The Political Thread - Hobbes Edition

[smjjames]

Bannon has repeatedly said that his goal is simply to smash the establishment to pieces and doesn't appear to have a plan to rebuild afterwards.

 

In midterms news, there was an alleged failed hacking of the Georgia voters registration system and Brian Kemp (Gov candidate and State Secretary) is accusing the Democrats without evidence.

Obviously, if the Democrats are the ones to blame, it was an incredibly dumb thing to do, but given that it's an accusation without proof, I'll believe it when proof is given.

[HoonDing]

#RedWave2018

[smjjames]

It's really more like #PurpletintedWave2018 since it's not a pure blue or red wave by any means. I know it's not as exciting or tribalistic as RedWave or BlueWave.

Edited November 4, 2018 by smjjames

[injurai]

It's more like #VoterSurpressionWave2018

[Volourn]

"Obviously, if the Democrats are the ones to blame, it was an incredibly dumb thing to do, but given that it's an accusation without proof, I'll believe it when proof is given."

 

According to Dems, you don't need evidence to convict.

[smjjames]

"Obviously, if the Democrats are the ones to blame, it was an incredibly dumb thing to do, but given that it's an accusation without proof, I'll believe it when proof is given."

 

According to Dems, you don't need evidence to convict.

 

According to the Republicans too, 'LOCK HER UP!'.

 

Still, point is that they haven't given any evidence.

[Zoraptor]

That's not really equivalent at all though since, technically, there was a ton of evidence against Hillary and she definitively did what she was accused of in terms of using a private server and deleting emails that should have been preserved. The law was just written in a way that if she claimed to be a tech befuddled old grannie who thought wiping a hard drive involved Kleenex® brand disposable wipes etcetera then she couldn't be convicted. That's not the same as having no evidence.

 

To be honest though, given the amount of voter suppression I wouldn't be surprised if people wanted a sniff around voter rolls and the like to see if voters of a certain type were 'spontaneously' or 'mysteriously' dropping off them around election time.

 

(I'm kind of amused because of the apparent rigmarole required to register to vote in the US when the voting machines are ancient, unreliable andor insecure- yet we can register to vote literally on the day of the vote and all we need is a paper ballot which is still the most secure way to do things)

[Elerond]

That's not really equivalent at all though since, technically, there was a ton of evidence against Hillary and she definitively did what she was accused of in terms of using a private server and deleting emails that should have been preserved. The law was just written in a way that if she claimed to be a tech befuddled old grannie who thought wiping a hard drive involved Kleenex® brand disposable wipes etcetera then she couldn't be convicted. That's not the same as having no evidence.

 

To be honest though, given the amount of voter suppression I wouldn't be surprised if people wanted a sniff around voter rolls and the like to see if voters of a certain type were 'spontaneously' or 'mysteriously' dropping off them around election time.

 

(I'm kind of amused because of the apparent rigmarole required to register to vote in the US when the voting machines are ancient, unreliable andor insecure- yet we can register to vote literally on the day of the vote and all we need is a paper ballot which is still the most secure way to do things)

 

Technically there was only claims of wrong doing, but no evidence was presented that she was actually broken the law. And ironically quite many people in Trump administration also have used private email servers, but with them it does not seem to be such world ending thing as it was with Clinton.

[Zoraptor]

She used a private server to receive classified information and deleted emails that should have been preserved, that is not in dispute. The reason she wasn't charged is because- ludicrously- she had to 'know' what she was doing was illegal for it to be a crime. Practically she almost certainly did know because she isn't a drooling imbecile, but that is impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt hence the befuddled grannie defence being accepted and no prosecution being offered. That's a million miles away from being no evidence, balance of evidence says she was absolutely guilty, beyond reasonable doubt says she could not be convicted.

 

And ironically quite many people in Trump administration also have used private email servers..

 

Is this the thing you earthlings call whataboutism?

 

Nah, just kidding, whataboutism accusations are for pathetic wieners who can't argue for faecal matter. However, without any details of private server usage by those people it's impossible to say whether they transgressed any laws or guidelines. A private server is not by itself illegal, using ti to circumvent preservation laws and receive classified material in an insecure way however potentially is. Difference being we know Hillary did both of those.

[Volourn]

"The reason she wasn't charged is because- ludicrously- she had to 'know' what she was doing was illegal for it to be a crime."

 

1. I thought ignorance was not supposed to be a good defense for breaking the law.

 

2. We were spammed by how experienced, how smart, how intelligent, how worldly she was. But, she didn't know the law. Isn't she a former lawyer? LMAO

 

 She wasn't charged because her last name is Clinton. It's that simple.

