Russia Extends Edward Snowden's Asylum To 2020, To Offer Citizenship Next Year (cnn.com) 278
Whistleblower and former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden has been allowed to remain in Russia for another three years and will next year qualify to apply for Russian citizenship. From a report on CNN: Edward Snowden's leave to remain in Russia has been extended until 2020, Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has confirmed to CNN. Snowden, a former US National Security Agency contractor, sought asylum in Russia in June 2013 after leaking volumes of information on American intelligence and surveillance operations to the media. On Tuesday, Zakharova announced an extension of a "couple of years" in a Facebook post that criticized former CIA acting director Michael Morell for an opinion piece he wrote suggesting that Russian President Vladimir Putin should consider returning Snowden to the United States as "the perfect inauguration gift" to President-elect Donald Trump. Snowden settled in Moscow after initially traveling to Hong Kong following his 2013 public disclosure of classified information. The Russian government granted him asylum soon after. In August 2014, Snowden received a three-year extension to his leave to remain in Russia. That extension was due to expire this year.
Trump and Putin sitting in a tree... (Score:3, Insightful)
Since Trump and Putin are BFFs, then Trump should pardon Snowden for helping both Russia and America deal with the NSA which Trump doesn't trust anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Since Trump and Putin are BFFs, then Trump should pardon Snowden for helping both Russia and America deal with the NSA which Trump doesn't trust anyway.
That would certainly complicate a lot of people's opinions of Donald Trump around here.
One good deed (Score:5, Insightful)
That would certainly complicate a lot of people's opinions of Donald Trump around here.
Not for me. I'd still think he was an asshole who has no business being president. One good deed doesn't excuse a lifetime of douchebaggery.
Re: (Score:2)
I expected Putin to hand Snowden over to Trump, who has only ever called Snowden a traitor. "As a sign of improving relations between our two great nations we return this criminal to you that you may serve justice." Putin only ever kept Snowden to embarrass Obama. I find this recent turn of events confusing. But as I mostly support Snowden I'm not displeased.
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden != Assange; NSA != CIA
Snowden, unlike Assange, did nothing for Trump in the election: in fact, he tried to debunk Trump's claim that it was impossible for the FBI to go through all those Wiener laptop Clinton emails. So Trump has no reason to do anything for him. What does surprise me is if Obama could commute the sentence of Manning, why not pardon Snowden as well? Both are traitors, so why should one get preferential treatment over the others?
Trump's lack of trust is for the CIA, which brou
Re: (Score:2)
The one glaring problem with all of the opinion based "news" which is not really news in the first place (Fox and the like) turning around and taking anything they don't like and labelling it "Fake News" does not work in terms of journalistic integrity or upon later verification. Fake news is, in essence, fake news!
The problem here is for some reason in America there is never any shortage of morons. Again I blame Fox news.
Interesting that you single out Fox. You're political affiliation is showing.
Regardless, you're wrong on fake news. Story after story coming from mainstream media outlets has been discredited only to be later revealed as staged, fabricated, without any credible evidence, or out of context. Fake news is simply propaganda disseminated from the political elites. If you believe everything the media is telling you (except for Fox apparently) then you believe the propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Try to at least remain consistent, america (Score:4, Insightful)
Replace "Hacked the democratic process" with "Exposed Democratic(DNC) process to hack the election" and you'd be right.
The HRC loss can be firmly placed on HRC, The Democrats, the MSM and a few RINOs, By all measures, Trump should have lost, and "bigly", but enough people hated HRC, the Democrats and the MSM to ... actually ... not vote for them. I know, it is SHOCKING that Trump won. But consider that HRC was the ONLY candidate the DNC could have put up that he could actually beat.
This isn't the Russians fault at all. But keep on blaming them all you can, and you'll never really understand why the Democrats keep losing ... bigly.
Re: (Score:2)
The HRC loss can be firmly placed on HRC, The Democrats, the MSM and a few RINOs, By all measures, Trump should have lost, and "bigly", but enough people hated HRC, the Democrats and the MSM to ... actually ... not vote for them. I know, it is SHOCKING that Trump won. But consider that HRC was the ONLY candidate the DNC could have put up that he could actually beat.
This isn't the Russians fault at all. But keep on blaming them all you can, and you'll never really understand why the Democrats keep losing ... bigly.
