Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Doomblade187]

Ooh, I remember drunk panic guy!

[smjjames]

The impression I got was that they're targeting his campaign overall more than him specifically, and to me it seems much more plausible that some campaign members were conspiring with Russia or other foreign agents than just Trump himself.

I'm still doubtful it'll go anywhere.

At least... 4?  I haven't been counting, but I know at least 4, Trump associates have either been found guilty of, or signed a confession to, some kind of crime by Mueller.  Mueller has also been continuously seeking more and more info from Trump, for example looking into various aspects of his finances.  Mueller has already indicated that if he finds something outside his scope he will tip off another agency (for example the tip he gave on Michael Cohen, Trump's laywer that resulted in all of his files being seized in a morning raid by FBI); so the fact that he's gathering info on Trump means that he thinks that info is within the scope of his investigation.  Which is about, among other things, collusion.

This is ignoring all of the huge red flags have not yet resulted in overt legal action.  Donald Trump Jr's ridiculous emails where he said he was "enthusiastic" about colluding with Russia.  Trump during the election openly stating on live TV that if the Russians had "the emails", they should release them.  Trump claiming he doesn't know who Papadapolous (one of the middlemen between Russia and the Trump campaign, who got caught with pretty damning evidence and agreed to cooperate) despite him being a high up position in the campaign.  Then a picture comes out with, oops, Papadapolous in the same meeting with Trump.  Also that meeting between Donald Trump Jr and a Russian lawyer that's basically a legal kiss of death thanks to his emails?  That he claimed only he was there for?  The majority of Trump's higher ups in his campaign were there and "forgot" to mention it.

I think part of the reason why those huge red flags haven't resulted in overt legal action yet (other than what the DNC is doing) is because they're all under the umbrella of the Mueller investigation and anybody else (well, it'd be the Federal Government most likely that does the charges) that independently does legal action is going to rub against Muellers investigation.

Also, there's that campaign staffer that got subpeoned for emails by Mueller and had a 6 hour long mental breakdown on live TV.  When he was asked by a (I think, CNN) anchor if he "thinks Trump actually did anything", his response was "...all I'm going to say is, I think Trump mayyyy have done something really bad.  And I think Mueller might get him for it."  Obviously not legally significant but, you know.  Doesn't look good from the outside.

He hadn't actually talked to Mueller yet at that time I don't think, the only legal issue he would have had at that time is being in trouble with not going to the grand jury, which he wised up to and went.

[martinuzz]

So the democrat party has filed charges against the Trump campaign, Wikileaks, Russia, and members of the Trump family, for conspiracy.
https://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/democratische-partij-klaagt-trump-campagne-wikileaks-en-rusland-aan-wegens-samenzwering~a4594711/

[misko27]

God damn I wish there was a functional progressive party in American politics.

Go agitate against first-past-the-post voting, then. So long as the system tends toward a two-party equilibrium, the drive to centrism is too strong for progressivism to be tenable.

That's not what's happening, though. This move doesn't support centrism at all. It's only going to radicalize conservatives and make moderates think the Democrats are partisan. My problem with the action isn't that it's not progressive, it's that it's incompetent. Unless they have access to some truly abysmal news I don't -- something that suggests that the Mueller investigation is going to get shut down, for instance -- then it's falling into the same trap of not focusing on the issues.

Republicans are incredibly weak on issues. They aren't fiscally conservative; they aren't socially responsible; they aren't moral or ethical; and they oppose gay marriage, pot, single-payer healthcare, national parks, and diplomacy, which are some of the most popular concepts across the population. How the hell are the democrats not having a field day with this?

I think it's because Democrats are doing that whole thing where "we lost something huge, therefore we need to spend time in the wilderness, mournfully staring at the moonlight wondering where it all went wrong, nipping at the heels of our betters, and fighting blood-duels with our former colleagues over the future of the party." But Republicans are doing the same damn thing, and they won!

I feel like its a testament to how much Trump's election was against the political winds. Republicans were set to take a long look in the mirror, Democrats were set to learn how to actually do shit again. (Note: all this is national: on the local level things are very different. If there is any good news from all of this, it'll be that Democrats took back a large number of states or at least contest them, forcing redistricting in 2020 to be more equal.)

