On record press statement by person who claims to be recipient of Hunter email--Joe involved

[tall73]

Given that the Trump administration has essentially sanctioned a human rights court, this is absolutely nonsense. There is no threat to what the US is currently doing - and if you want to avoid being criticised on this, do better.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. Please clarify.

 

[Triumvirate]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. Please clarify.

The Trump administration has sanctioned the International Criminal Court - were you not aware of this?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. Please clarify.

Trump’s Sanctions on International Court May Do Little Beyond Alienating Allies

 

[tall73]

tall73 is a 3rd-party idealist. I've had this discussion with him before. He firmly believes that forgoing the choice between two evils (and getting the greater one) such that his personal convictions are satisfied is preferable.

Or to put it another way, I won't vote for a war criminal. You act like there are only two choices, but that is not true.

For that matter if the Democrats wanted to really resist someone they compared to Hitler they should also not have passed all the military budgets.

 

[tall73]

Trump’s Sanctions on International Court May Do Little Beyond Alienating Allies

I was confused about his next sentence.

But Trump is continuing a Trend. Bush indicated they would not be subject to the court. And he even suggested they would fight to keep Americans from being punished by it.

Since I would categorize Bush, Obama and Trump as war criminals, how am I being biased?

 

[tall73]

There is no threat to what the US is currently doing - and if you want to avoid being criticised on this, do better.

This is the part I would like clarification on.

 

[tall73]

I think that they started out that way, but they've been pretty clearly co-opted over the last 5-10 years - in part thanks to Assange's legal troubles. The clincher for me was when a Wikileaks spokesperson said in a reddit AMA that they release information per the leaker's request for maximum political impact (or words to that effect - I can't find it anymore, and it may have been deleted. But I was reading the AMA as it happened, and I vividly remember that response because it killed pretty much all the trust I'd had in Wikileaks up to that point).

That would be worth reading. If you find the link ever please post.

Even if you discount that, consider that all a source would have to do would be to selectively release information. If, say, Russian Intelligence hacked the DNC and RNC email servers, but only gave the DNC emails to Wikileaks, they're technically publishing everything that they're given. With an anonymous data drop, they have no way of evaluating the biases of their sources.

I agree with this part. But if they are publishing what they have, they have done what they can.

I am quite convinced RNC emails would be quite damaging as well. For that matter, I would like much less classification to start with so that we know what they are doing in our name.

 

[Triumvirate]

That would be worth reading. But if you don't have a leak that is more difficult.



I agree with this part. But if they are publishing what they have, they have done what they can.

I am quite convinced RNC emails would be quite damaging as well. For that matter, I would like much less classification to start with so that we know what they are doing in our name.

And yet you don't wait to see what those RNC emails, and all the skeletons in their closet entails - not that this is relevant anymore, it's 2020, not 2016.

 

[tall73]

It doesn't, well done. Maybe you're aren't totally gullible about this. But drone strikes under Trump have escalated - the idea that he is trying to wind wars down (not least when he pointlessly escalated matters with Iran, DPRK, etc) is laughable.

Do better.

I told you I posted on Trump's killing of more non-combatants, dropping more bombs than Obama, and I have posted on his expansion of the drone program into Niger, etc. I called him a war criminal.

 

[tall73]

And yet you don't wait to see what those RNC emails, and all the skeletons in their closet entails - not that this is relevant anymore, it's 2020, not 2016.

That makes zero sense. One information I have. One I don't. I still have to look at the information I have. What would I be waiting for?

And again, I didn't vote for Trump. So your continued two party narrative doesn't do much for me.

 

[Triumvirate]

I told you I posted on Trump's killing of more non-combatants, dropping more bombs than Obama, and I have posted on his expansion of the drone program into Niger, etc. I called him a war criminal.

But yknow, bIdEn Tho

 

[Triumvirate]

That makes zero sense. One information I have. One I don't. I still have to look at the information I have.

And again, I didn't vote for Trump. So your continued two party narrative doesn't do much for me.

So maybe wait until those leaks meet parity.

Not that this is relevant still, you're fighting the 2016 election, while acting as if this is still relevant. If you were really being openminded, you wouldn't be harping on about stuff from four years ago. But whatever you need to tell yourself, lol.

 

[tall73]

But yknow, bIdEn Tho

Yeah. Biden though. And Bush. And Obama. And all the rest if they commit and support war crimes.

 

[Triumvirate]

Yeah. Biden though. And Bush. And Obama. And all the rest if they commit and support war crimes.

Right, let's keep talking about everyone else but Trump, who you 'do not support' - even though they're all as bad as each other by your own standards.

 

[tall73]

So maybe wait until those leaks meet parity.

Not that this is relevant still, you're fighting the 2016 election, while acting as if this is still relevant. If you were really being openminded, you wouldn't be harping on about stuff from four years ago. But whatever you need to tell yourself, lol.

So now your suggestion is ignore any information you have, AND forget the past of both parties supporting war crimes.

Yeah, I don't think that works for me.

 

[Triumvirate]

So now your suggestion is ignore any information you have, AND forget the past of both parties supporting war crimes.

Yeah, I don't think that works for me.

When it's a blatantly biased information environment, and when Trump and his party of collaborators curiously isn't leaked against, yeah, do better than this.

Again though, this is 2016 level nonsense. Catch up.

 

[tall73]

Right, let's keep talking about everyone else but Trump, who you 'do not support' - even though they're all as bad as each other by your own standards.

Except I have talked about Trump. So you are just lying now.

 

[Triumvirate]

Except I have talked about Trump. So you are just lying now.

Haha, sure mate. You want to talk about liars, look in the mirror. Last time I checked, the 9th commandment still held.

 

[tall73]

When it's a blatantly biased information environment, and when Trump and his party of collaborators curiously isn't leaked against, yeah, do better than this.

Do better than going on available info!

Tell you what, do you want to just tell everyone who to vote for and cut out the middle man?

 

[Triumvirate]

Do better than going on available info!

Tell you what, do you want to just tell everyone who to vote for and cut out the middle man?

I don't know, Mr Mr-Trump-Who-I-Do-Not-Support, what do you think?