(06-01-2017 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I don't know why you have an issue with #3.

I don't know why you think I have an issue with #3, since I said very clearly that I choose #3.

From the looks of things, it would appear that pretty much everyone is choosing #3--except Hillary and Podesta--which is why they are relevant to the discussion.

(06-06-2017 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I don't know why you have an issue with #3.

I don't know why you think I have an issue with #3, since I said very clearly that I choose #3.

From the looks of things, it would appear that pretty much everyone is choosing #3--except Hillary and Podesta--which is why they are relevant to the discussion.

That does not make them relevant to the discussion that was on hand.

The discussion on hand was about how we could expect more hacking to occur during the British election. How are the actions of two American officials during our elections germane to that conversation?

(06-06-2017 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I don't know why you have an issue with #3.

I don't know why you think I have an issue with #3, since I said very clearly that I choose #3.
From the looks of things, it would appear that pretty much everyone is choosing #3--except Hillary and Podesta--which is why they are relevant to the discussion.

That does not make them relevant to the discussion that was on hand.
The discussion on hand was about how we could expect more hacking to occur during the British election. How are the actions of two American officials during our elections germane to that conversation?

Sorry, I thought the discussion was about the need to be wary and careful to avoid possible hacking and other interference.

I think the Brits will be just fine in that regard. As were the French. As, quite frankly, were the Americans--except Hillary and Podesta.

(06-06-2017 09:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I don't know why you have an issue with #3.

I don't know why you think I have an issue with #3, since I said very clearly that I choose #3.
From the looks of things, it would appear that pretty much everyone is choosing #3--except Hillary and Podesta--which is why they are relevant to the discussion.

That does not make them relevant to the discussion that was on hand.
The discussion on hand was about how we could expect more hacking to occur during the British election. How are the actions of two American officials during our elections germane to that conversation?

Sorry, I thought the discussion was about the need to be wary and careful to avoid possible hacking and other interference.

I think the Brits will be just fine in that regard. As were the French. As, quite frankly, were the Americans.

I think we weren't as good as the other two. We covered the emails incessantly (even though they revealed little to nothing substantive) so it made it seem like there was an issue, when really there wasn't anything. I mean, people started suggesting some crazy things about a gosh darn pizza place.

It didn't help that there was already a controversy around one candidate and how she handled sensitive emails.

The email releases shouldn't have been a story because it fed into the goal of releasers, which was not to expose some major misdeed or cover up, but rather to try and hurt the chances of one candidate.

(06-06-2017 11:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 09:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I don't know why you have an issue with #3.

I don't know why you think I have an issue with #3, since I said very clearly that I choose #3.
From the looks of things, it would appear that pretty much everyone is choosing #3--except Hillary and Podesta--which is why they are relevant to the discussion.

That does not make them relevant to the discussion that was on hand.
The discussion on hand was about how we could expect more hacking to occur during the British election. How are the actions of two American officials during our elections germane to that conversation?

Sorry, I thought the discussion was about the need to be wary and careful to avoid possible hacking and other interference.

I think the Brits will be just fine in that regard. As were the French. As, quite frankly, were the Americans.

I think we weren't as good as the other two. We covered the emails incessantly (even though they revealed little to nothing substantive) so it made it seem like there was an issue, when really there wasn't anything. I mean, people started suggesting some crazy things about a gosh darn pizza place.

It didn't help that there was already a controversy around one candidate and how she handled sensitive emails.

The email releases shouldn't have been a story because it fed into the goal of releasers, which was not to expose some major misdeed or cover up, but rather to try and hurt the chances of one candidate.

Maybe our Secretary of state shouldn't have POed the leader of a major country. Maybe if he liked her, he would have taken her side.

But I agree little of what was released was major. Everybody already knew the DNC was rigging the nomination in her favor. But if it was so minor, how can we blame the loss on the emails?

(06-06-2017 12:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 11:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 09:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't know why you think I have an issue with #3, since I said very clearly that I choose #3.
From the looks of things, it would appear that pretty much everyone is choosing #3--except Hillary and Podesta--which is why they are relevant to the discussion.

That does not make them relevant to the discussion that was on hand.
The discussion on hand was about how we could expect more hacking to occur during the British election. How are the actions of two American officials during our elections germane to that conversation?

