@FinneousPJ uhm, actually that IS a virtue (well, at least according to Roman philosophy). Sternness. Or at least I dare to say so from my own point of view on this matter (I think I know enough to say this. I think).
@FinneousPJ Please avoid making sweeping generalisations. As an alcoholic who hasn't had a drink for three years now it matters a lot to me that I DON'T have a drink today, or tomorrow, or the day after and every day after that for the rest of my life.
Anyway, given that this is a thread about politics, do you really think it doesn't matter if a large percentage of any given electorate don't turn out to vote?
Is this a fact, that Trump is straight edge ? I wouldn't be surprised if he uses cocaine or amphetamines (all his sniffing and late night shitposting on twitter, his "high energy")
Btw. I'm not using heroin. Does this make me a virtuous person ? Being abstinent doesn't imply anything about your character. It may has personal value for you, but it doesn't make you a good or bad person per se
Since it came up again, I'll reiterate that what I meant was that it was a virtue that Trump was not dependent on any alcohol or recreational drugs (and that his teetotaler-ness, being related to the death of his brother, is a sad story that humanises the man a little bit). I phrased it badly in the initial post. I think it's perfectly morally okay to drink or take recreational drugs under most circumstances.
(Indeed, I don't think the government has any right to legislate what people knowingly and willingly do totheir own bodies, and support a Portuguese-style system of decriminalisation of all drugs.)
Anyway, given that this is a thread about politics, do you really think it doesn't matter if a large percentage of any given electorate don't turn out to vote?
I don't think it matters much. Australia has compulsory voting, Canada does not, and from living in both countries (which otherwise have a similar British-descended federal system), there is no clear indicator that either has a better-informed or more engaged electorate.
Obliging people to vote doesn't make them care more or be better-informed. You can lead a horse to water, etc, etc.
CrevsDaak You are free to think so. I do not share your opinion.
I don't think that either... I don't consider those virtues a thing, I thought they would be what people usually accepted as their virtues, so I got a hat and went there. I mean... People like Democracy, and I'm facist, so yeah, what do I know. I go back to reading Machiavelli and theorize about enslaving humanity brb.
Obliging people to vote doesn't make them care more or be better-informed. You can lead a horse to water, etc, etc.
I'm going to say only one thing here: ARGENTINA. I'm pretty sure you can head your way from there to why obligatory voting isn't the best of ideas (I mean voting is a bad idea in the first place but I am sure I'm not here to lecture people on dictatorships today).
And Julian Assange, in an interview with Sean Hannity (again! Oh, the strange bedfellows politics makes) stated that the Russian government was NOT the source of the Podesta leak and the whole thing is Obama trying to delegitimise Trump. On the one hand, Assange is obviously biased against the Democrats and was clearly in the tank for anyone-but-Hillary, which makes this a pretty convenient thing for him to say. On the other hand, his entire reputation is shot if the US government ever produces any proof that shows he was lying, and Assange of all people is in an excellent position to know who the source actually was. He also makes a good point in pointing to the absurdity that in all their time talking about the hacks, the US government has completely avoided mentioning Wikileaks, since they're the ones who actually released the information.
On the gripping hand, Assange's reputation is shot if it turns out he was just a pawn in Putin's play to influence the election. Wikileaks depends on being seen as a totally neutral, independent player. So if it was the Russians, Assange is between a rock and a hard place. Either lie and hope no solid evidence ever surfaces, or admit he compromised Wikileaks neutrality to get the big scoop.
And Julian Assange, in an interview with Sean Hannity (again! Oh, the strange bedfellows politics makes) stated that the Russian government was NOT the source of the Podesta leak and the whole thing is Obama trying to delegitimise Trump. On the one hand, Assange is obviously biased against the Democrats and was clearly in the tank for anyone-but-Hillary, which makes this a pretty convenient thing for him to say. On the other hand, his entire reputation is shot if the US government ever produces any proof that shows he was lying, and Assange of all people is in an excellent position to know who the source actually was. He also makes a good point in pointing to the absurdity that in all their time talking about the hacks, the US government has completely avoided mentioning Wikileaks, since they're the ones who actually released the information.
On the gripping hand, Assange's reputation is shot if it turns out he was just a pawn in Putin's play to influence the election. Wikileaks depends on being seen as a totally neutral, independent player. So if it was the Russians, Assange is between a rock and a hard place. Either lie and hope no solid evidence ever surfaces, or admit he compromised Wikileaks neutrality to get the big scoop.