This is a half-truth. Yes, Hillary is very corrupt and unlikable and cheated in the primaries. She did lots of underhanded things. HOWEVER, Russian interference REVEALED these truths about Hillary which consequentially caused her to lose the election to a bumbling idiot, but that's besides the point.
Russians played a part here, regardless of how awful HRC is. Good or bad? I dunno. Right now it just is. She is corrupt and Russian interference revealed it. Let's be honest with ourselves here.
Re: (Score:2)
Several problems were exposed in the 2016 election. Well, "exposed" is not really true since they were evident in the past as well, but they stand center-stage today.
One is that propaganda won, and bigly! Reading the /. posts in this story alone, it's obvious that there are two non-overlapping versions of history in the minds of Americans. The vilification of both Trump and Hillary was effective beyond reason. Ever heard the term "Crooked Hillary" before? Does repetition make it true? Survey says "Yes!" I h
Strange Logic (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand the logic behind pardoning Manning but not Snowden.
Snowden was very careful about how he released material not to get people hurt, the information he released was relevant and sincere whistle-blowing, not just random data dumps from sensitive sources.
Manning was just a show-off trying to data-dump anything she could get her hands on without a greater purpose in mind. She did it because she could, not because she had any morale compass.
Snowden should be the one forgiven and returned to the US public sector, not Manning. Obama got this one backwards.
Re:Strange Logic (Score:5, Informative)
Posting AC because I've moderated.
President Obama did not pardon Manning. He commuted her sentence. Commuting leaves the crime and punishment intact but reduces the time spent in jail.
A pardon essentially wipes the crime from the person's record. This CNN article [cnn.com] explains more clearly the difference between the two acts:
A presidential commutation reduces the sentence being served but it does not change the fact of conviction, whereas a pardon forgives a certain criminal offense.
Re: (Score:2)
You are, of course, correct, but still, he's showing leniency to a criminal and letting a hero continue to be on the hook.
Re: (Score:3)
You are, of course, correct, but still, he's showing leniency to a criminal and letting a hero continue to be on the hook.
Manning stood trial and served an unusually harsh punishment due to her transgender condition. And while her leaks were politically damaging (and did put the lives of sources in danger) she didn't impair the functioning of the security apparatus.
Snowden fled the country and took up residence with two rival powers. His leaks also exposed a lot of the NSA's surveillance apparatus and really set back their ability to gather legitimate intelligence (while of course exposing a lot of wrong-doing).
I'm personally
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's because Snowden has not been convicted yet.
Manning was convicted and sent to jail. Her sentence was 35 years, and commuted to 7.
Snowden has not yet been convicted of anything, and thus is not serving any sentence. There is nothing to commute as he hasn't been sentenced yet. And he can't be sentenced until he's been convicted. And he can't be convicted until
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden was very careful about how he released material not to get people hurt, the information he released was relevant and sincere whistle-blowing, not just random data dumps from sensitive sources.
Not all of it, though. I appreciated the stuff about the government illegally spying on US citizens. But Snowden also revealed stuff about spying on foreign citizens and governments that's perfectly within the purview of our intelligence agencies.
Also we have no idea what else he gave Greenwald. For all we know you pardon Snowden today and then tomorrow Glen says "oh by the way here's the US nuclear launch codes Ed gave me." (obvious hyperbole but you get the idea).
Manning is similar. You say "no greater pu
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>> Obama got this one backwards.
Totally agree.
Stranger Logic (Score:2)
Which is why she did it anonymously......?
You mean she didn't have time nor the resources to sort the data. Either she'd still be doing that today, or would have leak bits and pieces, increasing the chances of the government finding out.
In any case, it's a sad commentary on the human condition that you are concerned with the propriety of the leaker but the crimes revealed by said leaker jus
Re: (Score:2)
She didn't just distribute information showing abuses though- she distributed everything she could get her hands on without care. Snowden managed to strip out information dangerous to individuals- Manning was in it "for the lulz", to use a phrase from that approximate time. Intent is the main difference here.
Of course some of the things she uncovered were horrendous and if that's all she did, and if she did it to draw attention to those issues, I would be forgiving of her too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I had to go back and correct what I had written originally too, caught it before hitting post. It doesn't help that when this started out she was still referring to herself as himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Commuting the sentence to what amounts effectively to release from prison is pretty much a soft pardon. It doesn't get you the civil rights restoration that a pardon gets, and that's largely a sop to those who claim Manning was a traitor.
