Slashdot Mirror
Colin Powell's Private Email Account Has Been Hacked (theverge.com)
According to The New York Times, Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has been hacked and a password-protected archive of his personal emails has been published by DC Leaks. The Verge reports: DC Leaks is the same site that first published emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee, which many took as an explicit effort to influence the U.S. election process. Many experts in the U.S. intelligence apparatus have attributed that attack to the Russian government, although no public attribution has been made. Thus far, there's no evidence tying Powell's hack to Russia, and similar hacks have been carried out by mischievous teens without government affiliation. The immediate result of the hack has been political fallout for Powell himself. Last night, BuzzFeed News reported on an email in which Powell called Republican nominee Donald Trump a "national disgrace," and another in which he said the candidate was "in the process of destroying himself."
Even though he was an enthusiastic supporter of Obama.
This does not bode well.
He refers to Hillary as "unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still dicking bimbos at home." That didn't bore me at all!
People stopped annoyingly pronouncing his name as Co-lon instead of Colin.
Yep, that's pretty good tabloid headline material.
Colin Powell never should have talked shit about Donald Trump. You mess with the bear and you get the h4xx0rs.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'd be interested to know what mail servers all these hacks have been against. Are they all private servers that someone has left unmaintained in a basement for years? Are they big online servers? Are they well maintained private servers? I know some of the e-mail leaks have been social engineered but, if any weren't, it would be interesting to know how they were hacked.
The summary totally ignores Powell's extremely critical remarks about Hillary, her lies, manipulation, and the public exploitation of his name against his wishes.
A lie of omission is still a lie, and that you choose to ignore these facts makes them all the more critical to examine.
Pictures! We want pictures!
We toss in Monaco for free.
The immediate result of the hack has been political fallout for Powell himself.
The guy who has no political aspirations? Nah, he's untouchable politically because he has no ambition. He is like the Buddha of US politics: having no desires, he feels no pain at loss.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, you really don't want pictures.
Powell is a straight-up kind of guy; what you see is what you get with him. He may not be particularly fond of Trump, but I doubt he could ever force himself to vote for Hillary.
All his comments look relatively restrained and not particularly "juicy," but that never stopped a good news story before.
He refers to Hillary as "unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still dicking bimbos at home." That didn't bore me at all!
chispito said "juicy" not "what everybody already suspected/knew".
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Corrupt means disobeying Colin Powell? Weird.
Play Command HQ online
I would be comfortable with Powell in charge. He always preferred diplomacy over a military solution, and he was not in favor of any military action that didn't serve the interests of the US. We could do a lot worse than that.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
That's more than just tabloid material. It's indicative of the type of characters making decisions and taking actions on behalf of you and me. Guess who gets to pay the bill and clean up the mess when these types are done feeding their egos and wallets?
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
...except that Trump will win because it will become known that
Hillary is suffering from a serious, untreatable neurological condition
(some suggest Parkinson's) and will be unable to perform the duties
the Office of President of The United States requires. The large
meds she's on to appear healthy during her campaign are going
to cause her to crash and burn really bad (I don't wish her harm).
She can't continue at the level of meds she's on for any period of
time - Sunday was just the tip of the ice berg of what's ahead...
CAP == 'faults'
No, it was wrong intelligence. Or else, why did UK, run by a Left wing government run by Tony Blair, back that? They could easily have told the US that Iraq had nothing, and that would have worked, but everybody's intelligence agencies seemed to suggest that Saddam had chemical and/or biological weapons
You may want to read some more of his emails. He's just another elitist poo-pooing the concerns and desires of the common people.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Did you watch it? His best evidence was a satellite picture of trucks leaving a building. He had no evidence, and he presented no evidence. To his credit, he at least didn't try to show any fake evidence. To his everlasting shame, he did make it sound like the evidence was damning. Your horse shit is just more on the pile.
Play Command HQ online
Is Colin Powell still using an AOL account? Seems to me a well-maintained private server stands a much better chance of eluding or resisting hacking than this ancient cloud service. Security through obscurity works very well until it doesn't, and it appears that Clinton's server was never successfully hacked. Which means nothing was exposed to the public except through the court-ordered broadcasts of virtually all of it after the fact, whether or not things were on there that arguably should not have been. Sigh.
He refers to Hillary as "unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still dicking bimbos at home." That didn't bore me at all!
Really? For a candid, off the record appraisal of Hillary Clinton, by a Republican-aligned former official, that doesn't seem tame?
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
I'm voting for Johnson.
His campaign has basically become: Not Trump *or* Clinton
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Uh, Trump is beating Hilary among Independents, even while trailing her overall. His biggest problem has been breaking past the 70% of Republicans - the RINO faction of the party - like people like Richard Armitage, Christie Todd Whitman, Susan Collins, et al have all thrown their lot behind Hilary. But if he can induce defections among Bernie supporters w/ things like his trade policies, as well as support from new mothers by Ivanka's childcare proposals yesterday, he can offset those GOP losses and give people like George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Steve Heyes, Charles Krauthammer, Megyn Kelly, Brit Hume, et al the finger
A lot of countries opposed toppling Saddam - Russia, France, Saudi Arabia, et al. Why didn't they produce evidence that Iraq did not have WMDs? Truth is that Iraq wanted to put out the impression that it had WMDs as a deterrence to Iran, w/o having them. Instead, the US took those hints and took out their regime.