Isn't part of the reason Assange is holed up in that embassy because of a sexual assault charge of his own in another country?? As for Sean Hannity, you can find multiple clips of him calling for him to be gone after with full force less than 6 years ago, and I can guarantee if you had clips of his radio show from that time you'd have callers on air calling for him to be assassinated. That whole long-term memory wipe of Republican voters I talked about earlier in the thread?? I would present this as exhibit A.
Eh, not all Republicans are Republicans for the same reasons. There is enough drift there to see wildly different opinions on the same issues. Thats not even going into people that are Republican simply because they don't like the Democratic party.
Isn't part of the reason Assange is holed up in that embassy because of a sexual assault charge of his own in another country?? As for Sean Hannity, you can find multiple clips of him calling for him to be gone after with full force less than 6 years ago, and I can guarantee if you had clips of his radio show from that time you'd have callers on air calling for him to be assassinated. That whole long-term memory wipe of Republican voters I talked about earlier in the thread?? I would present this as exhibit A.
No, he's holed up because the US government will kidnap him given half a chance. The sexual assault charge was to try and facilitate him leaving, at which point he would be kidnapped (this doesn't mean it isn't real, which leads to the next point).
That being said, Exhibit B on the thing you talked about would be the number of leftists who immediately turned into right-wing rape skeptics when the charges against Assange were brought up. Women accusing men of sexual assault are just looking for attention! If they saw him again after the alleged rape that proves there was consent! For awhile you could count on a vocal majority of leftists in most places dismissing the charges using the exact arguments the left usually decries, every time the charges made the news.
And then exhibit C was that suddenly all that Assange-faith had vanished when Wikileaks functionally came out as anti-Clinton (and thus pro-Trump, to them) during the election.
There is no real difference between left and right on this sort of thing. The principle of "my team rah, their team boo" crosses all ideological and party boundaries.
On the gripping hand, Assange's reputation is shot if it turns out he was just a pawn in Putin's play to influence the election. Wikileaks depends on being seen as a totally neutral, independent player. So if it was the Russians, Assange is between a rock and a hard place. Either lie and hope no solid evidence ever surfaces, or admit he compromised Wikileaks neutrality to get the big scoop.
Well, if it WAS the Russians, he could make the case that the source was irrelevant because the material was genuine, which is sort of the point of Wikileaks.
A lot of people would take that as him being bought by the Russians (or being a "useful idiot" because people love dredging up Cold War propaganda), of course. But a lot of people will take that anyway, since it's Obama's implicit argument.
Is this a fact, that Trump is straight edge ? I wouldn't be surprised if he uses cocaine or amphetamines (all his sniffing and late night shitposting on twitter, his "high energy")
With the amount of people who know and dislike Trump, his various exes, et cetera, I rather imagine that if he used illegal drugs, it would be well-known.
All of the things you mentioned are relatively common in people without the aid of recreational drugs. Trump doesn't make a big deal out of being drug-free, and nobody would care or be shocked if he'd done blow back in the 90s. Occam's razor suggests that he probably is drug-free (except probably for coffee).
(Leftists also conspiracy theorised that GWB had fallen off the wagon and resumed drinking, and the evidence for that was never compelling either.)
Mitch McMcConnell, today, and I quote: "The American people will not tolerate the Democrats blocking Trump's SCOTUS nominees". I'm told this is a PG-13 forum, so I best not say anymore. Besides, I don't know that a word exists that describes this kind of brazen hypocrisy.
Isn't part of the reason Assange is holed up in that embassy because of a sexual assault charge of his own in another country?? As for Sean Hannity, you can find multiple clips of him calling for him to be gone after with full force less than 6 years ago, and I can guarantee if you had clips of his radio show from that time you'd have callers on air calling for him to be assassinated. That whole long-term memory wipe of Republican voters I talked about earlier in the thread?? I would present this as exhibit A.
No, he's holed up because the US government will kidnap him given half a chance. The sexual assault charge was to try and facilitate him leaving, at which point he would be kidnapped (this doesn't mean it isn't real, which leads to the next point).