But really, how is serving only 7 years of a 35 year prison sentence not some kind of refutation of the government's case against Manning, especially when it results in getting out of jail?
It would be more of a statement that the government didn't approve to commute the se
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen a lot of accusations that Manning's imprisonment was "like" torture, but I can't find anything that demonstrates actual torture -- beatings, electrocutions, waterboarding, that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the logic behind pardoning Manning but not Snowden.
Amen. Heck, I don't understand pardoning Nixon and not Manning, Snowden, and a whole bunch of other people.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the logic behind pardoning Manning but not Snowden.
Let me help you understand: Manning confessed to his crimes, faced the music and accepted consequences of her actions. She has expressed remorse, and admits what she did was wrong.
Snowden has admitted to his crimes, but he is fugitive. He has not faced the music, he has not accepted the consequences of his actions. Snowden insist what he did was right and he did it in the right way. This is the fly in the soup for a pardon. If Snowden ever expects to return to the USA, he's going to have to face the c
Re: (Score:2)
My take:
Obama is a Democrat. The President and the DNC accuse Russia of fixing the election in favor of the Republicans and Trump. The person that apparently facilitated that (or at least leaking the information) was Assange through Wikileaks. Wikileaks previously come out and said that Assange would surrender himself to the US if they granted Manning leniency.
Manning has already plead guilty (sort of anyway) and has served time in jail which so far at the US is concerned a public win. Obama didn't have to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Manning was just a show-off trying to data-dump anything she could get her hands on without a greater purpose in mind. She did it because she could, not because she had any morale compass.
According to Manning in her final statements:
I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables, this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment every day.
When someone claims a purpose that matches his actions it seems wrong to claim they didn't have a purpose. Manning's leaks were what actually took the troops out of Iraq, when their government was forced to threaten taking American criminals to international court. Stratfor leaks relating to Syria show that officials believed the public would not support air attack without media attention to a massacre [wikileaks.org]. Obama bombarded Libya without congressional approval.
She not
Give him a US cabinet position (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump owes his election to some extent on the Snowden revelations which caused ordinary Americans to diminish their view of the government, especially under the administration.
Make him head of the FBI or something like that. Let him throw out with impunity the critters who monitor the emails.
Re: (Score:3)
Snowden != Assange
One person in this election already talked about giving Snowden a cabinet position, and no, it wasn't Trump. It was Jill Stein. While Assange timed his leaks to hurt Clinton every way possible, Snowden was actually supportive of the Dems, like when he debunked Trump's claim that those Wiener laptop emails couldn't have all been scanned in 1 week
Not Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Turning him over to the US _might_ curry favor with Trump, however
A: Trump is too inconsistent for something like that to have a dependable long term effect, and
B: More importantly we're pretty sure Putin already owns Trump, probably along multiple lines. You don't need to curry favor with your pawns.
C: And whether Putin owns Trump or not, it certainly doesn't benefit him to _appear_ as if he owns Trump any more than he can avoid, and sending him Snowden as an "inauguration gift" would definitely lend itself to that appearance.
On the other hand, Snowden is an embarrassment to the US (or more accurately, he brought to light and continues to emphasize the way in which the US has embarrassed itself) which is valuable PR for Russia. Even if Putin owns the president it never hurts to have multiple lines of attack available.
Keeping Snowden in good standing encourages other people who might have negative information about the US or whose mere existence and freedom might embarrass the US to look to Putin for support, potentially giving him more ammunition in the future.
And as long as he has Snowden under his control Putin can always offer him up as a bargaining chip in the event that the puppet strings on Trump fail and he really needs to make a deal for some reason. (At which point of course the FSB will suddenly discover evidence that Snowden has been betraying Putin all along, so that it won't be a betrayal on Putin's part to return him to the US.)
Or alternately if he orders Trump to do something for Russia that is so outrageous that it strains credulity he can offer up Snowden as an excuse for Trump making the deal. (Again, shortly after the FSB "discovers" evidence against Snowden.)
Re: (Score:2)
And anyways, all but two of the original points still hold even if Putin doesn't control Trump. (Directly at least. Because if there's no direct control Trump seems to have some kind of weird hero-worship thing going on for Putin.)
Re: (Score:2)
Because if there's no direct control Trump seems to have some kind of weird hero-worship thing going on for Putin.