Sorry, I thought the discussion was about the need to be wary and careful to avoid possible hacking and other interference.

I think the Brits will be just fine in that regard. As were the French. As, quite frankly, were the Americans.

I think we weren't as good as the other two. We covered the emails incessantly (even though they revealed little to nothing substantive) so it made it seem like there was an issue, when really there wasn't anything. I mean, people started suggesting some crazy things about a gosh darn pizza place.

It didn't help that there was already a controversy around one candidate and how she handled sensitive emails.

The email releases shouldn't have been a story because it fed into the goal of releasers, which was not to expose some major misdeed or cover up, but rather to try and hurt the chances of one candidate.

Maybe our Secretary of state shouldn't have POed the leader of a major country. Maybe if he liked her, he would have taken her side.

But I agree little of what was released was major. Everybody already knew the DNC was rigging the nomination in her favor. But if it was so minor, how can we blame the loss on the emails?

I'm not blaming the loss on the released emails (as in, not placing 100% of the loss on those emails) and no one who is serious should. But they certainly played a role in the election.

However, your response that she should not have POed a leader of a major country is laughable because of how blanket of a statement that is. We cannot and should not be nice to every foreign leader. And if I extend your logic, what you're suggesting is that we must be nice to all foreign officials in order for them to not meddle in our democratic affairs.

(06-06-2017 02:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 12:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 11:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 09:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That does not make them relevant to the discussion that was on hand.
The discussion on hand was about how we could expect more hacking to occur during the British election. How are the actions of two American officials during our elections germane to that conversation?

Sorry, I thought the discussion was about the need to be wary and careful to avoid possible hacking and other interference.

I think the Brits will be just fine in that regard. As were the French. As, quite frankly, were the Americans.

I think we weren't as good as the other two. We covered the emails incessantly (even though they revealed little to nothing substantive) so it made it seem like there was an issue, when really there wasn't anything. I mean, people started suggesting some crazy things about a gosh darn pizza place.

It didn't help that there was already a controversy around one candidate and how she handled sensitive emails.

The email releases shouldn't have been a story because it fed into the goal of releasers, which was not to expose some major misdeed or cover up, but rather to try and hurt the chances of one candidate.

Maybe our Secretary of state shouldn't have POed the leader of a major country. Maybe if he liked her, he would have taken her side.

But I agree little of what was released was major. Everybody already knew the DNC was rigging the nomination in her favor. But if it was so minor, how can we blame the loss on the emails?

I'm not blaming the loss on the released emails (as in, not placing 100% of the loss on those emails) and no one who is serious should. But they certainly played a role in the election.

However, your response that she should not have POed a leader of a major country is laughable because of how blanket of a statement that is. We cannot and should not be nice to every foreign leader. And if I extend your logic, what you're suggesting is that we must be nice to all foreign officials in order for them to not meddle in our democratic affairs.

If anybody is supposed to be able to be diplomatic with foreign leaders without POing them, it should the diplomat in chief. She made some injudicious statements about elections in Russia and earned his undying enmity. Standing up to people and insulting them are not the same. One of the things i like so far about Trump is his willingness to stand up to other countries, rather than the excuse me policies of his predecessor.

so, if Trump/Tillerson says things that earn the undying personal hatred of the leader of China, you would consider that a good thing? I think not. So why give Hillary a pass on the same thing?

The evidence so far suggests that if the Russians intervened in the election, it was against Hillary, not for Trump.

(06-06-2017 02:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 02:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 12:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 11:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 09:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Sorry, I thought the discussion was about the need to be wary and careful to avoid possible hacking and other interference.

I think the Brits will be just fine in that regard. As were the French. As, quite frankly, were the Americans.

I think we weren't as good as the other two. We covered the emails incessantly (even though they revealed little to nothing substantive) so it made it seem like there was an issue, when really there wasn't anything. I mean, people started suggesting some crazy things about a gosh darn pizza place.

It didn't help that there was already a controversy around one candidate and how she handled sensitive emails.

The email releases shouldn't have been a story because it fed into the goal of releasers, which was not to expose some major misdeed or cover up, but rather to try and hurt the chances of one candidate.