 

 

 

"According to the Republicans too, 'LOCK HER UP!'.

 

Still, point is that they haven't given any evidence."

 

Nothing in your reply refutes what I wrote therefore it is completely irrelevant and useless garbage spam. CONGRATULATIONS.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Volourn

[Malcador]

 

Let's see... police, military, Border Patrol, and now militia all bumping elbows on the border. Now considering most of it is private property add armed landowners and ranchers irritated by all the fuss to the mix. What could possibly go wrong?   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-militia-groups-head-to-border-stirred-by-trump%E2%80%99s-call-to-arms/ar-BBPiGxA

 

This is why you don't cry wolf when the actual wolf (if you could even call it that) is the entire length of Mexico away and on foot. 

 

Even the military is concerned about those. Though they seem more concerned about possible theft and the militias just plain getting in the way atm than of violence.

 

The article also said that theres at least two groups from Canada (according to the person saying that anyway), don't they have their own Canadian border to defend? heh. I just find it mildly amusing that Canadian militia are going to the US-Mexico border.

 

 

Lots of Albertans think they're in the wrong country.  Well until they cry because they had a forest fire or some other reason they need Canada to care about them.

[Volourn]

Consideirng the rest of Kanada steals Alberta's money while trying to destroy them, I don't blame Albertans.  Kanada rips off Alberta so they owe them  eveyr bit of 'help' they can get get.

[injurai]

The reason she wasn't charged is because- ludicrously- she had to 'know' what she was doing was illegal for it to be a crime.

 

That flies in the face of

 

1. Civic Duty

2. Ignorantia juris non excusat

3. Due Dilligence

[Malcador]

Consideirng the rest of Kanada steals Alberta's money while trying to destroy them, I don't blame Albertans.  Kanada rips off Alberta so they owe them  eveyr bit of 'help' they can get get.

 

Well, only if you consider all taxation theft I guess, in which case not sure how Albertans expect the country to work in that case.  They are a rich province so they pay more in than they get, like Ontario.  I guess we have to tolerate Albertans incessant hubris

[Elerond]

She used a private server to receive classified information and deleted emails that should have been preserved, that is not in dispute. The reason she wasn't charged is because- ludicrously- she had to 'know' what she was doing was illegal for it to be a crime. Practically she almost certainly did know because she isn't a drooling imbecile, but that is impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt hence the befuddled grannie defence being accepted and no prosecution being offered. That's a million miles away from being no evidence, balance of evidence says she was absolutely guilty, beyond reasonable doubt says she could not be convicted.

 

And ironically quite many people in Trump administration also have used private email servers..

 

Is this the thing you earthlings call whataboutism?

 

Nah, just kidding, whataboutism accusations are for pathetic wieners who can't argue for faecal matter. However, without any details of private server usage by those people it's impossible to say whether they transgressed any laws or guidelines. A private server is not by itself illegal, using ti to circumvent preservation laws and receive classified material in an insecure way however potentially is. Difference being we know Hillary did both of those.

 

So in other words there was not enough evidence that she broke the law, it does not matter if law demands idiotically proof of what was person's intention when they did what they did in order to determine what they did was illegal. Until there is proof that person has broken law as it is written they are considered innocent of said crimes.

 

There were more evidence against Kavanaugh as testimony of accuser is accepted as evidence in courts, but still we didn't see indictments against him.

 

So in both cases same justice system saw too little evidence that crime had been committed to even take cases to court, and as said justice system says that accused person cannot be presumed to be guilty of crime until it is proven in court of law it means that legally speaking they both are innocent of crimes they are accused of.

 

It told that people in Trump administration have used their private email servers/services in same way as Clinton, meaning that they have handled official top secret correspondence through them.  Of course without actual investigation to subject it is impossible to say if they have done same as Clinton, but in case of Clinton there also was no information about subject before investigation was called, but it is maybe official learned from overly expensive Clinton investigation that such investigation are most likely fruitless, expensive and even if they would bear fruit it would only hurt those who are in power now, so it is just better to be ignorant.

[Hurlshort]

As someone who is constantly having to explain the most basic email and technology functions to my mother-in-law, who ran a successful trucking company and dispatch for 20 years, it is super easy to see Clinton (and Trump, for that matter) as a befuddled elder when it comes to technology. In short, I'd expect someone else to be in charge of all that. 

[injurai]

As someone who is savvy I don't see how I could accidentally delete an email server that I'm not the admin of, and to delete all of Outlook/Gmail would be excruciatingly deliberate. It's easier to believe the server was nuked by some IT clerk who was told to take it down.