Trump will say nice things about anyone who says nice things about him, and will shit on anyone who shits on him. Putin says nice things about Trump, so Trump says nice things about Putin.
Also, Trump respects Putin because unlike most every other western world leader, Putin doesn't shit on his own people. Yes, Putin's first priority is Putin, but he at least tries to keep the Russian people from wanting to kill themselves. Russians want families and a future, so Putin promotes the Orthodox Church and Russia
Re: (Score:2)
With an economy the size of Spain? You're swallowing too much western propaganda, friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you enjoy mental masturbation that much?
You new here, friend?
Re: (Score:2)
So do you have a reason to casually dismiss the previous speculation, either in the form of evidence or the form of a political agenda to push?
Because there is zero evidence of Russian involvement with Trump. The left sucks at conspiracy theories.
Visas (Score:2)
Does Snowden actually have permission to work in Russia? How is he getting by these days? Is the Russian government supporting him in any way, providing housing, etc.? I'm really glad he's at least getting by, even if he has to live in exile. I'm sure he just wants to find a way to get on with his life after doing such an incredible service to his country.
Do you even know Snowden? Then aswer these: (Score:3)
Why did he take so many sensitive documents that had nothing whatsoever to do with domestic surveillance?
Why did he choose first to go to Hong Kong instead of a country that didn't have an extradition policy with the US?
Why did he lie about how much money he made on Ars Technia?
Why did he go on a obscenity filled tirade against Ben Bernanke when he lost 20k in the stock market?
Why did he alter his employee evaluation in the CIA which he ended up being forced to resign over?
Why did he steal the CIAs administrative answers before taking his employment test?
Why did he claim that he had the authority to intercept President Obama's private communications while working at the NSA?
Why would he claim that while he's touted as the champion of domestic surveillance?
Why did he steal and release documents on specific techniques that were used to intercept Taliban communications?
How was he able to board a flight to Russia without a required visa?
Interesting... (Score:2)
His asylum expires at the same time as Windows 7 support. I guess Russia will also be upgrading to a newer whistleblower then.
Re: (Score:2)
If Ford could pardon Nixon before any charges were even filed, then maybe Trump could pardon all of his children and their children, even yet unborn; before any charges are filed.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't pardon future actions. A document that gives you immunity from prosecutions for future otherwise illegal actions is called a warrant.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Who is the "KGB" sympathizer? Who is the former Nixon supporter? Crony capitalist is so inclusive as to be meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
There are more than a few Crony capitalists that were in the Obama cabinet. I'm more than positive that Hilliary's would have been loaded with them too. I'm not defending Trump's picks, they're his picks and it's his cabinet. We'll see what he does with it. Stone did work for Nixon in "the office of economic opportunity" whatever that was. He was 20 then so I doubt he was more than an errand boy. As for Trump praising Putin, it's the same praise anyone heaps on an enemy. He stated he was a strong lea
Re: (Score:2)
There are more than a few Crony capitalists that were in the Obama cabinet. I'm more than positive that Hilliary's would have been loaded with them too.
Neither Obama nor Hillary ran on "draining the swamp" since everyone knew they were professional politicians. For Trump to turn around and fill the swamp with crony capitalists who have next to no experience with public office is being hypocritical. As one political commentator wrote, it's just changing the team shirts that the alligators wore.
Stone did work for Nixon in "the office of economic opportunity" whatever that was. He was 20 then so I doubt he was more than an errand boy.
He's the most blatant example. Trump has quoted Nixon: "If the president does it, it isn't illegal." Which is why the incoming Trump administration and the Republica
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the US caused the issue, by not acting in a rational manner.. All Snowden did was do what most people do.. read the signs (ie: "My life is in danger.. and the guys I thought were my friends are trying to kill me.. Let me go someplace they can't get to me")
You can't tell people "Come forward and talk with us" while grabbing your bat and gun when you don't like the answers given and expect them to stick around to be "silenced". In short, whistle blowers are treated like traitors when in fact, they a
Re:Down with Putin - Down with Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
So, by "hacking the elections", which is pure hyperbole, meaning "hacked the democrates, the DNC, HRC campaign and exposing the collusion with the MSM and even some Republicans, the criminal enterprise known as the Clinton Foundation, you're saying that all of that was .. done by the Russians to help Trump?