Maybe our Secretary of state shouldn't have POed the leader of a major country. Maybe if he liked her, he would have taken her side.

But I agree little of what was released was major. Everybody already knew the DNC was rigging the nomination in her favor. But if it was so minor, how can we blame the loss on the emails?

I'm not blaming the loss on the released emails (as in, not placing 100% of the loss on those emails) and no one who is serious should. But they certainly played a role in the election.

However, your response that she should not have POed a leader of a major country is laughable because of how blanket of a statement that is. We cannot and should not be nice to every foreign leader. And if I extend your logic, what you're suggesting is that we must be nice to all foreign officials in order for them to not meddle in our democratic affairs.

If anybody is supposed to be able to be diplomatic with foreign leaders without POing them, it should the diplomat in chief. She made some injudicious statements about elections in Russia and earned his undying enmity. Standing up to people and insulting them are not the same. One of the things i like so far about Trump is his willingness to stand up to other countries, rather than the excuse me policies of his predecessor.

so, if Trump/Tillerson says things that earn the undying personal hatred of the leader of China, you would consider that a good thing? I think not. So why give Hillary a pass on the same thing?

The evidence so far suggests that if the Russians intervened in the election, it was against Hillary, not for Trump.

It wasn't as if Clinton said something that was untrue about Russia - she critically critiqued them about their election records, which I think is good. We should encourage our diplomats to shine the light on corrupt acts by corrupt nations.

If Trump/Tillerson said something about the Chine that was true and unflattering that pissed them off (like saying that the Chinese practice of censoring their internet was an affront to democracy), I would support that.

So you don't think our elected officials should speak out in support of democratic values?

(06-06-2017 03:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 02:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 02:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 12:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 11:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think we weren't as good as the other two. We covered the emails incessantly (even though they revealed little to nothing substantive) so it made it seem like there was an issue, when really there wasn't anything. I mean, people started suggesting some crazy things about a gosh darn pizza place.

It didn't help that there was already a controversy around one candidate and how she handled sensitive emails.

The email releases shouldn't have been a story because it fed into the goal of releasers, which was not to expose some major misdeed or cover up, but rather to try and hurt the chances of one candidate.

Maybe our Secretary of state shouldn't have POed the leader of a major country. Maybe if he liked her, he would have taken her side.

But I agree little of what was released was major. Everybody already knew the DNC was rigging the nomination in her favor. But if it was so minor, how can we blame the loss on the emails?

I'm not blaming the loss on the released emails (as in, not placing 100% of the loss on those emails) and no one who is serious should. But they certainly played a role in the election.

However, your response that she should not have POed a leader of a major country is laughable because of how blanket of a statement that is. We cannot and should not be nice to every foreign leader. And if I extend your logic, what you're suggesting is that we must be nice to all foreign officials in order for them to not meddle in our democratic affairs.

If anybody is supposed to be able to be diplomatic with foreign leaders without POing them, it should the diplomat in chief. She made some injudicious statements about elections in Russia and earned his undying enmity. Standing up to people and insulting them are not the same. One of the things i like so far about Trump is his willingness to stand up to other countries, rather than the excuse me policies of his predecessor.

so, if Trump/Tillerson says things that earn the undying personal hatred of the leader of China, you would consider that a good thing? I think not. So why give Hillary a pass on the same thing?

The evidence so far suggests that if the Russians intervened in the election, it was against Hillary, not for Trump.

It wasn't as if Clinton said something that was untrue about Russia - she critically critiqued them about their election records, which I think is good. We should encourage our diplomats to shine the light on corrupt acts by corrupt nations.

If Trump/Tillerson said something about the Chine that was true and unflattering that pissed them off (like saying that the Chinese practice of censoring their internet was an affront to democracy), I would support that.

So you don't think our elected officials should speak out in support of democratic values?

SecState is appointed.

Sometimes the truth hurts, grasshopper. Try telling your wife those pants make her look fat, and maybe you will learn the basics of diplomacy. Hillary meddled in his election, he meddled in hers. Pretty simple. And her biggest achievement in office.

We must speak truth in a diplomatic way. Or are you advocating that Tillerson should tell the Chinese, we are right, they are wrong. How very Democratic of you. (and yes, I meant with a big D).

