quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 27, 2016 13:04:26 GMT -5
Jerry - I completely disagree with you and think you have it backwards. Israel doesn't believe its settlements are illegal. Everyone else does. It's like me saying we could debate all day whether or not I own the moon. But what we definitely can argue about forever is which side is 'good' and which side is 'bad.' There are no innocent sides in this issue, and part of finding a solution means being able to demand changes from both sides. These settlements are a serious impediment to that, and that fact doesn't change just because we can also point to bad things on the Palestinian side. I generally support Israel. I generally support the Palestinian people. I think throwing out a few biased anti-Palestinian claims isn't really making that serious a point; THIS is the exact thing we can go back and forth on forever. I find it strange to defend the illegal actions of a foreign nation that are in direct contention with our own goals. The settlements will be used as bargaining chips. Everyone else does not believe the settlements are illegal. Please explain how they are illegal in the context of history. As you recall, Jordan launched an attack on Israel in 1967 with the purpose of destroying Israel and pushing the inhabitants into the sea. At that time, Jordan was in control of East Jerusalem and refused to allow Israeli's access to the Wailing Wall. As a matter of fact they used the wall as a public urinal. Is it no wonder, that Israel refuses to give back any part of Jerusalem. At the present time, the Palestinian authority refuses to recognize Israel or to negotiate with them. Maybe you are not aware, but a couple of years ago, Israel agreed to stop all Settlement activity for a year and the Palestinian Authority refused to negotiate for 9 months. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and left all of the check points wide open for two years. People could move in and out without restrictions What did they get?? Terrorist attacks, rockets. Some peace. Israelis are very worried (and with good reason), that as soon as they withdraw, Hamas or ISIS will take over. What you have to keep in mind is that Ben Gurion Airport is only a mile and a half from the border of the west bank. It would take only one rocket, or actually a mortar to close it down for months. Let me close with two questions. 1. What makes you think a peace agreement with the West Bank is going to end any better than it did in Gaza. In other words, what makes you think it will result in peace. Presently, parks and streets are named after terrorists. 2. Why are the settlements any more illegal than San Antonio, Los Angeles, or San Francisco. And remember, Mexico has never threatened to wipe out the US and drive the inhabitants into the sea. ' Jerry, you throwing as much crap at the wall as possible to see what sticks is not a serious point. If you'd like I can write a few paragraphs about the horrific things the Israeli government has done, including the use of white phosphorous, human shields, and collective punishment. The tit for tat isn't productive - BOTH sides have committed serious atrocities. If you can't acknowledge that reality, you're just not making any serious points. Which countries believe the settlements to be legal besides Israel?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 27, 2016 10:50:46 GMT -5
Jerry - I completely disagree with you and think you have it backwards.
Israel doesn't believe its settlements are illegal. Everyone else does. It's like me saying we could debate all day whether or not I own the moon.
But what we definitely can argue about forever is which side is 'good' and which side is 'bad.' There are no innocent sides in this issue, and part of finding a solution means being able to demand changes from both sides. These settlements are a serious impediment to that, and that fact doesn't change just because we can also point to bad things on the Palestinian side.
I generally support Israel. I generally support the Palestinian people. I think throwing out a few biased anti-Palestinian claims isn't really making that serious a point; THIS is the exact thing we can go back and forth on forever.
I find it strange to defend the illegal actions of a foreign nation that are in direct contention with our own goals.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 24, 2016 11:36:21 GMT -5
"4. The stance of the US government is "no more settlements." So that makes it right??"
Not sure what the point is here. Are you saying the United States is wrong here and you support the Israeli policy of additional and expanding settlements?
It's weird to start a ridiculously biased thread over us following through on our stated policies - the fact that you don't like them doesn't make it somehow shocking or unfair.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 23, 2016 17:46:41 GMT -5
Yes he did... But it sounds less scary when you put forth a plan and explain the reasoning vs randomly tweeting something without explanation and then saying if they want an arms race will give them an arms race the next day. In all honesty though we don't know what he means because you can't explain it 140 characters and his surrogates have been giving mixed signals. For sure and I don't disagree there, but I'm not sure where all the "he's restarting the arms race" stuff is coming from in many media sectors after we already commit a trillion bucks to it.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 23, 2016 16:59:06 GMT -5
I don't dislike Israel and I'm not interested in a biased info dump about their existential goodness/badness.
The illegal settlements are illegal regardless of the fact that other countries do bad things. It's a huge geopolitical headache for us.
They have no problem giving our government the middle finger when they want to do something their own way, I'm not sure why I, as an American, am supposed to be outraged when our government does something it feels is in our best interest.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 23, 2016 15:22:34 GMT -5
Israel should probably reject the tens of billions of dollars we give them then.
Unless I missed that a condition for us GIVING them money and aid and protection is that we have to ignore their illegal actions that cause headaches for us around the world.
Turns out beggars can be choosers after all.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 23, 2016 12:54:54 GMT -5
Didn't Obama initiate a 30-year, $1,000,000,000,000 upgrade to our nuclear weapons arsenal?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 16, 2016 15:21:05 GMT -5
Weird, that article looks like it's from today!