So, the Russians made the democrats, Hillary and all the rest do all those unsavory (criminal??) things just to get Trump elected. You're a special kind of person aren't you.
Sorry, but the Hillary loss can be placed at the feet of Hillary, the Democrats, the MSM and the RINOs who were conspiring against the american people. But yeah, keep blaming the Russians!
Re:Down with Putin - Down with Trump (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. Timing is the key to understanding it. Sanders would have defeated Trump easily. The timing of the releases were carefully placed so as to build suspicion with independants while not hurting her primary bid. Then once she clenched that, proof that it was a rigged primary sent a lot of independants away from the DNC to either Green, Libertarian, and even a number to Trump.
If they had released it all in the beginning, we would be swearing in Sanders tomorrow.
Re:Down with Putin - Down with Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
How could they "release it all in the beginning?" How are they supposed to release emails about how Hillary got the debate questions in advance from CNN in March 2016 when the primary season started in summer 2015? Did the Russians hack time, too? Why the fuck not apparently they've hacked everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reasoning with liberals today. They live in fucking la la land where Hillary can do no wrong. Its pathetic. They've been on this course since the founding of Moveon.org where they employ the scientology tactic of "always attack, never defend". Obama has been a God send to the Republican party. He's lost 900 state legislators, Congress, the Senate and now the presidency. Not to mention Republicans now have the majority of the govenorships. Just a few more and they can ammend the constitution with
Re: (Score:2)
I would note that is also a product of demographics. If all the Democrats moved to the primary urban/metro areas in the US, then by default they forfeit control over 30 states, since the aformentioned metro areas are in a grand total of 10, maybe 15 states.
Consider how many states have less then 5 representatives. Nearly all of them that are not near another states metro area, went for the Republican Party (so in general they are large area, with minimal population).
Also consider the reality that the House
Re: (Score:2)
Control of state legislatures is potentially a very powerful thing. A two-thirds majority of state legislatures in a Constitutional Convention is all it takes to amend the US Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually agree with you that Sanders might have been able to win the election. I certainly preferred him to Hilliary. I probably would have voted for the Libertarian if he had been the nominee. Hilliary was so bad I'd have voted for almost anyone rather than her, even that idiot Pelosi. Hilliary was very competent and connected to everything and would have been able to do a lot of damage as POTUS. Sanders would have started off with his crazy stipend bill and spun his wheels accomplishing nothing for
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Timing is the key to understanding it. Sanders would have defeated Trump easily. The timing of the releases were carefully placed so as to build suspicion with independants while not hurting her primary bid. Then once she clenched that, proof that it was a rigged primary sent a lot of independants away from the DNC to either Green, Libertarian, and even a number to Trump. If they had released it all in the beginning, we would be swearing in Sanders tomorrow.
Let's not forget that the DNC wanted Trump to win the Republican nomination. So first Trump let Hillary drag him center stage as the enemy, then he let her eliminate Sanders before landing a final blow nobody saw coming until late election night? If all of that was planned Machiavelli could take lessons from him. If could simply be that they know the media has the attention span of a humming bird on speed, let's just pace this out so we get a good buzz and can keep it going until the election and that the r
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Timing is the key to understanding it. Sanders would have defeated Trump easily. The timing of the releases were carefully placed so as to build suspicion with independants while not hurting her primary bid. Then once she clenched that, proof that it was a rigged primary sent a lot of independants away from the DNC to either Green, Libertarian, and even a number to Trump.
If they had released it all in the beginning, we would be swearing in Sanders tomorrow.
Right, because exposure of those emails was totally enough all by itself to overcome the cumulative effects of billions of dollars spent on her campaign plus the complete support of Americas very VERY substantial propaganda machine (Hollywood combined with the news media) and the support of ALL the living ex-presidents plus the suppression of all those videos etc showing Hillary going into spasms and convulsions when people asked her too many questions at the same time etc etc.
Yeah the exposure of those ema
DNC picked Hillary before the race started. (Score:3)
Wholly Delusion Batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who watched the process KNEW full well that there was massive collusion by the DNC and Media to INSTALL Hillary as the candidate. In the first election, she won 6 straight coin tosses to take Iowa. That was day 1. So did Russia fix all of the coin tosses, card flips, and dice rolls of which Hillary won 100% of the "tie breakers"?