FWIW, my only opposition to Saddam Hussein was his support to Hamas against Israel, and his $25k reward for each suicide bomber in Israel. I had nothing against his having WMDs or even using them (except against the Kurds). I had nothing against his annexing Kuwait, a completely useless country whose citizens have forgotten and who now commit Jihad acts against Americans, like the guy in Chattanooga. He was a useful deterrence to Iran, which is today a quasi superpower of the region. Now, the only obstacle to Iran's domination there is ISIS!!!
I have seen no indication that independents are leaning Trumpward.
None are so blind as those who will not see.
Latest Quinnipiac poll has Independents going for Trump 45-40.
Latest Reuters poll has Independents going for Trump 30-22.
As a reminder, Romney won the independent vote in 2012 50-45. Boring, milquetoast Mitt. Independents were 29% of the electorate that year. Do you really think that the number of independents will go DOWN this year? After Trump won more primary votes than any other Republican in history? After the kind of excitement and craziness we've seen on both sides of the aisle? Get the fuck out.
Yeah, there's going to be a landslide, alright. But its going to be completely opposite what you think.
Well, that will be very interesting if it happens. Tune in in mid-November, and we'll talk about it then.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
To be fair, what evidence we do have suggests that intelligence services genuinely believed that at the time. They were wrong, but it was an honest mistake on their part.
Saddam himself went far out of his way to make it look as if he had the weapons. It was his way of discouraging conflict - not only from the US, but also from the Kurds, the Iranians, and every other local faction that hated his guts (which was most of them). In the end it backfired spectacularly, but it might still have been his best chance for hanging on to power.
CNN Poll showing Trump leads Clinton by 20 points amongst independents. (Took 5 seconds to look up your "facts").
I think you are just in denial that Trump is likely to win and that Clinton is not only going to lose, she is a deplorable person who has commited a long list of felonies showing that the FBI and DOJ have two levels of justice depending on who you are. Trump may be good, he may be bad, but he has shown EVERYONE how incompetent the news media is and how completely corrupt the DNC and most of DC is. Even if Clinton wins the election, she and the DNC still lose because of all the uncomfortable questions they are refusing to answer.
He was a member of AOL's board at one time
You asked "why?"
why did UK, run by a Left wing government run by Tony Blair, back that?
1. Because warhawks are warhawks, and allies are allies, regardless of party affiliation. After 9/11, Europe sympathized with the US.
everybody's intelligence agencies seemed to suggest that Saddam had chemical and/or biological weapons
2. Actually, the intelligence agencies didn't suggest this. The politicians claimed that the intelligence agencies said this, but they really didn't. The agencies don't really speak publicly, they speak through the elected officials that they report to. We now know that what they told the president and prime minister isn't the same as what the president and prime minister said publicly.
For example: We now know that for example, at the time that George W. Bush gave a speech about the supposed "yellow cake uranium," that he knew it was falsified evidence but proceeded with the speech anyway. The UK did the same thing, leading up to the invasion, asking BBC reporters to basically make-up phony facts.
If you look back at the evidence, it was clear that the evidence was being used to justify an already decided-upon conclusion. For example: The UK and US cited a shipment of aluminum tubes as evidence that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. It turns out that the tubes were used for the much more mundane purpose of rockets. If you saw an aluminum tube that could be used for rockets or nuclear weapons, and you knew the country was developing rockets, why would you assert that these tubes are evidence of nuclear weapons? Certainly, it is possible. But they didn't present it as "well, it was probably used for rockets, but maybe it is for nukes (shrug)." It was presented as "OMG This is proof that they are developing nukes!" A lie of omission is still a lie.
You asked "Why?" It is important to understand why. It is because well-intentioned people can sometimes lie to support what they believe is right. The populus and the media in particular, must be vigilant against such things. The New York times, has since, apologized for being the white house's mouthpiece.
Europe's 9/11 sympathies for the US expired once Operation Enduring Freedom was complete, and Hamid Karzai was installed as Afghanistan's president. In that atmosphere, Tony Blair too could have taken an anti-US position, particularly given that it was a Conservative administration in DC.
That's exactly what I was arguing. Saddam wanted to scare particularly Iran by making them believe that he had WMDs. While the Iranians probably knew that he was bluffing, they also played very smartly in letting the US overthrow him, knowing that any democratic replacement of that regime - like happened in Kabul - would result in the Shi'ites coming to power, and the Iranians getting a Shi'ite crescent by default.
He was an idiot who allowed himself to be deceived and in turn helped deceive others about Iraq. He didnt have the balls to correct his mistake either and followed along meekly.
I would rather have Hillary than him, and I dont like her either.
heh captcha is appropriate, 'despise'
Just a quick reminder, senator Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq invasion. And voted for the Patriot Act and later for its expansion.
Russia blamed in 5, 4, 3, 2...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
No, it was wrong intelligence. Or else, why did UK, run by a Left wing government run by Tony Blair, back that? They could easily have told the US that Iraq had nothing, and that would have worked, but everybody's intelligence agencies seemed to suggest that Saddam had chemical and/or biological weapons
Read the damned Downing Street Memos
The policy is to invade, and the intel is being fixed around the policy
That's 2002. Seriously, brownnosing Bush won't help change the war crimes committed in our name.
When 70% of them are "in name only" then the RINOs are the hardliners The Repulbicans supporting Hillary are more "the party" than those supporting Trump.