(06-06-2017 05:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 03:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 02:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 02:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 12:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe our Secretary of state shouldn't have POed the leader of a major country. Maybe if he liked her, he would have taken her side.

But I agree little of what was released was major. Everybody already knew the DNC was rigging the nomination in her favor. But if it was so minor, how can we blame the loss on the emails?

I'm not blaming the loss on the released emails (as in, not placing 100% of the loss on those emails) and no one who is serious should. But they certainly played a role in the election.

However, your response that she should not have POed a leader of a major country is laughable because of how blanket of a statement that is. We cannot and should not be nice to every foreign leader. And if I extend your logic, what you're suggesting is that we must be nice to all foreign officials in order for them to not meddle in our democratic affairs.

If anybody is supposed to be able to be diplomatic with foreign leaders without POing them, it should the diplomat in chief. She made some injudicious statements about elections in Russia and earned his undying enmity. Standing up to people and insulting them are not the same. One of the things i like so far about Trump is his willingness to stand up to other countries, rather than the excuse me policies of his predecessor.

so, if Trump/Tillerson says things that earn the undying personal hatred of the leader of China, you would consider that a good thing? I think not. So why give Hillary a pass on the same thing?

The evidence so far suggests that if the Russians intervened in the election, it was against Hillary, not for Trump.

It wasn't as if Clinton said something that was untrue about Russia - she critically critiqued them about their election records, which I think is good. We should encourage our diplomats to shine the light on corrupt acts by corrupt nations.

If Trump/Tillerson said something about the Chine that was true and unflattering that pissed them off (like saying that the Chinese practice of censoring their internet was an affront to democracy), I would support that.

So you don't think our elected officials should speak out in support of democratic values?

SecState is appointed.

Sometimes the truth hurts, grasshopper. Try telling your wife those pants make her look fat, and maybe you will learn the basics of diplomacy. Hillary meddled in his election, he meddled in hers. Pretty simple. And her biggest achievement in office.

We must speak truth in a diplomatic way. Or are you advocating that Tillerson should tell the Chinese, we are right, they are wrong. How very Democratic of you. (and yes, I meant with a big D).

For someone who really nailed Obama for leading from behind, you seem to want to tuck your tail and play nice with everyone. You tell me the truth hurts, yet you're the one advocating for not telling the truth? That's confusing. Let's say your wife is fat and morbidly obese. Do you just keep nodding along and let her slowly die, or tell her she is morbidly obese and try and make her realize that herself.

Diplomacy sometimes requires harsh words and sometimes it requires kind words. There are times and places for both. I mean, what was Reagan the one that yelled at Gorbachev to "tear down this wall?"

It is not uncommon for elected or appointed officials to publicly condemn certain acts and behaviors of foreign leaders, so I'm pretty confused as to why you're acting as if it isn't, and the SOS should just play nice in the sandbox.

Also, what a false equivalent load of bologna about meddling in elections. If anything, the comments Clinton made were about a past election, let alone the fact that she was just making a statement. Now, if there was evidence that Clinton and our intelligence agencies were the ones organizing and actively encouraging the mass protests, then that is a much better comparison. But if not, it's pretty awful.

Also, also, I would not call her critique of Putin her biggest achievement in office. In keeping with the Russia theme, her role in getting the START treaty signed (prior to her critical comments) was a pretty big success. You can read about a few other achievements (through the eyes of others) here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2...ent-213157

(06-06-2017 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 05:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 03:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 02:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 02:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not blaming the loss on the released emails (as in, not placing 100% of the loss on those emails) and no one who is serious should. But they certainly played a role in the election.

However, your response that she should not have POed a leader of a major country is laughable because of how blanket of a statement that is. We cannot and should not be nice to every foreign leader. And if I extend your logic, what you're suggesting is that we must be nice to all foreign officials in order for them to not meddle in our democratic affairs.

If anybody is supposed to be able to be diplomatic with foreign leaders without POing them, it should the diplomat in chief. She made some injudicious statements about elections in Russia and earned his undying enmity. Standing up to people and insulting them are not the same. One of the things i like so far about Trump is his willingness to stand up to other countries, rather than the excuse me policies of his predecessor.

so, if Trump/Tillerson says things that earn the undying personal hatred of the leader of China, you would consider that a good thing? I think not. So why give Hillary a pass on the same thing?