That being said, Exhibit B on the thing you talked about would be the number of leftists who immediately turned into right-wing rape skeptics when the charges against Assange were brought up. Women accusing men of sexual assault are just looking for attention! If they saw him again after the alleged rape that proves there was consent! For awhile you could count on a vocal majority of leftists in most places dismissing the charges using the exact arguments the left usually decries, every time the charges made the news.
And then exhibit C was that suddenly all that Assange-faith had vanished when Wikileaks functionally came out as anti-Clinton (and thus pro-Trump, to them) during the election.
There is no real difference between left and right on this sort of thing. The principle of "my team rah, their team boo" crosses all ideological and party boundaries.
Ths Obama administration was crystal clear on Assange from the beginning.
Ths Obama administration was crystal clear on Assange from the beginning.
That's very true, the Obama administration is the most anti-whistleblower in history, even beating out Richard Nixon. They've shown no compunction in doing stuff like twisting the Espionage Act to try to persecute whistleblowers (who are otherwise protected by the First Amendment and prior Supreme Court precedent).
And, of course, they're repeatedly put pressure on countries to try and extradite Assange (and Snowden).
Mitch McMcConnell, today, and I quote: "The American people will not tolerate the Democrats blocking Trump's SCOTUS nominees". I'm told this is a PG-13 forum, so I best not say anymore. Besides, I don't know that a word exists that describes this kind of brazen hypocrisy.
I suspect some Democrats now regret the implementation of the nuclear option back in November of 2013. The changes to the rules will now restrict their ability to block nominations needing to be confirmed.
Remember--they are politicians. Hypocrisy is in their blood.
Mitch McMcConnell, today, and I quote: "The American people will not tolerate the Democrats blocking Trump's SCOTUS nominees". I'm told this is a PG-13 forum, so I best not say anymore. Besides, I don't know that a word exists that describes this kind of brazen hypocrisy.
I suspect some Democrats now regret the implementation of the nuclear option back in November of 2013. The changes to the rules will now restrict their ability to block nominations needing to be confirmed.
Remember--they are politicians. Hypocrisy is in their blood.
There is NO equivalent on the left to what the Republicans did the last year with Obama's Supreme Court pick. For the first time in history, they refused to even hold a hearing, not just for Merrick Garland, but for ANYONE he would have picked. It was nothing less than the straight theft of a duly-elected President's right to name a Justice, handed directly to Donald Trump. Any other interpretation is just flat-out incorrect.
The rape accusations against Assange predate the furor over Wikileaks. True or not, the accusations are not trumped-up charges concocted for political reasons. For what it's worth, all kinds of public figures, loved and hated, have been accused of rape. My opinion of Wikileaks is not related to those charges.
I disagree with Snowden's actions but I believe he felt he was doing the right thing. Assange, however, does not seem that concerned about ethics. He famously failed to redact even personal details like Social Security numbers, endangering people when there was no reason to do so--it's not in the public interest to expose THAT kind of personal information. Personal profiles of Assange tend to make him look like an ugly and selfish person.
For the record, Wikileaks is indeed known for being 100% accurate. That is not really disputed.
As for me, what truly bothers me is not that the DNC's internal messages were leaked. It's that the hackers also hacked the RNC, but only leaked information on the DNC. If they were really just trying to promote transparency, they would have released everything they found, whether damning or praiseworthy.
Information can be accurate but still incomplete. Does that kind of information enlighten us or mislead us?
The rape accusations against Assange predate the furor over Wikileaks. True or not, the accusations are not trumped-up charges concocted for political reasons. For what it's worth, all kinds of public figures, loved and hated, have been accused of rape. My opinion of Wikileaks is not related to those charges.
I disagree with Snowden's actions but I believe he felt he was doing the right thing. Assange, however, does not seem that concerned about ethics. He famously failed to redact even personal details like Social Security numbers, endangering people when there was no reason to do so--it's not in the public interest to expose THAT kind of personal information. Personal profiles of Assange tend to make him look like an ugly and selfish person.
For the record, Wikileaks is indeed known for being 100% accurate. That is not really disputed.
As for me, what truly bothers me is not that the DNC's internal messages were leaked. It's that the hackers also hacked the RNC, but only leaked information on the DNC. If they were really just trying to promote transparency, they would have released everything they found, whether damning or praiseworthy.
Information can be accurate but still incomplete. Does that kind of information enlighten us or mislead us?
