups, he left the jurisdiction, so I'm dropping the charges.") If there was enough information to justify the warrant in the first place, Assange's flight is, if anything, reason to keep the warrant going, not to drop it.
The judgment that "the facts of the case do not support the charges" can't really be made without putting more facts into evidence,.... so the whole thing is basically locked in limbo.
That said, I think the unwillingness of Swedish authorities to interview Assange at the embassy is pretty strong evidence that they are not, in fact, acting in good faith. This whole matter could have been resolved in 2010 when the warrant was first issued, or in 2012 when Assange received asylum in the first place.... and it's not Ecuadorean stubbornness that has kept it going. Both the Ecuadoreans and Assange were willing to host an interview years ago.
Alternative take:
No. You do not get to just make up a story to fit a narrative.
The facts of the case do not support the charges, at all.
Well, this is where the procedural matters get weird. Until Assange is actually interviewed, basic fairness to the alleged victims demands that the case be pursued. (We'd all be up in arms if an accused college rapist simply took a trip to Mexico and the local DA shrugged his shoulders and said "whups, he left the jurisdiction, so I'm dropping the charges.") If there was enough information to justify the warrant in the first place, Assange's flight is, if anything, reason to keep the warrant going, not to drop it.
The judgment that "the facts of the case do not support the charges" can't really be made without putting more facts into evidence,.... so the whole thing is basically locked in limbo.
That said, I think the unwillingness of Swedish authorities to interview Assange at the embassy is pretty strong evidence that they are not, in fact, acting in good faith. This whole matter could have been resolved in 2010 when the warrant was first issued, or in 2012 when Assange received asylum in the first place.... and it's not Ecuadorean stubbornness that has kept it going. Both the Ecuadoreans and Assange were willing to host an interview years ago.
Assange has asserted that the Swedish are acting as proxies for the United States. If Sweden were to extradit him, they'd probably honor an extradite order from the United States that would be issued the moment he landed on Swedish soil.
Not really sure you can flee jurisdiction to avoid prosecution and then claim proof of your innocence the fact that the police refuse to go to another country to question you.
Well, it's being done as we type. So I'm pretty sure you can do it.
Alternative take:
No. You do not get to just make up a story to fit a narrative.
The facts of the case do not support the charges, at all.
Well, this is where the procedural matters get weird. Until Assange is actually interviewed, basic fairness to the alleged victims demands that the case be pursued. (We'd all be up in arms if an accused college rapist simply took a trip to Mexico and the local DA shrugged his shoulders and said "whups, he left the jurisdiction, so I'm dropping the charges.") If there was enough information to justify the warrant in the first place, Assange's flight is, if anything, reason to keep the warrant going, not to drop it.
The judgment that "the facts of the case do not support the charges" can't really be made without putting more facts into evidence,.... so the whole thing is basically locked in limbo.
That said, I think the unwillingness of Swedish authorities to interview Assange at the embassy is pretty strong evidence that they are not, in fact, acting in good faith. This whole matter could have been resolved in 2010 when the warrant was first issued, or in 2012 when Assange received asylum in the first place.... and it's not Ecuadorean stubbornness that has kept it going. Both the Ecuadoreans and Assange were willing to host an interview years ago.
Sweden seemed willing to take up the offer of an embassy interview recently.
Not sure if/when it will happen though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I know is leaking is never as good as revealing. Just ask the Titanic.
|
The problem, though, is that sometimes the world does change, to the point that the world-as-we-know-it had ended and been replaced by something entirely different.
...
I can easily see a Trump presidency shattering the world as we now know it. The United States is engaged in three independent games of saber rattling with nuclear-armed countries (Russia, China, and North Korea); one diplomatic misstep could put the US into war.Right. Plus Brexit wasn't just a fluke. Many EU countries have similarly Far Right authoritarian movements riding on a wave of anti-immigrant hysteria, over-hyped fear of terrorism, and bigoted nationalism. Whatever you think of the EU's economic policies, the EU has been a huge anti-war stabilizing influence. If the EU falls, things will get much much worse very quickly. If Trump/Pence is elected, I think a major multi-continental "hot" military conflict is not just possible, but very likely.So, here is the thing, and I'll be upfront and mention that this is very small population and very much based on my personal experiences, but the vast majority of the folks I speak to in the military, where I work, generally agree that they think Hillary is significantly more likely to get us into a war than Trump. Trump seems more like someone that uses his voice, body-language, posture, and other physical clues, (his temperament), to intimidate threats down, rather than to actually blow up and loose his reason. If Trump does get us into a war, it's more likely to be one we want to be in, with an actual goal, and one that will be very mindful of the financial strain that war brings.
Hillary on the other hand, they strongly believe will instigate a war(s) for her own purposes, and attempt to either use it to cover up some slimy stuff, or fill her own pocket. The key differences are that it's less likely to be a war we want to be in, more likely to be financially ruining to us and others, (we are at war until she gets...
You honesty believe Trump wouldn't lead the u.s. to war for his own benefit? I ask because Trump has a history of bulldozing over the common man to make a buck. A long history.
*knows Trump will probably start WWIII by declaring war on North Korea. "Accidently" hits Salt Lake City and Las Vegas* *declares he needs a map* *starts WWIV by trying to take over Iceland*
Grey,
I prefer sanity to what might actually happen...
Aww, but losing your sanity is fun!
Speaking of, any bets on how/if Trump is going to change his strategy for the second debate?