Learn to love Alaska
Hillary is suffering from a serious, untreatable neurological condition (some suggest Parkinson's) and will be unable to perform the duties the Office of President of The United States requires.
Even if that's true, it won't change how the vast majority of people vote.
Most vote for a party, a platform, an ideology, or a pet policy issue - not for a person. If Hillary wins and cannot serve, she will be replaced by her Vice President. Since her VP is also a Democrat, it would make little difference to most voters which one actually ends up in power.
If anything, I think Trump's campaign would lose ground if it were to become known that Hillary could not serve, since there is a sizeable chunk of voters who can't stand either one and would jump at the chance to vote for anyone else - such as Tim Kaine.
Disclaimer: I am neither a Democrat or a Republican, and can't stomache either candidate. I'm making a prediction, not expressing a preference.
I haven't found many people that really like Hilliary although I have heard from a lot of people that say they will vote for her. I've heard more people that like Trump but there are still more that don't but say they will vote for him. So far it seems to me the one thing going for Trump is that he's not Hilliary. The number one thing going for Hilliary is that she's a Democrat. I know tons of people that would vote for Satan himself if he ran on the Democratic ticket.
No, it was wrong intelligence. Or else, why did UK, run by a Left wing government run by Tony Blair, back that? They could easily have told the US that Iraq had nothing, and that would have worked, but everybody's intelligence agencies seemed to suggest that Saddam had chemical and/or biological weapons
Because Blair had already agreed to go along with whatever Bush did.
Sure, everybody thought Saddam had WMDs, but none of the intelligence agencies were certain and they didn't believe he was a threat.
I don't know how dubious Powell was of the evidence at the time, but the intelligence agents who produced it were very dubious. Powell gave the presentation he did because it was his job to push the administrations agenda and the administration really wanted war.
I stole this Sig
Quit confusing the issue with facts.
Except for that "Using curveball to make outrageous claims in order to murder 1 million+ innocent Iraqis" thing. While knowing Curveball was a fraud.
No one in Germany thought so, and they actually HAD curveball and said he was both unreliable and most likely a fraud
Meanwhile, Blix and Ritter BOTH told us the stories were a lie.
Powell, like any apparatchnik, protected the boss and lied.
I would expect and hope that anyone elected to be president is someone that we would refer to as an elite American. Colin Powell would be one of them, yes. I don't want a plumber or electrician or carpenter getting thrust into a job like that, no disrespect meant to those professions. I consider myself to be unqualified as well.
Powell is a 4 star army general (there was pressure by the public and Congress to award him a fifth star, the sixth person who would hold the modern rank, but Clinton's team shut it down in case he decided to run against them), he was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Bush 41 and Clinton (and, as the most senior member of the military, counseled diplomacy before force), he was the National Security Advisor to Reagan and the Secretary of State to Bush 43. He is experienced in public service. He is well-respected by members of both major parties as well as other world leaders. If he doesn't understand all of Joe The Plumber's concerns then maybe he can be excused for that, I don't think that Joe The Plumber understands all of a 4 star general's concerns either. But presidents have advisors.
The president *should* be considered elite, it is a uniquely elite office to hold. And, just like the generals who mentored Powell, he was in a position where he had the concerns of his soldiers (and, at times all military personnel) on his mind. He's an experienced leader, even if it's different to lead civilians instead of soldiers. He's also the kind of person who can learn from his mistakes, which is yet another quality that I have yet to see demonstrated by either Trump or Hillary. Neither candidate will even admit what mistakes they've made, let alone try to take credit for and learn from them. All they do is deny and shift blame. The only problem is that Powell is 79, so we're not going to see him become president. He would have made a good one though.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I am an expert on Europe, but I've never heard of Paris, or London.
Nope. Not knowing a key battleground indicates lack of knowledge of a subject so well, one could say he doesn't know what ISIS is, since he doesn't know where it operates, and doesn't follow the most basic news about it.
Learn to love Alaska
The polls disagree with you. Since the incident where she was dragged away into her getaway van, her numbers dropped and Trump's went up.
Guess it's time for Reuters to "tweak" their polling algorithms again so that Hillary appears ahead. Wouldn't want voters to get the wrong idea now, would we?
Establishment cronies, globalists, oligarchs, and sketchy millionaire career politicians are the ones coming out against him in droves and using their money to influence this election as hard as they can. Why do you think there's so many news outlets that act as cover for Hillary's crimes, failings, faux pas, and issues while at the same time mustering everything they've got against Trump for every insignificant issue under the sun, taking things out of context or just outright lying about him? We always thought the media was biased in the past, but it's now beyond any shadow of a doubt.
If these people are against him, you know that means he's bad for their agenda. Their agenda is bad news for the average person.
So do you vote Hillary and give these people even more power to get their way and rip you off? Or do you take your chances and vote for Trump?
I don't think he knew anything was a fraud. In fact, I also think that Bush didn't even know the intelligence was wrong (more accurately: Bush was not told that he was being lied to and didn't bother to try to find out by other means). If you have statements made by either of them to that affect I would be interested though. I think that Cheney was the architect of the entire thing. Cui Bono, and all that. Cheney got to make a lot of money while Bush and Powell looked bad.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Does he still have his AOL account?
These stupid people (add to them, the Director of TSA and the Director of the CIA) all have/had AOL ISPs.