I certainly don't trust our own intelligence agencies to be straight with us about disseminating information to the public. The question is, what reason do I have to trust Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald, or Edward Snowden with being the arbiters of what the public needs to know?? Assange has certainly revealed himself, at least in this election cycle, to be someone who was actively trying to defeat Hillary Clinton because of Clinton's policy stance on his leaking. Undoubtedly hard not to take it personally, but he was perfectly willing to deliver America over to a orange buffoon simply to save his own ass. He's not some paragon of the truth, he's just a weasel looking for the easiest way to climb out of his hole.
As for me, what truly bothers me is not that the DNC's internal messages were leaked. It's that the hackers also hacked the RNC, but only leaked information on the DNC. If they were really just trying to promote transparency, they would have released everything they found, whether damning or praiseworthy.
Waiting for that other shoe to drop is what's got me worried. "Hey, Donald, it's Vladamir, I need a favor. Oh, remember those hacked RNC emails, it would be a real shame if they showed up on Wikileaks just before the mid-term elections. Now here's what I need you to do..."
As for me, what truly bothers me is not that the DNC's internal messages were leaked. It's that the hackers also hacked the RNC, but only leaked information on the DNC. If they were really just trying to promote transparency, they would have released everything they found, whether damning or praiseworthy.
Waiting for that other shoe to drop is what's got me worried. "Hey, Donald, it's Vladamir, I need a favor. Oh, remember those hacked RNC emails, it would be a real shame if they showed up on Wikileaks just before the mid-term elections. Now here's what I need you to do..."
The idea that Trump isn't already compromised beyond belief in regards to Putin just in regards to the money he owes to Russian banks, is laughable. Who the hell knows what else is out there?? I just wouldn't count on the American media to find it without it being force-fed to them. Most of them are nothing by glorified stenographers whose defining traits are a.) sucking up to power and b.) extreme laziness.
Trump's financial links to Russia are pretty weak. If my memory is correct, although his associates have some ties to Russia, he has very little holdings in Russia. Russia has never been a very warm business climate, anyway. Granted, Putin did try to offer a cushy job to one of Bush's friends to sweeten a deal (Bush, knowing a bribe when he saw one, refused), so Putin is certainly not above purchasing favors. But it's not clear to me that Trump would profit from a friendly Putin any more than another president would.
Honestly, I do not see much evidence that Trump is vulnerable to blackmail, either. If Russia has scandalous content from the RNC's internal messages, Trump would not necessarily suffer from having it revealed. He can distance himself from the GOP in a way that Hillary could not (and, incidentally, would not) distance herself from the Democratic party--he is, after all, ostensibly the anti-establishment candidate. Putin theoretically could try to blackmail other Republican politicians with RNC-related information, but the next midterms are 2 years off, and I don't think people will find emails from the 2016 election will be quite as newsworthy in 2018.
The most damaging information about Trump would probably be found in his tweets and in his tax records. The former is already public, and I see no reason to believe Russia has access to the latter.
Even if somebody attempted to blackmail Trump, I don't think he would play along. He has some flaws, but meekness is not one of them.
Besides, Putin currently has a relatively Russia-friendly U.S. government coming up. It would be in his best interests to maintain that position, and avoid directly antagonizing the new administration.
My understanding is after one of his many bankruptcies the only place he could get money was Russia. So he and his busineses are indebted to foreign interests.
Do you know the easy way to keep anyone from hacking your e-mail messages and making them public? Release them to the public yourself. If you are saying things in your e-mail messages that you wouldn't want someone to release then don't say it. If there is something you need to say to someone privately that you don't want to get out to the public then speak to them in private. Simple. Yes, there should be an expectation of privacy but you must also live in the real world--if you are a politician or celebrity then someone is trying to hack into your e-mail and/or social media accounts *right now*.
We don't really know all the details about the Clinton Foundation, either.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats are made from the distilled essence of pure evil and corruption. That mode of thinking--my party is right, the other party is wrong--is the number one problem we have in politics at this time. Myopic defense of one's self-identified group (or vilification of the other group, for that matter) actually blinds you to the truth. Remember: understanding is a three-edged sword--your side, their side, and the truth.
Comments
Anyway, given that this is a thread about politics, do you really think it doesn't matter if a large percentage of any given electorate don't turn out to vote?