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 15, 2016 14:38:08 GMT -5
"If you agree the Russians were trolling on a scale that would have an effect - which to be honest takes a lot more people than the hacking - why wouldn't they also be hacking?"
Well the Clinton campaign coordinated with their SuperPac to spend millions of dollars influencing and 'correcting' online debate, so maybe we can just assume the Clinton campaign hacked people too with your logic.
As far as CrowdStrike goes, Guccifer 2.0 released documents disputing their claims and proving he has/had access to the servers himself. It's similar to the claims being made right now by anonymous people out of the CIA - somewhat compelling, but without a solid conclusion and with plenty of evidence pointing in another direction, clearly not dispositive.
"If you accept that the Russians had a trolling army working and look at what they did, it's pretty blatantly obvious they had a favored candidate."
This is kind of the massive problem I've had with this whole story and people's reactions to it. I'm supposed to just believe CrowdStrike and the CIA, but ignore the FBI and the NDI based on your personal sense of "if x then also probably y." "Pretty blatantly obvious" is something you just completely pulled out of thin air.
Why would the Director of National Intelligence lie? Why would the FBI lie?
Point not being that one side is clearly correct and the other incorrect, but with information being disputed at the highest levels and literally zero evidence confirming the recent claims, why are you so confident in your own decisions of who to believe?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 14, 2016 13:00:26 GMT -5
Jesus...
The reply was not about you at all, it was about the narrative surrounding these issues throughout the primary and the general. Literally the same point I've been making for months. I'm interested in your posts and enjoy reading them (even where I disagree), but I'm sorry to tell you that not everything is about you. Lol.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 14, 2016 12:20:43 GMT -5
I believe the talking point there was something like 'show me direct incontrovertible proof of quid pro quo corruption, otherwise you're just naive and/or cynical." I'm not Hillary's daddy Quick Lol. If you think she did something wrong go after her, knock yourself out. Either way that has no effect on my life. My perspective is since the PEOTUS' actions will have an effect on my life, I should pay a little bit more attention to him. I'm way to high on your radar right now man. Lol... Trust me, I'm not that important.. Lol sorry dude but you can't plaster the board constantly with your own claims and other people's tweets and then hide behind the 'woah I don't even care about this issue, calm down' play. It's a bit transparent. Especially when I wasn't even replying to you. You're right, you're not that important, so maybe don't try to make everything about you.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 13, 2016 11:32:31 GMT -5
Can something not be true in 2012 but true in 2016? I don't understand your point this is about what's going on in 2016. What does that tidbit have to do with the current "truth" you supposedly seek? You keep framing this as left vs right and it's not. Or it should not be imo...Some Republicans recently are sounding the alarm as well. You responded to me quoting one.. I agree there's (rightly) bipartisan support for investigating Russia's hacking of the DNC, etc. Why wasn't there bipartisan support for investigating other foreign government's contributions to the Democratic candidate's "foundation"? View AttachmentI believe the talking point there was something like 'show me direct incontrovertible proof of quid pro quo corruption, otherwise you're just naive and/or cynical."
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 12, 2016 13:47:28 GMT -5
I have no issue with the investigation. If they conduct an investigation and find relevant information, they should follow it. But generic claims of 'interference' don't really mean anything. So yes, if the investigation actually provides information I support action on it. But the quick 180 from claims of 'we must accept the results of the election and anyone saying otherwise is undermining our democracy' to 'Russia hacked the election and made Trump president and if you don't believe it you have your head in the sand' is a bit...stark.What is the accusation??? But nobody here is saying that. Lol fine: "Seems like you're saying you support Russia committing crimes against US citizens over an American citizens right to privacy. I do not, regardless of party.. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, we're Americans first.." There's a direct quote from you. What crimes against US citizens are you accusing Russia of committing?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 12, 2016 13:39:16 GMT -5
I have no issue with the investigation. If they conduct an investigation and find relevant information, they should follow it.
But generic claims of 'interference' don't really mean anything. So yes, if the investigation actually provides information I support action on it. But the quick 180 from claims of 'we must accept the results of the election and anyone saying otherwise is undermining our democracy' to 'Russia hacked the election and made Trump president and if you don't believe it you have your head in the sand' is a bit...stark.
What is the accusation???