The evidence so far suggests that if the Russians intervened in the election, it was against Hillary, not for Trump.

It wasn't as if Clinton said something that was untrue about Russia - she critically critiqued them about their election records, which I think is good. We should encourage our diplomats to shine the light on corrupt acts by corrupt nations.

If Trump/Tillerson said something about the Chine that was true and unflattering that pissed them off (like saying that the Chinese practice of censoring their internet was an affront to democracy), I would support that.

So you don't think our elected officials should speak out in support of democratic values?

SecState is appointed.

Sometimes the truth hurts, grasshopper. Try telling your wife those pants make her look fat, and maybe you will learn the basics of diplomacy. Hillary meddled in his election, he meddled in hers. Pretty simple. And her biggest achievement in office.

We must speak truth in a diplomatic way. Or are you advocating that Tillerson should tell the Chinese, we are right, they are wrong. How very Democratic of you. (and yes, I meant with a big D).

For someone who really nailed Obama for leading from behind, you seem to want to tuck your tail and play nice with everyone. You tell me the truth hurts, yet you're the one advocating for not telling the truth? That's confusing. Let's say your wife is fat and morbidly obese. Do you just keep nodding along and let her slowly die, or tell her she is morbidly obese and try and make her realize that herself.

Diplomacy sometimes requires harsh words and sometimes it requires kind words. There are times and places for both. I mean, what was Reagan the one that yelled at Gorbachev to "tear down this wall?"

It is not uncommon for elected or appointed officials to publicly condemn certain acts and behaviors of foreign leaders, so I'm pretty confused as to why you're acting as if it isn't, and the SOS should just play nice in the sandbox.

Also, what a false equivalent load of bologna about meddling in elections. If anything, the comments Clinton made were about a past election, let alone the fact that she was just making a statement. Now, if there was evidence that Clinton and our intelligence agencies were the ones organizing and actively encouraging the mass protests, then that is a much better comparison. But if not, it's pretty awful.

Also, also, I would not call her critique of Putin her biggest achievement in office. In keeping with the Russia theme, her role in getting the START treaty signed (prior to her critical comments) was a pretty big success. You can read about a few other achievements (through the eyes of others) here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2...ent-213157

Play nice in the sandbox? I like Trump's foreign policy for precisely the opposite reason. he says what we want, where Obama just asked for time till he could be more flexible. You can defend Clinton's actions forever (and apparently will), but the bottom line is she made a personal enemy of the leader of a world power, and that is why he published stuff that would embarrass her.

You are getting more and more irrational, and less and less civil. I suggest we do the mutual ignore. A shame, as i used to think highly of you.

(06-06-2017 10:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 05:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 03:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 02:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If anybody is supposed to be able to be diplomatic with foreign leaders without POing them, it should the diplomat in chief. She made some injudicious statements about elections in Russia and earned his undying enmity. Standing up to people and insulting them are not the same. One of the things i like so far about Trump is his willingness to stand up to other countries, rather than the excuse me policies of his predecessor.

so, if Trump/Tillerson says things that earn the undying personal hatred of the leader of China, you would consider that a good thing? I think not. So why give Hillary a pass on the same thing?

The evidence so far suggests that if the Russians intervened in the election, it was against Hillary, not for Trump.

It wasn't as if Clinton said something that was untrue about Russia - she critically critiqued them about their election records, which I think is good. We should encourage our diplomats to shine the light on corrupt acts by corrupt nations.

If Trump/Tillerson said something about the Chine that was true and unflattering that pissed them off (like saying that the Chinese practice of censoring their internet was an affront to democracy), I would support that.

So you don't think our elected officials should speak out in support of democratic values?

SecState is appointed.

Sometimes the truth hurts, grasshopper. Try telling your wife those pants make her look fat, and maybe you will learn the basics of diplomacy. Hillary meddled in his election, he meddled in hers. Pretty simple. And her biggest achievement in office.

We must speak truth in a diplomatic way. Or are you advocating that Tillerson should tell the Chinese, we are right, they are wrong. How very Democratic of you. (and yes, I meant with a big D).