My Grandma had one (RIP).
First, to be clear, he was by all accounts a great line officer in Vietnam (long before he had stars in his collar)
Now onto the rest of his record:
After the Vietnam war, he went to Washington DC and took a White House fellowship, placing himself on the political track. Flag officers in the US generally fall into two categories: The political ones who dream of politics and the Pentagon, and warriors who want command of armies, naval fleets, etc. The political ones either slowly washout as they fail to fit-in with all the politicians at the swanky parties, or they become common names in the beltway who know, and are known by, all the politicians. The ones who "make it" are the ones who learn to parrot all the right political rhetoric fed to them by their masters and gradually become detached from the rank-and-file soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines
The elder Bush was ecstatic to have a high-profile black general and made him chairman of the joint chiefs. In his role under Bush41, he was they guy who pushed the idea of stopping the elimination of Saddam's forces as they ran from Kuwait on the "highway of death" and also the idea of NOT finishing the first Gulf war. This bad policy left Saddam in power, with enough military to be a pest, and with only a cease-fire in place that the allies would have to enforce and that Saddam would increasingly violate over the next decade, contributing to Bush43 feeling the need to get side-tracked into Iraq post-9/11. Saddam was shooting at American and British airmen on nearly a daily basis by the end of the Clinton administration (since Bill had been unwilling to slap him down). With Saddam becoming more belligerent and allied sanctions collapsing, Bush43 probably felt more pressure to do something big to finish his Dad's (and Powell's) mess post 9/11
Powell's public persona, built-up largely by fawning press coverage, meant that BOTH political parties talked about him as a political candidate for a few years, which is a hint that his politics are extremely flexible, as are those of most political generals and admirals (see: admiral Kirby, who seems related to Bagdhad Bob).
Bush43 made Powell his secretary of state, where Powell as a political general was willingto say anything his politician master told him to say. Remember the UN speech about mobile chem labs? A non-political general might have been more skeptical, asked a few questions, and resisted when it turned out that the intel depended on a source so unreliable he was called "curveball".
Powell was the guy who invoked the "Pottery Barn Rule" (expressed as "you break it, you own it") in Iraq. His idea was that the American people needed to re-build Iraq after the war - this lead to the decade long effort of "nation building" which cost many lives and many billions of dollars to try to restore Iraq to a condition it never had in the first place. Without Powell's policies, the US military would have come home as soon as Saddam Hussien was dead.
Read the guy's e-mails. It's quite clear he's no fan of average white people (he's fine with white elites, just not the average white taxpayer/voter) and while he calls Trump a racist for getting involved with "birtherism", he ignores the well-established FACT that Hillary's 2008 campaign started the whole thing. While SOME "birthers" probably are racists, just like many BLM types are, MANY Americans fell into the "birther" camp when they became aware that [1] Obama's own literary agent was promoting him as "born in Kenya" up until 2007, and [2] for some odd reason they could not otherwise understand, Obama was keeping his birth certificate hidden unlike any previous president. Those 2 things did not mean there was any truth to the Kenya thing, but average people did not have any other explanation, and could not imagine that Obama was actually cleverly using this to tar ALL his opponents as nutty racists (he COULD have just produced the document while running for office, as Hillary and Donald are doing with health stuff, in 2008 rather than
No, it was wrong intelligence. Or else, why did UK, run by a Left wing government run by Tony Blair, back that?
Are you seriously asking that question?
Tony Blair has already answered that himself. He had a man crush on the American Cowboy and blindly bought into his bullshit.
The intelligence was always flakey, but weak minds were easily led.
No one in Germany thought so, and they actually HAD curveball and said he was both unreliable and most likely a fraud
Meanwhile, Blix and Ritter BOTH told us the stories were a lie.
Powell, like any apparatchnik, protected the boss and lied.
They knew individual parts of the puzzle were a lie, they may not have realized the conclusion was also wrong.
Saddam having an active WMD program (at least wrt chemical weapons) made a lot of sense. He'd used them before to protect himself from Iran and suppress internal dissident. He even hinted that he did have WMDs since he wanted to scare away the Iranians.
My opinion at the time was three things.
1) Saddam probably had a WMD program.
2) Saddam was content to stay in Iraq and was not an imminent threat.
3) The desire to invade Iraq had very little to do WMDs or an immediate terrorism threat and was more a desire to remake the middle east.
I stole this Sig
Your comment has a false subject. Powell has said he will not yet say who he is voting for.
Your body is also highly questionable. I remember watching at least one speech in which Powell endorsed then-Senator Obama, but I don't remember anything that approximated "enthusiastic supporter". Nor do I recall any of the marks of enthusiasm such as actively campaigning for Obama or speaking at the Democratic convention. According to my research just now, Powell only made his endorsement two weeks before the election in 2008.
One obvious lie and a highly questionable comment in such a short comment? Let me predict you are a Trump supporter, and in that case the only relevant question is "Who do you hate most?" Every Trump supporter I've met so far has been a deplorable hater, and I can only pity them. Maybe some of them can grow into less hate-filled people?