[martinuzz]

Trump has scrapped the strict rules from the Obama administration about drones, and has put the US' most lethal remote guided weapon, the Reaper drone, up for sale on the international market. Anyone who is on friendly terms with the US can now buy Reaper drones, including those countries that don't mind human rights too much, which were excluded from buying US weaponry by an international agreement signed by 35 countries.

International human rights organisations have expressed great concern, as has the CIA.

I guess the good news is that if you don't like Trump, you can now buy drones to take him out :p

[smjjames]

Republicans are STILL set to take a long look in the mirror, it just got delayed.

Trump has scrapped the strict rules from the Obama administration about drones, and has put the US' most lethal remote guided weapon, the Reaper drone, up for sale on the international market. Anyone who is on friendly terms with the US can now buy Reaper drones, including those countries that don't mind human rights too much, which were excluded from buying US weaponry by an international agreement signed by 35 countries.

International human rights organisations have expressed great concern, as has the CIA.

It was, dare I say it.... Inevitable.

I'd agree though, it doesn't seem wise to sell one of our most powerful tools to anybody other than our explicit allies, not just 'anybody who is on friendly terms with us'. Older drones that we'd consider less efficient or advanced, sure, but not our top-of-the-line stuff.

[Trekkin]

I'd agree though, it doesn't seem wise to sell one of our most powerful tools to anybody other than our explicit allies, not just 'anybody who is on friendly terms with us'. Older drones that we'd consider less efficient or advanced, sure, but not our top-of-the-line stuff.

This tiny part of it is not as bad as it may appear, as the Reaper's successor, the Avenger, has already flown operationally. It's still a terrible idea in a hundred other ways though.

[Starver]

Yeah. You can't just have one kind of Avenger. You need an armoured one, a strong one, an accurate one, one with a shield, one with a hammer, a female one...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

By the way, "the female one" was not my final afterthought "oops, I've forgotten her! Put her at the end!" addition. The actual original final edit was to insert the one with a shield into the list, having gone and forgotten the first Avenger entirely originally. And I'd other ideas about Romanov's feature-line but they were all as bad or worse then "the one with eternal PMT...", so chucked them out, but given how it looks like an afterthought deliberately left her until just before the ellipses that may or may not promise more. </dissect_joke>

[Kagus]

Yeah. You can't just have one kind of Avenger. You need an armoured one, a strong one, an accurate one, one with a shield, one with a hammer, a female one...

But you still only need one to fly to Mars and take the fight to the ethereals.

[Egan_BW]

International human rights organisations have expressed great concern, as has the CIA.

Interesting juxtaposition there.

[wierd]

Trump has scrapped the strict rules from the Obama administration about drones, and has put the US' most lethal remote guided weapon, the Reaper drone, up for sale on the international market. Anyone who is on friendly terms with the US can now buy Reaper drones, including those countries that don't mind human rights too much, which were excluded from buying US weaponry by an international agreement signed by 35 countries.

International human rights organisations have expressed great concern, as has the CIA.

I guess the good news is that if you don't like Trump, you can now buy drones to take him out :p

Considering that these are semi-autonomous robots with onboard computers that get fed instructions from a ground based detatchment--- This also opens the doors to security researchers buying one for penetration testing.

If I had a few million sitting around, I sure as hell would buy one for that purpose.

[Magistrum]

Yeah. You can't just have one kind of Avenger. You need an armoured one, a strong one, an accurate one, one with a shield, one with a hammer, a female one...

But you still only need one to fly to Mars and take the fight to the ethereals.

You. I like your thinking.

[Max™]

Uh... you mean shield one, armor one, hammer one, green one, tiny one, I assume.

International human rights organisations have expressed great concern, as has the CIA.

Interesting juxtaposition there.

Are you suggesting the CIA doesn't support the rights of people to uh... be treated inhumanely?

It's like flammable and inflammable, right?

[Dunamisdeos]

The CIA is concerned that people will use them against us.

The human rights groups are concerned people will use them.

Also, Obama sold em' too, and regularly. Who exactly is Trump selling them to? I guess the concern is that he's selling them to folks who aren't our allies?

[Hanslanda]

...
America has flying murder bots for sale, an arsenal of nuclear weapons, a whole slew of weapons that are too terrifyingly efficient to use (clusterbombs, chemical weapons, etc.) A tragically loud mouthed narcissist in charge, and an hegemonic collection of military bases all across the planet, enforcing "Peace" and "Freedom"^tm on other countries against their will...

Oh my god, are we the bad guys? Shit.