For someone who really nailed Obama for leading from behind, you seem to want to tuck your tail and play nice with everyone. You tell me the truth hurts, yet you're the one advocating for not telling the truth? That's confusing. Let's say your wife is fat and morbidly obese. Do you just keep nodding along and let her slowly die, or tell her she is morbidly obese and try and make her realize that herself.

Diplomacy sometimes requires harsh words and sometimes it requires kind words. There are times and places for both. I mean, what was Reagan the one that yelled at Gorbachev to "tear down this wall?"

It is not uncommon for elected or appointed officials to publicly condemn certain acts and behaviors of foreign leaders, so I'm pretty confused as to why you're acting as if it isn't, and the SOS should just play nice in the sandbox.

Also, what a false equivalent load of bologna about meddling in elections. If anything, the comments Clinton made were about a past election, let alone the fact that she was just making a statement. Now, if there was evidence that Clinton and our intelligence agencies were the ones organizing and actively encouraging the mass protests, then that is a much better comparison. But if not, it's pretty awful.

Also, also, I would not call her critique of Putin her biggest achievement in office. In keeping with the Russia theme, her role in getting the START treaty signed (prior to her critical comments) was a pretty big success. You can read about a few other achievements (through the eyes of others) here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2...ent-213157

Play nice in the sandbox? I like Trump's foreign policy for precisely the opposite reason. he says what we want, where Obama just asked for time till he could be more flexible. You can defend Clinton's actions forever (and apparently will), but the bottom line is she made a personal enemy of the leader of a world power, and that is why he published stuff that would embarrass her.

You are getting more and more irrational, and less and less civil. I suggest we do the mutual ignore. A shame, as i used to think highly of you.

Wait, how am I being irrational and less civil?

I'm literally advocating for a rational position - that top diplomats be able to play nice or be more firm depending on the situation.

And I am NOT denying that Clinton made Putin angry - I'm positing that her making Putin angry was not a problem.

edit: and if you like Trump because he plays things straight and calls out countries when they need to be, why dislike Clinton's comments about the Russian elections? She called out Russia when they held elections that were illegitimate? Am I misunderstanding your position?

(06-06-2017 10:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Play nice in the sandbox? I like Trump's foreign policy for precisely the opposite reason. he says what we want, where Obama just asked for time till he could be more flexible. You can defend Clinton's actions forever (and apparently will), but the bottom line is she made a personal enemy of the leader of a world power, and that is why he published stuff that would embarrass her.

You are getting more and more irrational, and less and less civil. I suggest we do the mutual ignore. A shame, as i used to think highly of you.

Sorry, but if Clinton can't criticize the human rights record of Russia, but Trump can literally shove the Prime Minister of one of our allies, alienate the leaders of the two most powerful countries in Europe, get in a twitter war with the mayor of the capital of one of our closest allies in the aftermath of that city suffering a terrorist attack, and that's just fine and dandy?

And Lad is the one being irrational? I'm beginning to think that if Trump grabbed Merkel "by the p***y" on camera then later denied it by saying he wouldn't do that because "she isn't attractive enough" you'd find a way to defend him. And then Owl69 would blame it on Hillary and Podesta.

OK, I don't really think that. But I'm getting there. ;-)

Apologies for another on-topic post. Some interesting articles here:

http://www.politico.eu/article/16-must-r...-election/

Take it from a local, Corbyn won't win, but it will be closer than it should.

Perennial Labour voters are rejecting him. Even my ex is voting for Theresa May and she was raised a socialist.

Labour are playing identity politics on steroids. They are pitting the top 5% of individual taxpayers and corporate taxpayers against everyone else.

In the Labour manifesto if you belong to a significant demographic then you are promised a 'free gift' of significant value: free tuition for University Students; 'free' Social care for the elderly; an increase in the minimum wage to £10; removal of salary caps on public sector employees; Billions upon billions of additional funding for the NHS; free breakfast / free lunch for all students; etc., etc.

The opposing Conservative Party have asked, "Where's the magic money tree?"

To some it doesn't matter. So an apparent Conservative landslide has diminished over the past few weeks to hopefully a convincing victory.