Powell is a realist. His assessment of Hillary was not particularly favorable, though I'm not sure how they compare with his personal assessment of Obama. However, it is clear that his personal assessment of Trump is extremely negative. He personally might well prefer the positions of Johnson on many issues, but he knows America has a winner-take-all system, so I predict that he will ultimately endorse Hillary or say nothing.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I am unable to understand how Powell can still identify himself as a member of today's so-called Republican Party. How can Con Man Donald pretend to lead the party originally led by Honest Abe? Even more distance between the pragmatic governing GOP of Teddy and Ike and the absolute obstructionists claiming the label today. As proven again by his email, Powell is pretty realistic, and yet he evidently cannot accept the reality that it's just a brand hijack and his principles have no place in that party.
Oh, and by the way, no way he could have gotten their nomination, but if he had crossed over to the Democratic side, I think he could have beaten Hillary for the Democratic nomination. He obviously doesn't want the job.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Not just wrong but it turned out a PR company was paid a LOT to "fix it up".
It was a downright Soviet way to massage information and something to make us all hang our heads in shame.
There was an inquiry in the UK into that which published it's findings just a few months ago. It appears that the only reason was to support what Bush was doing whether it was based on truth or not.
He lied to the UN about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. His presentation is the image always used to illustrate the deception, especially that notorious sketch of an extremely dubious mobile chemical weapons facility.
At the very least, he lacks international credibility.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Blair wanted a legacy and a nice easy victory to his name. Always makes you seem more statesman like after you liberated some dictatorship. Instead he gets to go down in history as a war criminal.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Sorry to burst the bubble but it was all very clear at the time and required shitloads of PR and lies to try to make it less clear.
Saddam was broke and had killed off the weapons programs and in some cases literally killed off the people running them.
The intelligence agencies knew this. Some people quit their intelligence jobs and said so.
That's some mighty huge wishful thinking there Tex.
As more information comes to light every day it's looking less and less that Bush was some poor sap dragged around by a guy in a position that typically has very little power but that Bush did what he did for his own reasons and needs to take responsibility for his own actions. Cheney certainly said a lot, but without the President on their side a VP can't do much at all.
The axis of evil and invading Iraq looks like it was 100% Bush with little or no reference to reality. Bush said Saddam was evil and Bush told those close to him that George W. Bush was God's agent on Earth and had to deal with him. Deluded or using it as an excuse to delude other doesn't really matter - the result was the same when you take the line that anything is allowed when fighting pure evil - torture, invading the wrong country, anything.
He knew.
He even went to far as to order others to "find intelligence", which of all things a PR firm provided, to give him an excuse for what he had already decided to do.
I guess she should have waved around a bottle of 'anthrax' to justify all that bullshit.
Couldn't happen to a more deserving person. I hope every single Washington gang criminal has every secret they ever had leaked.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I know tons of people that would vote for Satan himself if he ran on the Democratic ticket.
This is not unique to the Democrats. The exact same statement is certainly true of most Republican voters. I'd go so far as to suggest that Trump could have anal sex with Satan on TV and pledge his eternal allegiance to ISIS/Daesh/ISIL and he'd still win Texas. I can imagine Texas voters saying "I don't like it that he had sex with Satan and supports ISIS but I'm not voting for a Democrat". I've been to Texas recently. I have family that lives there. Yes, it really is like that. I estimate that as many as 80% of voters only care about whether the D or R is by a candidate's name and everything else is negotiable, but the only sources I could find that tried to track this kind of thing suggest that the percentage is actually around 60%. All I can say is that it seems higher to me.
I agree. I recall everyone making fun of him about his not knowing what Aleppo was. If you pay attention his attitude was that he could get by on general doctrinal thinking and didn't need the details: what would a libertarian think, and that happened not to be half bad (stay out), much better than most experts in my view.
Of course the attitude of going on general principles and not requiring specifics has its problems, but also libertarian thinking is often isolationist and then one doesn't need to know much about the foreign situation.
The reason nation building worked post WWII was that the countries involved already had democratic traditions, and self criticism, while somewhat new, was something those countries were capable of. The US didn't sit down to write constitutions from scratch - as far as West Germany went, they sat down and put together the list of things that Germans could not do. Things like putting together a constitution was something that the West Germans did, and it was nothing similar to the Third Reich. Same w/ Italy - no semblance to the Mussolini regime that had been overthrown.
That's a totally different situation from Afghanistan and Iraq. Like the mission of Operation Enduring Freedom was to topple the Taliban. What followed? The creation of a constitution in Afghanistan that states that no law shall contravene the rules of Sharia. So the same issues that one had in Afghanistan w/ the Taliban are just bound to return, and the only thing there is that the regime is not anti-US as the Taliban was. Spending billions on the reconstruction of Afghanistan to win 'hearts & minds' has bombed. How do you win the hearts & minds of people who have neither?
In Iraq, Saddam was toppled, w/ the naïve assumption that the replacement regime would be a Jeffersonian democracy, w/ Shi'ites and Sunnites singing Kumbaya. It never happened, and the reason it can't happen is that those 2 have a historical rivalry dating back to after the death of Mohammed. Like the fable of the 4 geniuses who put together a lion w/o stopping to think that the revived lion would eat them (or Trump's narration of Al Wilson's song 'The Snake' at his rallies), none of the geniuses in either the State Department or outside it stopped to consider that if the Shi'ites came to power in Baghdad, you'd have a Shi'ite Crescent of Teheran, Baghdad, Damascus and partially Beirut (w/ Hizbullah).