Good grief, I honestly wonder how much medication some of the people spreading these conspiracies are missing. I personally really enjoy researching conspiracies, which has led to me personally debunking most of them. What people are claiming over this last election cycle fails the most basic of scrutiny. Russia did not make Hillary attack women who accused William J of rape. The Russians did not make Hillary setup an illegal server. The Russians did not make her spread the lie that a crappy Youtube video caused 4 Americans to die. The Russians did not make her give 2-4 Hundred thousand dollar speeches where she said foolish things about erasing borders. The Russians did not make Hillary praise Sanger and Byrd. Those are things off the top of my head which have been public information for a very long time, all reported by sources OTHER THAN RT.
The Democrats ran a worse candidate than the Republicans. That is why Hillary lost! Not some baseless allegations. Good grief, think about the allegation. "Trump hates Obama so much that he paid hookers to piss on the bed that the Obama's slept in."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
don't forget Hillary just took advantage .... :p *LOL* but seriously I think the one thing the majority agree on is NONE of that the candidates that won the primaries and even all or most of them that came close were all poor choices for POTUS.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If it wasn't done to help Trump, why is there evidence of extreme elation among party operatives in Putin's circle when Trump won? Why is it so hard to believe that Russia preferred someone who would cause them less problems than someone who would cause them more , such as Clinton?
Re: (Score:2)
Easy — to sabotage Trump's agenda with just the kind of accusations we are discussing.
And it worked too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Who do you think hacked the DNC? Who had a motive to do so and then not claim credit for it?
You are right about Hillary being a flawed candidate, im right there with you, but someone hacked the DNC and her campaign and that didn't just happen by accident, it was a targeted attack so someone had to have a reason to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you think hacked the DNC? Who had a motive to do so and then not claim credit for it?
Everyone who dislikes Hillary. I'm one of them, for example. I'm a programmer who dislikes Hillary, and I bet there are a lot more of us on this site, so apparently all of us are possibly suspects. You don't even need to like Trump to have a motive, you only have to dislike Hillary.
Not that programming has much to do with breaking into email accounts or servers, but whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Seth Rich.
I can't prove it was him, anymore than you can prove it was "TEH RUSSIANS!!!!!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either Clinton or Trump. But I am a weirdo nutjob third party guy, so my vote rarely matters. Not that it would matter in California unless I was part of the Democrat Cabal .
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is worse (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the Russians made the democrats, Hillary and all the rest do all those unsavory (criminal??) things just to get Trump elected.
Whatever "unsavory" thing you imagine the Clintons to have done, Donald Trump can match it or top it for sheer asshattery. And judging by the Bond villians he's nominating for cabinet positions he's just getting warmed up on the unsavory activities. Is Hillary a saint? Hell no. Nobody who runs for high office is without sin. But Trump is worse in pretty much every imaginable way when it comes to being a criminal and an all around terrible person.
Sorry, but the Hillary loss can be placed at the feet of Hillary, the Democrats, the MSM and the RINOs who were conspiring against the american people.
"Conspiring against the American people"? Snort... That's rich. I think you might be off your medications if you think the republican party is any more concerned about the well being of the American people than the democrats are. Doubly so if you think Trump has the best interests of you and me at heart.
Re: (Score:2)
thing you imagine the Clintons to have done
Read the emails, it's stupid to talk about accessible, undisputed information without reading it.
Trump is worse in pretty much every imaginable way when it comes to being a criminal and an all around terrible person.
Only someone that does not know about what Hillary has done can say that. Only US secretaries of state and presidents can achieve that level of evil, there is no information enough on Trump to claim what you did, the things he said cannot be counted as worst than the things she did. After he starts a war without congressional approval for political gain we can claim he is getting close to her (yes this informati
Two parties are here to stay (Score:5, Insightful)
My hope is that the Trump administration will continue to highlight the inequalities that are baked into the current system.
Unless there is some path to actually do something about them what exactly would be the point of that? I have close to zero confidence that anything will meaningfully change any time soon.
The two party system must come to an end.
Only way that will happen is if we change the voting system to be something other than First Past the Post [wikipedia.org] and we get rid of Gerrymandering [wikipedia.org]. However since both of those things support the interests of the two major parties neither is likely to see any meaningful reform any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
If we rid ourselves of party notices on ballots, the idiots won't be able to vote "party line" down the ticket. The Primaries should be fully open with NO party affiliations mentioned on the ballot. That is, unless the parties have their "primaries" on their own dime, and put forth a candidate along with all the other candidates.