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 12, 2016 12:57:16 GMT -5
Is Assange the gold standard for truth or something? Seems a bit inconsistent to say I need more evidence from the CIA but take Assange at his word with 0 evidence to support... A false flag. Trump's former foreign policy advisor Carter Page said this a couple days ago on Russian State television. TC, definitely misunderstood you, apologies. Though I don't think the jump to 'human shield' is a fair one even for Assange - they have never played games with revealing sources so I'm not as quick to dismiss this. And Yaboynyp, why is that inconsistent? The CIA constantly lies to get America into conflicts with other countries. Wikileaks has a perfect record for authenticity of released information. But you know, when the CIA says jump you just ask them how high! What does false flag have to do with anything? Your stream of consciousness twitter posting is cool and all, but do you have an actual point? Your pattern of vague claim followed by implication is getting a little old... I'm not defending Trump or his administration, I'm saying that the obnoxious, arrogant reactions like yours are far removed from the level of evidence or the track record of people making the claims. The CIA would NEVER act in a duplicitous manner or interfere with another country's elections, and they'd never lie to us!! From Gulf of Tonkin to babies being ripped out of incubators to smoking gun mushroom clouds, the CIA has never led us astray. It's so weird that I'm not taking supposedly leaked CIA information at face value with literally no support of the claim! Actually, what exactly is the accusation here. Feel free to get more specific than terms like 'influence' and 'hacked the election'
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 12, 2016 12:24:22 GMT -5
I think quickplay is referencing interviews where Assange played a semantic game with Seth Rich's death and offered a reward for information in his murder but didn't actually make any accusation that Seth Rich was involved at all in the DNC leaks or with WikiLeaks. That's exactly why "sourced accusations" are a big deal. Someone goes on the record and says something they can be held to. What Assange did there was one of the more disgusting acts of the 2016 election. How much has WikiLeaks or Assange said about Seth Rich post-November 8th? Seems to me if you actually had a source die on you and weren't just using his memory as a human shield and torturing his family, you'd still care about that post-election. Honestly, what in god's name are you talking about? Accusing me of using his memory of a human shield and torturing his family?!?!? What does that even mean? Give me a break, you sound unhinged. The whole reaction to this election has been full of hyperbolic nonsense, comments like yours being a prime example. "Sourced accusations" aren't a thing. Especially when you happily dismiss information/claims that don't go with your narrative while leaning on anonymous leaked CIA claims and the loose circumstantial evidence by a private security contractor. Really strong evidence there! Here, a specific denial from Assange: www.politico.com/story/2016/11/julian-assange-russia-john-podesta-wikileaks-230676 And Assange hasn't been heard from in about two months so you're right, he hasn't said any additional information about the source of the leak! Again, feel free to live in pure conjecture land, but maybe ease up on the arrogance and bizarre personal jabs? Because your game of "my evidence is good because I have sourced ACCUSATIONS but your evidence is bad because I don't believe the people" isn't really that serious a position to take.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 12, 2016 11:22:49 GMT -5
Still wondering what exactly the accusation is here. That Russia hacked the DNC and RNC but only released DNC materials to Wikileaks? Would love to see evidence, because other channels are saying that the DNC info wasn't a hack but a leak... Still waiting on that evidence! Who are the other channels you're referring to Quiks? Wikileaks itself heavily indicating that the DNC information came from a leak instead of a hack. People are starting to use the word 'hack' to mean 'interfere,' so much of the "Russia hacks the US election" really means "Russian media is interfering with American media."
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 12, 2016 11:21:20 GMT -5
Still wondering what exactly the accusation is here. That Russia hacked the DNC and RNC but only released DNC materials to Wikileaks? Would love to see evidence, because other channels are saying that the DNC info wasn't a hack but a leak... US intelligence community : "Russians hacked the DNC" CrowdStrike, independent security researchers : "Russians hacked the DNC" Sergei Markov : "We did Wikileaks" (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/putin-applauds-trump-win-and-hails-new-era-of-positive-ties-with-us) quickplay : "Who knows! It could have been a leak! People are saying it!" I'm convinced that you just don't want it to be true, because you've been mocking Russian involvement for months and haven't bothered to do any of your own research. Here's the CrowdStrike DNC report : www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/The sourced accusations so far are that : - Russians hacked the DNC - Russians hacked the RNC but did not release any of the information - Massive Russian troll army on social media impersonated US citizens, supporting Trump, spreading fake news and attacking Clinton - Russians spearfished Podesta, released emails to WikiLeaks - Russians attacked voter registration databases multiple times (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russians-hacked-two-u-s-voter-databases-say-officials-n639551, wccftech.com/russian-hackers-targeted-voter-databases-20-states/)Now, there are a lot of other far worse accusations out there as well, but none of those are sourced. Really great that you think sourcing ACCUSATIONS constitutes some sort of proof. And yes, I've been skeptical of this since day one and still remain so. Probably mostly due to the absence of any proof of the accusations you're leveling. I've done plenty of my own research, still looking for hard evidence. I think the issue for and a few others might be that you WANT this to be true so much that you're equating wish-fulfillment with reality. I have no doubt that Russians are using trolls to make comments, but the crowdstrike report is serious weak sauce. Sourced accusations, I mean really?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 12, 2016 10:48:32 GMT -5
Still wondering what exactly the accusation is here. That Russia hacked the DNC and RNC but only released DNC materials to Wikileaks? Would love to see evidence, because other channels are saying that the DNC info wasn't a hack but a leak...
Still waiting on that evidence!
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 6, 2016 13:45:18 GMT -5
So where do things stand now? Are accurate election results still something that only conspiracy theorist crybaby Bernie Bros whine about? Is discussion about inaccurate general election results still only done by Russian secret agents who are attempting to undermine the holy sanctity of our results?
I still can't stand Trump and think he's going to be awful for this country, but the constant doubling down and painfully direct hypocrisy of the Dems isn't doing them any favors.
|
|