Allying w/ either side in this conflict - Shi'ite or Sunnite - is idiotic. None of them are our allies. While Obama deserves to be faulted for the Iran deal and a restrained policy towards Iranian boats taunting US Navy vessels in the Gulf, Bush too deserves to be faulted for regarding Saudi Arabia and Qatar as allies. The issue w/ Bush/Powell/Rice was that he saw them as 'people of faith', even though the faith in question is a barbaric one. Obama/Clinton/Kerry's problem is that when the Arab Spring started, they continued the Bush doctrine policies of 'promoting democracy' by supporting the Arab Spring, w/ disastrous results.
What was worse was letting Qatar and Saudi Arabia guide their policy on Syria. Granted - Bashar al Assad was no saint, but he wasn't running a genocide in his country when it all started. If anything, he was trying to reform things so that opposition to his regime from the Sunnis would decrease. However, the Saudis and Qataris wanted to replace his regime w/ a Sunni one in Damascus, and tried to first get the US to agree, and then used the Arab Spring as a pretext to support it. It's not like they were clean either - Bahrein too wanted democracy, and Saudi troops marched in to prop up the Hanafas. Anyway, they all started supporting their own favorite factions - be it the Free Syrian Army, Khorasan, and so on, and plunged that country into civil war.
The point I was making was that everyone who supported nation building, as well as getting rid of dictators and replacing them w/ whoever the people wanted, turned out to be wrong. The intervention in Libya, which was supported not just by Hilary & Obama but also by McCain and a whole bunch of Republicans across the board: they only turned on that policy once it turned south. This despite the fact that one of the few benefits of the Iraq war was Gadaffi voluntarily ending his WMD program, and doing what he could to restore relations w/ the West. Yeah, he was evil, but there was no reason to support his ouster when he was on a reformation trajectory. Now, Cyrenaica is completely under the control of ISIS, and Tripoli has a regim
The former Prime Minister of UK's Labour Party is Right Wing? Does London have the same availability of pot as Amsterdam?
The polls disagree with you. Since the incident where she was dragged away into her getaway van, her numbers dropped and Trump's went up.
Guess it's time for Reuters to "tweak" their polling algorithms again so that Hillary appears ahead. Wouldn't want voters to get the wrong idea now, would we?
No they do not. The OP is suggesting that, should Hillary were to become incapacitated, Trump's chances will likely dive even more as more people would be willing to vote for Kaine than for Hillary (or Trump.)
What we are witnessing is a competition between detestable candidates. Should one were to replace one of the detestables for one that is not, guess what would happen.
This is not just specifically against Trump, but also against Hillary. If Trump were to pull out his little hand (pun clearly intended) off the race pie and gets replaced by, say, Kasich, I'd expect it to be over for Hillary.
A lot of people are voting for Hillary because they detest Trump more (and viceversa). Replace one with a much less detestable (or even better, a favorable) person, and the equation changes.
Disclaimer: I do have a preference or rather less revulsion in favor of Hillary. But I'm simply making a prediction of realities on the ground as well as hypothetical replacement of detestables.
Guess it's time for Reuters to "tweak" their polling algorithms again
Ah, maybe we need unskewed polls.
Because that worked so well the last time.
When will these fools realise that reality is that that does not go away when you don't believe in it.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I think both of you are over-attributing this to "voting for them because they're X" when it's more "voting for them because they're not Y".
I don't particularly like Clinton. I don't think she's a crook or a serial murderer or any of the other crazy conspiracy theories, I just think she's a bit more conservative than i'd really like. But there's no way i'm going to help throw the election to Trump by voting for anyone other than the person who is most likely to defeat Trump.
Until we get rid of the first past the post voting system voting either R or D says a lot more about who you _don't_ want to be president. (And voting for a third party says either that you (possibly mistakenly) believe your vote has 0% chance of making a difference or you really don't care who gets elected.)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Hilary's Superdelegates would have beaten him, so figured upfront that he'd be better off running on the GOP side. If he didn't want the job, he'd have run as a Democrat
Being a corrupt hag does not bode well for Hillary.
To be fair, what evidence we do have suggests that intelligence services genuinely believed that at the time.
No. Rumsfeld had to set up a separate operation to sideline the CIA just to get some pretexts for the war -- look up the story of the Office of Special Plans for details.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
My main problem with Johnson is he's pro-TPP.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
What has availability of pot got to do with being left wing? Is Colorado more left wing than France?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Why is the Republican support not there? Donald Trump has the most primary votes of any Republican in history.
Even with this, most Republicans voted for someone other than Trump.
Dark Reflection
None of your, or his, business?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Well he's not wrong, about a month and a half ago Reuters changed their polling method because it was showing 3rd party candidates taking more from Hillary than Trump.
The problem with polling in general is it is often used to influence the way people think rather than report on how they think. Many of the polling firms are marketing groups, not political scientists.
The problem with polling this election is that every poll I've seen relies on the assumption that the turnout demographics in 2016 will be the same as they were in 2012 or 2008, but no one justifies this assumption. I find it hard to believe that blacks will come out for Hillary the way they came out for Obama. On the other hand the white working class hasn't had anyone speak to them about trade and immigration like Trump has in pretty much forever.
I don't know what the turnout will be in November, so I can't "unskew" the polls. But since the pollsters never justify the fundamental premise of the polls, I can't trust them either. I would just take any poll numbers you see with a massive grain of salt.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
You are morally superior to your political opponents because of emotions.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I don't know why you got a troll mod, you could have made the point better, but it is a valid point...