The way to void First Past Post in a party supported system is to rid it of the problem, and the problem is the Parties themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
"The Trump Administration" is going to last a few months. Trump will decide that, instead of comply with the emoluments clause, he would rather keep all of his business interests and then he'll resign to avoid impeachment while claiming some sort of victory over haters, losers, etc. Then we'll have The Pence Administration.
Re: (Score:2)
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Where in that clause says anything about owning businesses and removing control over them? All he has to do is fully transfer it to his kids (which he pretty much has done), and he is clear.
Meanwhile, Hillary broke this all sorts of ways with the Clinton Foundation and Pay to play schemes while SoS, but nobody on the left seemed to care a wit. I wonder why the hypocrisy now.
Re: (Score:2)
Where in that clause says anything about owning businesses and removing control over them?
"Owning businesses" is not the problem, and hopefully you know that and aren't just being a hyperbolic turd. The problem is that several state-owned corporations, the money from which is considered to be a payment from a foreign government according to the emoluments clause, have ownership or other interests in various Trump businesses or properties (including the hotel in Washington DC, just a few blocks from the White House - that's a Chinese corporation in that case). Even if his kids have a controllin
Re: (Score:2)
You are delusional. You're the same nutjobs who were saying "Trump's going to quit any day now he just wanted more advertising for his TV show!!" for a year. You think he's going to quit now? Hell no.
And the "emoluments clause" is yet another pipe dream like "faithless electors" from people who don't understand the Constitution or the political system. Fees for service are not emoluments.
Re: (Score:2)
You're telling me that a payment or investment from a state-owned corporation is not considered to be a payment from the government? Tell me, oh constitutional scholar, where did you get your information?
from people who don't understand the Constitution or the political system
Oh, I don't understand the Constitution. So if China says to Trump "if you support our claims in the South China Sea and Taiwan, we will invest $10 billion to build and develop several new Trump hotels in China", then not only are you saying that is OK, but you're also saying that the people who wrote the
Re: (Score:2)
So if China says to Trump "if you support our claims in the South China Sea and Taiwan, we will invest $10 billion to build and develop several new Trump hotels in China", then not only are you saying that is OK, but you're also saying that the people who wrote the Constitution didn't have that kind of thing in mind when they wrote the clause.
And nothing like that is happening. Trump has given control of the company to his kids, and Trump has pledged no new foreign investments during his 8 years in office. Trump has also pledged to donate all foreign profits to the US Treasury.
Also that's not even the "emoluments clause" meme that's been floating around the leftist circlejerks. They've been saying foreigners staying at a Trump hotel are giving him emoluments, when no, that is a fee for service. None of the presidents who owned plantations were r
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has pledged no new foreign investments during his 8 years in office. Trump has also pledged to donate all foreign profits to the US Treasury.
That's what he and his lawyers said anyway, during the press conference they held and subsequent memos. That press conference was in response to people suggesting he is in breach, so they at least felt strongly enough to counter those claims with a press conference and some vague promises to do the right thing when the time comes. He's not just outright saying it's not an issue, which is telling. And there is still discussion about whether his lawyers' arguments are even correct [theatlantic.com]. Moreover, it does not m
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Successful" is not the proper term. If he had left his inheritance alone, he would be twice as wealthy as he claims to be now. (The properties and investments, as well as market based funds would total more today) And it is likely what he claims is inflated.
Literally, if he had just lived the life of a rich playboy, he would be twice as wealthy. His attempts at business have cost him half his wealth.
Re:Down with Putin - Down with Trump (Score:4, Informative)
If he had left his inheritance alone, he would be twice as wealthy as he claims to be now.
You're still repeating this crap? Fred Trump didn't die until 1999. The "analysis" you're talking about assumes Donald got Fred's 1999 fortune in the 1970s. Unless Trump also has a time machine, that doesn't work out.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From: http://www.investopedia.com/updates/donald-trump-rich/
The Trump Family Fortune
Trump's father, Frederick Christ "Fred" Trump, made a sizable fortune by building and selling housing for American soldiers and their families in World War II. It was at his father's real estate company that Donald got his start in business. In 1971, he took control of his father's apartment rental company, Elizabeth Trump & Son Co., and later on, he renamed it The Trump Organization. Trump stuck mostly with real estate
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and the stupid analysis thing that "Trump would be twice as rich if he invested the inheritance in mutual funds" is not the article you posted, and the article you posted doesn't make any claim that Trump would be twice as rich if he invested the money. The "twice as rich" analysis assumes he took the $400 million he got in 1999 when Fred died, translated that into $400 million 1971 dollars and invested them with perfect market timing in 1971. Without a time machine, he would be unable to move the $400
Re: (Score:2)
If he had left his inheritance alone, he would be twice as wealthy as he claims to be now.