[Zoraptor]

It was definitely impossible under the circumstances to prove Hillary did it deliberately, but I find it very difficult to believe that someone as concerned with her image as Hillary was not trying to control access to information. In the end it was pretty much the same as having classified material sent to a gmail address (well gmail's security was probably definitely better) which would get peons fired or at minimum lose their clearance.

 

Mostly though private servers are not really something a random tech illiterate grannie decides to set up, and not something a random tech illiterate grannie decides to wipe when convenient.

 

 

 

So in other words there was not enough evidence that she broke the law, it does not matter if law demands idiotically proof of what was person's intention when they did what they did in order to determine what they did was illegal. Until there is proof that person has broken law as it is written they are considered innocent of said crimes.

 

There were more evidence against Kavanaugh as testimony of accuser is accepted as evidence in courts, but still we didn't see indictments against him.

 

So in both cases same justice system saw too little evidence that crime had been committed to even take cases to court, and as said justice system says that accused person cannot be presumed to be guilty of crime until it is proven in court of law it means that legally speaking they both are innocent of crimes they are accused of.

 

It told that people in Trump administration have used their private email servers/services in same way as Clinton, meaning that they have handled official top secret correspondence through them.  Of course without actual investigation to subject it is impossible to say if they have done same as Clinton, but in case of Clinton there also was no information about subject before investigation was called, but it is maybe official learned from overly expensive Clinton investigation that such investigation are most likely fruitless, expensive and even if they would bear fruit it would only hurt those who are in power now, so it is just better to be ignorant.

 

 

No, there was way more evidence against Hillary since there was literally no doubt she did what she was accused of, the only point in contention was proving it was intentional and hence criminal. The only evidence against Kavanaugh was the accusations themselves. An accusation itself isn't evidence, you cannot use a "would he be accused if he weren't guilty?" argument because that applies whether or not the accusation actually is true, believable or even possible. "Donald Trump was born on the planet Krypton and thus is ineligible to be President", obviously there is evidence for this accusation, otherwise I wouldn't make it...

 

As for the rest, until it's investigated it's 100% hearsay and as above, an accusation alone is not evidence of anything other than the accusation being made.

 

 

The reason she wasn't charged is because- ludicrously- she had to 'know' what she was doing was illegal for it to be a crime.

 

That flies in the face of

 

1. Civic Duty

2. Ignorantia juris non excusat

3. Due Dilligence

 

 

The law requires it either to be deliberate or to involve gross incompetence. As such, plain old garden style incompetence is an appropriate and proper defence, no matter how stupid that seems.

 

I have to agree with Volourn, if her last name had not been Clinton I very strongly suspect they would have filed an indictment at least, even if the person eventually was found not guilty.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Zoraptor

[Volourn]

"Well, only if you consider all taxation theft I guess, in which case not sure how Albertans expect the country to work in that case.  They are a rich province so they pay more in than they get, like Ontario.  I guess we have to tolerate Albertans incessant hubris :lol:"

 

The point is you whined that Albertans 'cry' for 'help' from rest of Kanada for fires and stuff. Alberta pays a lot of taxes and gives away money to the rest of the country so they more than pay for what they get it. It is welfare provinces like Quebec that live of others. Yet, Quebec is one of the most hateful racist Nazi bigoited piece of crap states/provinces IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

 

If it wasn't for Kanadian law, I have no doubt Quebec would literally cruficy all non Frenchies no questions asked.

 

 

 

"As someone who is constantly having to explain the most basic email and technology functions to my mother-in-law, who ran a successful trucking company and dispatch for 20 years, it is super easy to see Clinton (and Trump, for that matter) as a befuddled elder when it comes to technology. In short, I'd expect someone else to be in charge of all that. "

 

Your mother-in-law is not the genius and supra experienced goddess that Clinton is. To compare the two is ridiculous. And, again, Clinton was/is a lawyer. She should know better. Pleading ignorance - especially in her case - is pathetic.

[Malcador]

"Well, only if you consider all taxation theft I guess, in which case not sure how Albertans expect the country to work in that case.  They are a rich province so they pay more in than they get, like Ontario.  I guess we have to tolerate Albertans incessant hubris :lol:"

 

The point is you whined that Albertans 'cry' for 'help' from rest of Kanada for fires and stuff. Alberta pays a lot of taxes and gives away money to the rest of the country so they more than pay for what they get it. It is welfare provinces like Quebec that live of others. Yet, Quebec is one of the most hateful racist Nazi bigoited piece of crap states/provinces IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

 

If it wasn't for Kanadian law, I have no doubt Quebec would literally cruficy all non Frenchies no questions asked.