Fact is, I'm voting for him not for his strengths, but because I believe 4 years of Johnson will globally amount to a no-op, while (IMHO) Either Trump or Clinton will cause our country vastly more harm than good on the international stage.
The US already has a black eye and smells funny to the rest of the world, "going away" for a bit and regrouping is what our country needs. Libertarian ticket is basically "remove thumbs from pies and go home."
-nb
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
All I ever hear Clinton say is "we're stronger together" and "kill all the white men." But she never says how.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
what a world we live in today where that combination of words can be taken serious.
The polls disagree with you. Since the incident where she was dragged away into her getaway van, her numbers dropped and Trump's went up.
I said, "if it were to become known that Hillary could not serve". The fact that she had to leave one event early for health reasons does not prove that she is too ill to serve, except in the minds of those who are just looking for an excuse to reach that conclusion. The official story is that she has pneumonia, which is a treatable disease in people who are otherwise reasonably healthy.
If I had to guess, I would say that the dip in her poll numbers is actually a reaction to the fact that her campaign got caught lying to the public about her health, rather than an indicator that people truly think she'll be unable to serve because of this incident.
The real test of my prediction will be how the public reacts if her health forces her to do something much more dramatic, like quit making public appearances, or drop out of the race entirely.
There's no reason to believe they were WMD trucks. There's no evidence at all that more was known about the trucks than what Powell said in the meeting. There are a lot of *stories* that came out from people somewhat near the action, but they are quite varied and often contradictory.
Play Command HQ online
How many people know most of the players there? Who al Nusra is? Who Khorasan is? Who Free Syria Army is? Heck, who Hizbullah is, or Ikhwan is? If one doesn't know who those are - the various combatants, what good is it knowing the geography of Syria - Aleppo, Damascus, Palmyra/Tadmur, Ladakya, Homs, Hama, Raqqa, et al
I'm not sure they would have been able to stop him. Powell has the overwhelmingly most important characteristic that ought to be required for the job of president: He doesn't want it.
Too bad that's not how it works these days. Now personally wanting the presidential powers seems to be the #1 trait of all of the serious candidates (with the apparent exception of Bernie).
However, when you do the math, I don't think the superdelegates would have been sufficient to stop him. If Powell had a more flexible (AKA less military) mindset, then I think he would have been an overwhelmingly attractive ex-Republican candidate for a lot of unhappy Democrats and crossover Republicans. The 3-way debates with him, Bernie, and Hillary would have been especially entertaining and quite competitive with Trump's antics and tantrums. Actually, if Powell were more true to his sound principles, then he's had plenty of good reasons and opportunities to leave the so-called Republican Party going back many years.
Perhaps the sad part is that a relatively nice guy like Powell would have had no chance running for the nomination of today's so-called Republican Party. Powell is no part of that brand hijack, but he is too inflexible to give up the meaningless label, and even though it is abundantly clear he has no constructive influence there. He let Dubya use him up, and I would wager that most of the so-called Republican voters now view him with disdain or even contempt.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Was that a confession? If so, typical incoherence from a Trump supporter, and I still want to know who you hate most.
(Not really, but it's the closest approach to a polite conversation that is possible with a devout Trumpist.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Who is Darrell Castle? I know of Ed Mullins - the rallying point of Republican anti-Trumpers like George Will, who is stuck w/ a placeholder VP in most states, he's so brilliant!
Why do some of these pundits think that if neither Hilary nor Trump gets a majority and that the election goes to Congress where Republicans retain a majority, that they'd prefer Mullins or Johnson over Trump, who clearly was the overwhelming favorite of Republicans?
No, it was wrong intelligence. Or else, why did UK, run by a Left wing government run by Tony Blair, back that? They could easily have told the US that Iraq had nothing, and that would have worked, but everybody's intelligence agencies seemed to suggest that Saddam had chemical and/or biological weapons
Labor under Blair only slightly more left wing as the Conservatives under Cameron. Both were very centrist and tend to follow the Third Way.
However Blair followed Bush for the same reason Howard, Australia's PM at the time followed Bush. They both had their tongues so far up Bush's arse that they became the lump in his throat.
You've got to be kidding yourselves to think that Blair and the UK Brass didn't know the intelligence was a complete fabrication. Much like the US military heads they thought that Iraq would be a pushover and the people would meekly accept a western occupation, the military would get a nice budget boost and politicians would get a nice boost in the polls.
Both Blair and Howard lost the next election after 2003, Iraq was no small part of the reasons they lost.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
On Wednesday the 14th (yesterday as I write this), Nate Silver predicted that Clinton has a 79 percent chance of winning the presidency, compared to Donald Trump's 20 percent. As far as having a handle on what polls are actually telling us overall, I don't know of anyone who is better than Silver. Perfect, no. But he's very, very good.
So... I'm still pretty confident I've called it correctly, barring some huge event that does Clinton in.
But again, this is a fascinating election. The candidates both have serious problems with what should be their bases. How will that really roll out? We will see. I've given my opinion, but of course that's all it is.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Just like this post: http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
Who said anything about being Left Wing? I said anybody who thinks UK's Labour Party is Right Wing is snorting either crack or meth
I do not hate ANYBODY.
I do hate the destruction heaped onto our nation by the Bush family, the Clinton family, and Barack Obama.