Btw. I'm not using heroin. Does this make me a virtuous person ? Being abstinent doesn't imply anything about your character. It may has personal value for you, but it doesn't make you a good or bad person per se
@dunbar You as well.
Regards to being virtuous, no, I don't think not voting matters at all.
(Indeed, I don't think the government has any right to legislate what people knowingly and willingly do totheir own bodies, and support a Portuguese-style system of decriminalisation of all drugs.) I don't think it matters much. Australia has compulsory voting, Canada does not, and from living in both countries (which otherwise have a similar British-descended federal system), there is no clear indicator that either has a better-informed or more engaged electorate.
Obliging people to vote doesn't make them care more or be better-informed. You can lead a horse to water, etc, etc.
If you're referring to this... I'm going to say only one thing here: ARGENTINA.
I'm pretty sure you can head your way from there to why obligatory voting isn't the best of ideas (I mean voting is a bad idea in the first place but I am sure I'm not here to lecture people on dictatorships today).
That being said, Exhibit B on the thing you talked about would be the number of leftists who immediately turned into right-wing rape skeptics when the charges against Assange were brought up. Women accusing men of sexual assault are just looking for attention! If they saw him again after the alleged rape that proves there was consent! For awhile you could count on a vocal majority of leftists in most places dismissing the charges using the exact arguments the left usually decries, every time the charges made the news.
And then exhibit C was that suddenly all that Assange-faith had vanished when Wikileaks functionally came out as anti-Clinton (and thus pro-Trump, to them) during the election.
There is no real difference between left and right on this sort of thing. The principle of "my team rah, their team boo" crosses all ideological and party boundaries.
A lot of people would take that as him being bought by the Russians (or being a "useful idiot" because people love dredging up Cold War propaganda), of course. But a lot of people will take that anyway, since it's Obama's implicit argument.
All of the things you mentioned are relatively common in people without the aid of recreational drugs. Trump doesn't make a big deal out of being drug-free, and nobody would care or be shocked if he'd done blow back in the 90s. Occam's razor suggests that he probably is drug-free (except probably for coffee).
(Leftists also conspiracy theorised that GWB had fallen off the wagon and resumed drinking, and the evidence for that was never compelling either.)
And, of course, they're repeatedly put pressure on countries to try and extradite Assange (and Snowden).
Remember--they are politicians. Hypocrisy is in their blood.
I disagree with Snowden's actions but I believe he felt he was doing the right thing. Assange, however, does not seem that concerned about ethics. He famously failed to redact even personal details like Social Security numbers, endangering people when there was no reason to do so--it's not in the public interest to expose THAT kind of personal information. Personal profiles of Assange tend to make him look like an ugly and selfish person.
For the record, Wikileaks is indeed known for being 100% accurate. That is not really disputed.
As for me, what truly bothers me is not that the DNC's internal messages were leaked. It's that the hackers also hacked the RNC, but only leaked information on the DNC. If they were really just trying to promote transparency, they would have released everything they found, whether damning or praiseworthy.
Information can be accurate but still incomplete. Does that kind of information enlighten us or mislead us?
Honestly, I do not see much evidence that Trump is vulnerable to blackmail, either. If Russia has scandalous content from the RNC's internal messages, Trump would not necessarily suffer from having it revealed. He can distance himself from the GOP in a way that Hillary could not (and, incidentally, would not) distance herself from the Democratic party--he is, after all, ostensibly the anti-establishment candidate. Putin theoretically could try to blackmail other Republican politicians with RNC-related information, but the next midterms are 2 years off, and I don't think people will find emails from the 2016 election will be quite as newsworthy in 2018.
The most damaging information about Trump would probably be found in his tweets and in his tax records. The former is already public, and I see no reason to believe Russia has access to the latter.
Even if somebody attempted to blackmail Trump, I don't think he would play along. He has some flaws, but meekness is not one of them.
Besides, Putin currently has a relatively Russia-friendly U.S. government coming up. It would be in his best interests to maintain that position, and avoid directly antagonizing the new administration.
For those interested,
We don't really know all the details about the Clinton Foundation, either.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats are made from the distilled essence of pure evil and corruption. That mode of thinking--my party is right, the other party is wrong--is the number one problem we have in politics at this time. Myopic defense of one's self-identified group (or vilification of the other group, for that matter) actually blinds you to the truth. Remember: understanding is a three-edged sword--your side, their side, and the truth.