 

 

Well we don't owe Alberta anything special.  It'll be the same if Quebec suffers a disaster and needs help, will be amusing to watch them ask for help from those they sneer at - they got 16 billion in than they paid out in 2016, apparently.

[smjjames]

At least if Quebec becomes independent, we'd have our very own North American France to complain about French people being uptight about French language than having to refer to France in Europe. Though I guess we can still do both, heh.

[Malcador]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/04/georgia-sec-of-state-an-calls-for-fbi-hacking-investigation.html

 

Seems a bit of an iffy accusation.  Wonder why they didn't make him recuse himself from his duties as SoS.

[smjjames]

I posted about that earlier. Anyways, people have said he needs to recuse himself (or possibly resign from the position), but that has been pretty much coming from the Democrats. Kobach only recused himself during the primaries because he was under pressure from other Republicans (though he insisted that he, in his position as State Secretary, wasn't all that involved in the proccess. Which may be true for Kansas.), Brian Kemp hasn't had that kind of pressure.

[Elerond]

It was definitely impossible under the circumstances to prove Hillary did it deliberately, but I find it very difficult to believe that someone as concerned with her image as Hillary was not trying to control access to information. In the end it was pretty much the same as having classified material sent to a gmail address (well gmail's security was probably definitely better) which would get peons fired or at minimum lose their clearance.

 

Mostly though private servers are not really something a random tech illiterate grannie decides to set up, and not something a random tech illiterate grannie decides to wipe when convenient.

 

 

 

So in other words there was not enough evidence that she broke the law, it does not matter if law demands idiotically proof of what was person's intention when they did what they did in order to determine what they did was illegal. Until there is proof that person has broken law as it is written they are considered innocent of said crimes.

 

There were more evidence against Kavanaugh as testimony of accuser is accepted as evidence in courts, but still we didn't see indictments against him.

 

So in both cases same justice system saw too little evidence that crime had been committed to even take cases to court, and as said justice system says that accused person cannot be presumed to be guilty of crime until it is proven in court of law it means that legally speaking they both are innocent of crimes they are accused of.

 

It told that people in Trump administration have used their private email servers/services in same way as Clinton, meaning that they have handled official top secret correspondence through them.  Of course without actual investigation to subject it is impossible to say if they have done same as Clinton, but in case of Clinton there also was no information about subject before investigation was called, but it is maybe official learned from overly expensive Clinton investigation that such investigation are most likely fruitless, expensive and even if they would bear fruit it would only hurt those who are in power now, so it is just better to be ignorant.

 

 

No, there was way more evidence against Hillary since there was literally no doubt she did what she was accused of, the only point in contention was proving it was intentional and hence criminal. The only evidence against Kavanaugh was the accusations themselves. An accusation itself isn't evidence, you cannot use a "would he be accused if he weren't guilty?" argument because that applies whether or not the accusation actually is true, believable or even possible. "Donald Trump was born on the planet Krypton and thus is ineligible to be President", obviously there is evidence for this accusation, otherwise I wouldn't make it...

 

As for the rest, until it's investigated it's 100% hearsay and as above, an accusation alone is not evidence of anything other than the accusation being made.

 

 

 

 

In your opinion there was way more evidence against Hillary, but US justice system don't seem to agree with you. Especially considering that person who is currently in charge to brought indictments against people like Hillary was chanting one of the current President favorite chant next him in his campaign rallies, "Lock her up", but still two years in power and only thing that they have done has been to kick out director of FBI who was leading investigation against Hillary because how badly he handled the investigation.

 

So Hillary is innocent as is Kavanaugh regardless of how credible people think charges against them in court of public opinion were/are. If we go route that it is okay to claim that Hillary was guilty by evidence shown, then it should also be okay to say Kavanaugh (and other people accused of sexual assaults, misbehaviour etc.) are guilty by evidence shown, because we aren't speaking legal level of guilt, but guilt based on opinions of people who have incomplete knowledge about law and evidences.

[Zoraptor]

Hillary wasn't guilty by evidence shown as it's impossible to prove that she did it deliberately or with gross incompetence; and one of those is required for conviction. That the potentially criminal act- using a private server, receiving classified information on it and deleting documents that were required to be preserved- was done is however not in dispute, hence there is evidence just not enough to convict. Even Hillary doesn't dispute the basic facts of what happened in her case, she just maintains she doesn't understand technology thus is not criminally liable.

 

With Kavanaugh however every single thing is in dispute. There is literally no testable supporting evidence- specific times and locations; corroborating witnesses, physical evidence- the only evidence is that several accusations were made.

 

Trump can't just charge Hillary, that isn't how the system works for good and obvious reasons.