You're still repeating this crap? Fred Trump didn't die until 1999. The "analysis" you're talking about assumes Donald got Fred's 1999 fortune in the 1970s. Unless Trump also has a time machine, that doesn't work out.
Well, considering that Trump seems to have gotten almost all his money through deals that his father set up and either loaned him the money for or cosigned on the bank loans, then it does seem like all of Trump's fortune is really just his inheritance.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, maybe start by looking into your stories before reposting things you heard in some Liberal echo chamber.
The Russia "dossier" was shown to be a complete fabrication, even CNN backpedaled on it.
In fact, none of the stories linking Trump and Russia have turned out to have any credibility whatsoever.
It seems like the media are taking part in the ongoing political effort to "delegitimize" PEOTUS Trump before he takes office. I think they have every reason to fear Trump, he is a threat to the establishment.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire pissing prostitutes is a troll story from a guy at 4chan. He passed it off and Buzzfeed and CNN ran with it and apparently the CIA also bought into it. Apparently they were so eager to smear Trump (as if he doesn't do a good enough job himself) that they jumped all over the story with only a very faint attempt at vetting it. Tellingly, the New York Times, a chief propaganda outlet for the DNC and a full fledged Trump hater, passed on the story. That alone should have been warning enough. Wit
Re:fake news from cnn (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm.. he sought asylum in Russia not because if he flew to England they wouldn't let him in, but because if he flew to England, they would put him in chains and on a plane to the US.
Re:fake news from cnn (Score:5, Interesting)
Snowdens passport was revoked by the US the day before he flew from Hong Kong to Moscow .
He left Hong Kong and entered Russia using a revoked passport - he didn't seek asylum in Russia because of the revoked passport, he entered Russia because that had already been agreed with the Russian authorities. Snowden had been talking with the Russians during his stay in Hong Kong.
Snowdens application of asylum in Russia was after he handed his treasure trove over to a reporter in Hong Kong.
So its not fake news - the sentence you cite is actually 100% accurate. What we really have here is you trying to discredit CNN.
Re: (Score:2)
And there is no way in hell Russia will ever release Snowden. They have coerced him for example to "call" into the Putin's Propaganda hour show (either that or Snowden is really really naive). The Russians will not release Snowden so he can talk about his treatment or detail what he released to the Russians. They have absolutely nothing to gain.
Re:fake news from cnn (Score:5, Interesting)
And there is no way in hell Russia will ever release Snowden. They have coerced him for example to "call" into the Putin's Propaganda hour show (either that or Snowden is really really naive). The Russians will not release
His interview question was fair in my view. It at the very least put Putin on record as being a liar when competing information enters the public domain.
Snowden so he can talk about his treatment or detail what he released to the Russians. They have absolutely nothing to gain.
What impressed me about Snowden was what he has actually said about the Russian government while in Russia.
Some tweets from Snowden:
"Signing the #BigBrother law must be condemned. Beyond political and constitution consequences, it is also a $33b+ tax on Russia's internet."
"#Putin has signed a repressive new law that violates not only human rights, but common sense. Dark day for #Russia."
Re: (Score:2)
You can criticize the government in Russia or China. It's when you start to organize a protest or movement that you disappear.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And then he flew to visit his pole dancing girlfriend on Santa's sleigh? As long as you are making shit up, might as well go all out.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, no. Snowden didn't (necessarily) talk to Russia before leaving Hong Kong. When the USA revoked his passport they made a mistake in the spelling of his name, and Hong Kong authorities (or the guys who checks passports in the airport) didn't have any choice but to let him board the plane. A revocation of a passport works not by its intent, but by the paper it's written on. Make a spelling mistake, and poof, there goes your guy.
When Snowden got to Moscow, the USA had redone the revocation, this time corr
My buddy lives and breathes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How else would you back up the claim that people died as the result of the leaks??