Hillary is the worse half of the Clinton duo, but I do not hate her. She's been on a decades-long power trip and probably needs some pity, but my opposition to her has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with wanting to limit the damage to the country.
SHE was the one who pushed for "Hillary Care" in the 1990s which would have made it illegal for Americans to persue healthcare outside of government-approved channels, and rationed access to doctors indirectly and stealthily by having the government limit the number of students allowed to go into medicine and deciding which specialties they could study [you can limit government spending on hip replacementsby not training enough docs to do them and then the backlog gets so long that most people give up or die before getting one]. Her plan actually said healthcare was too expensive because we had too many doctors! You can bet the elites would have gotten loopholes to allow them to fly to other countries for care or have "concierge doctors". She rolled-out her proposal with lots of flowery and hopeful rhetoric like Obama would later use for Obamacare, but then documents leaked out and those of us who read them were shocked. The documents prover her sales job was completely dishonest. It became easy to rally the public to oppose that nightmare, but unfortunately it taught the Obama team a lesson and they did a much better job pushing the bad-but-far-better-than-Hillarycare Obamacare.
She's the one who fired the non-partisan carreer government employees at the White House who made all travel arrangements for staff and the press corps [under both Republican and Democrat presidents] in order to plug in a private company run by her friends who had also contributed to her husband's campaign. When this blew up and became PR disaster, she hid documents, lied, and testified that she had "no recollection" of key matters. Sound familiar? Google "travelgate"
She was involved in the Clinton's illegally raising campaign cash from the Chinese, while opening trade with China and encouraging American companies to outsource to China. She was just amazingly unable to recall any of the details of those fundraisers, while a bunch of the Chinese nationals involved fled the US.
She is the one who in the 1990s hid documents the courts were seeking in the first lady's area of the White House until after the statute of limitations expired. When the documents then amazingly surfaced, she claimed to be unable to recall how they got there. Sound familiar?
She is a bad, crooked lawyer who has been lying and hiding documents and claiming memory failures for as long as I can recall. She and Bill started the current avalanche of lawlessness in which the federal government applies the laws differently to us than to the elites and if this continues much longer the public will lose any remaining faith in law --- and when THAT happens, LOOK OUT. Very bad things happen toordinary people when societies fall apart.
Hillary is not a fine wine. Time has NOT improved her. She now lies about lying about lies. It's just amazing to see her on TV telling a journalist that she always "tries" to tell the truth and doesnot believe she has EVER lied to the American people....
Some Trump supporters, like me, are behind him for a basic reason: She has been given government power and proved repeatedly that she cannot be trusted with it. Trump never has done this. He is the lesser of two evils in this awful election cycle.
Electing trump is like playing Russian Roulette with a revolver with one bullet loaded. Electing Hillary is like playing Russian Roulette with an AK-47 with a full magazine.
This isn't the first time she had physical issues, there was also this one:
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/uns...
And I seem to remember hearing she collapsed at some other point, but I may be remembering the same incident.
Also, she claimed to the FBI that she did not recall taking the classified information briefing that the state department has records of her taking yearly. How could someone possibly forget taking that training when it is a yearly activity?
Her having possible health issues isn't just something the Right is making up, there are many indications. You can also try to claim that this survey was biased, but Doctors should be able to identify people having serious issues and trying to hide them, it is kind of part of the job:
https://politics.slashdot.org/...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
BBC did a pretty good article.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
But, not knowing what Aleppo is, would indicate that he doesn't keep up with the most basic of news, as it has been all over the news recently.
https://www.google.com/search?...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I live in Maryland, so it doesn't matter who I vote for, the state will go Democrat. I am likely voting for Johnson, not because I like him, but because it will help the next election to have a large showing for the Libertarian Party.
My main issue is that Johnson has come out and said he is going to disband the NSA (except the remote offices), and the IRS. So, who does he expect to secure government communications, or analyse the intel coming in from those remote locations, and who does he expect will collect taxes to support the country? This most basic of lack of understanding scares the hell out of me if he were to become president. Also, both of these agencies are executive branch, so it is within the power of the president to actually follow through with this.
He also said he is going to pardon Snowden, which would be a very big mistake. Snowden committed treason, he may have revealed some things that might have been illegal or unconstitutional, but he also caused many problems worldwide. Snowden revealed how the NSA tracked Russia, which led to this:
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
which caused the annexation of Crimea and the Eastern Ukraine issues. Snowden has Ukrainian blood on his hands.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
This is the weirdest election I can remember though, it is three right wingers versus the Green party (I don't know enough of their platform to say right or left). Hillary is way right, I am amazed that the Democratic party can even support her.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FOR...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
"onus was on Saddam to provide evidence" WHICH HE PROVIDED per Blix.
Stop lying
Except for that whole " Blix report" making the entire story a shambles and a lie, I agree with your conclusion.
WRONG! As G. Tenet testified to the Senate in 2004, Bush KNEW the Curveball claims were likely false and ORDERED the CIA to doctor their report to Congress to eliminate all reference to Curveball being a fraud and liar
so, the WMD claims were false
He KNEW they were false
He covered up the certainty that the claims were false.
So yes, it's a lie
Cheney can take some credit, but the entire Project for a New American Century clique were placed in Intelligence (including Douglas Feith) to create a false story and Bush, not Cheney, did that.