One last point to raise on something said in this thread....
I don't believe anyone will ever find evidence that there was no collusion (between the Russians and the Trump campaign). The best anyone can 'find' is no evidence of collusion. The question is how long will they look. So far it's lasted over seven months (?).


Stolen from the comments section of a right wing news article:

Tiger Woods: "No one could possibly screw up their career worse that I have this week."

Kathy Griffin: "Hold my beer, watch this."

(06-07-2017 08:57 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Take it from a local, Corbyn won't win, but it will be closer than it should.

Perennial Labour voters are rejecting him. Even my ex is voting for Theresa May and she was raised a socialist.

Labour are playing identity politics on steroids. They are pitting the top 5% of individual taxpayers and corporate taxpayers against everyone else.

In the Labour manifesto if you belong to a significant demographic then you are promised a 'free gift' of significant value: free tuition for University Students; 'free' Social care for the elderly; an increase in the minimum wage to £10; removal of salary caps on public sector employees; Billions upon billions of additional funding for the NHS; free breakfast / free lunch for all students; etc., etc.

The opposing Conservative Party have asked, "Where's the magic money tree?"

To some it doesn't matter. So an apparent Conservative landslide has diminished over the past few weeks to hopefully a convincing victory.

One last point to raise on something said in this thread....
I don't believe anyone will ever find evidence that there was no collusion (between the Russians and the Trump campaign). The best anyone can 'find' is no evidence of collusion. The question is how long will they look. So far it's lasted over seven months (?).


Stolen from the comments section of a right wing news article:

Tiger Woods: "No one could possibly screw up their career worse that I have this week."

Kathy Griffin: "Hold my beer, watch this."

To the Kathy Griffin point, it's good that liberals are more willing to hold celebrities to a standard of decorum. She went a bit too far.

I don't really remember Ted Nugent receiving the same backlash when he said:

Quote: "Obama, he's a piece of s---. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary," Nugent said. "You might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless b----."

Heck, he even got a White House visit from the current POTUS.

I'm going to predict either the "why did we go through all this?" or barely into the "it was worth it - for the government"...

http://www.politico.eu/article/how-to-wa...my-corbyn/

Another interesting article, primarily on the Lib Dems inability to take advantage of the situation...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eur...bdae7d6717

(06-08-2017 06:58 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I'm going to predict either the "why did we go through all this?" or barely into the "it was worth it - for the government"...

http://www.politico.eu/article/how-to-wa...my-corbyn/

Well that was not the result everyone expected. Particularly compared to a 7 weeks ago when there was discussion as to whether this would be the end of Labour as a major political party. At the same time, I think Corbyn has reached his ceiling - Labour needs a more plausible PM for the next election, but how do you force him out now?

If you count the SNP as part of the center-left/left, then the center-left got almost a full 10% more of the vote than the Conservatives. It's not just the electoral college that distorts votes. The thing that makes me prefer parliamentary systems, even when the results are untidy is that May is now on thin ice, whereas in a presidential election you can lose the popular vote, or only win a plurality and you have just as much power as if you won 75%.

I suspect there will be another election in the next two years. Maybe even sooner.

Well the SNP took a broadside losing 21 seats (down from 56). The SNP are now a major force in Scotland, not the major force.

The electoral college only distorts the votes if you don't believe in states rights.

The 'beauty' of a pluralist system is that it 'normally' yields a definitive result. However because of the number of political parties in the UK and the anamolistic (made up word) parties in Northern Ireland we're in a bit of a quandary.

Theresa May and or her advisors got greedy and tried to address social care funding and the free lunch programme.

There is an inherent problem in deciding who pays for social care if the default is government. Attempting to place one's home in the pool of available assets available to pay was unpalatable to older voters regardless of their situation or the equity that could be retained.

The Free Lunch scheme was previously extended to everyone to de-stigmatize the benefit. Basically anyone receiving a school lunch was assumed to be on benefits as sack lunches are the norm. The Conservatives tried to limit free lunches and initiate a free breakfast scheme, but Labour and the MSM howelled that the free lunch was the only hot meal any student received.

Corbyn is the 'big' winner in that Labour clawed back some traditional Labour seats. Because he didn't win an outright majority he doesn't have to deliver on any of his promises. Instead he's wounded Theresa May and probably undermined the UK's negotiation position with the EU.