Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - TheDrake

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 95
1
General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: September 28, 2020, 10:09:20 PM »
So ilhan Omar has a 37 point lead in a district described as extreme. So what exactly would the motive be to cheat? I'm going to go with Veritas hiring paid actors, at least until I see indictments. By the way, how many indictments have their exposures of illegal activity led to?

2
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 28, 2020, 07:50:20 PM »
You've once again failed to grasp the point. The Democrats and Republicans both can nominate staunch supporters on the ends of the spectrum when they have control of the Senate and often do. What I said was you have to go a lot more center when the opposition has the senate. After Bork was rejected, Kennedy flew through 97-0, which proves my point. It wasn't that Democrats were just going to oppose anybody the Republicans put forward.

3
General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: September 28, 2020, 03:32:28 PM »
I didn't see anything in the article about mail in voting. It said he welcomed higher penalties for fraud, and that he disliked the idea of same day registration. I clicked through to his speech in the congressional record, but it is 200 pages of unsearchable text. What is significantly lacking is a statement that he thought fraud was widespread.

4
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: September 28, 2020, 01:12:52 PM »
And Trump supporters will admire him for being clever and sticking it to the government, especially the IRS, which is stealing everyone's money - except for the part that pays for prisons, courts, law enforcement and the military.

5
General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: September 28, 2020, 12:14:46 PM »
How are you guys even finding material about Biden and mail in voting historically? I can't get past all the most recent news from this election.

I'd be curious to see what his objections were, and whether they are still valid. Although clearly his reasons wouldn't have lined up with noel's assertion that it was the "systemic nature of democratic voting corruption".

6
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 28, 2020, 12:05:47 PM »
Oh please. Bork was a conservative wet dream. He was right of Scalia. Criticized almost any time the court chose to limit any legislation.

Hard to answer the second question, based on the infrequency of appointments that fit the bill.

Clinton's two appointments occurred with Democratic party Senate majorities. Obama, the same. Johnson, same. Kennedy, same. Didn't go further back than that.

It's worth noting that Ginsberg passed 96-3.

On the other side, however, there's a good example. Ford nominated Stevens who got confirmed 98-0. Stevens started out in the center and drifted very liberal over time.

Ideological leanings of USSC justices
List of nominations
Control of Senate

7
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 27, 2020, 05:06:59 PM »
You don't want to confirm? That's a Senate privilege. Not hold a hearing? No excuse, in my opinion. And you can hold me to that any day, any year, any admin.

The tabling of difficult issues has been a part of politics forever. The Constitution does not impose time limits on confirmation, and the Democrats have always used that to lie about whoever they disliked for confirmation, then not allow that person to answer the attacks. In the old days, even when Ted Kennedy at his worst was lynching Bork, the Senate was more bipartisan about confirmation votes. But they still held the filibuster option, so Kennedy could hold up all votes on anything, and hold Bork for ransom until his name was withdrawn. Can't do that anymore, so they came up with a new strategy.

Absolutely right, there is no time limit on confirmations. Which is why a President, with an opposition Senate, must choose a centrist judge and not a screaming ideologue like Bork.

Oh, and by the way? Bork did NOT withdraw, as you claim. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court by a roll call vote of 42–58. Didn't need a filibuster when they were in the majority. I guess according to what you say, it would have been better for them to refuse to give him a hearing?

8
General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: September 27, 2020, 08:27:02 AM »
So people like to defend the institution of police with a "bad apple" argument. Why shouldn't that apply to people involved in voter registration or handling? If we shouldn't condemn the police based on a smattering of accepted bad actors, why should we condemn voting activists on the same basis of isolated anecdotes?

9
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 27, 2020, 08:21:40 AM »
You don't want to confirm? That's a Senate privilege. Not hold a hearing? No excuse, in my opinion. And you can hold me to that any day, any year, any admin.

10
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 26, 2020, 08:17:47 PM »
But are they saying we should wait until after the election because Republicans control the Senate and the President is a Democrat or do they mean that in any case no matter who controls what no Supreme Court nominee should get a vote within a year of an election?

There is no hypocrisy in what most of them said. We shouldn't hold the vote now and should wait until after the election. That in itself is not hypocritical if it's understood that the reason is because Republicans control the Senate. That's just common sense.

Isn't it true that most of time when that type of situation came up, Senate of the opposite party as the President and an open Supreme Court seat in an election year, that the issue wasn't resolved until after the election? Like 80% of the time?

Not that past precedent means much anymore, to anyone. As I'm sure the Republicans will all remind everyone, "that was then and this is now." And I'm just as certain the Democrats will be saying the same thing when they're back in charge.

Why are YOU adding a qualification that they never did? They didn't say "because the senate can oppose the president", I mean you could consider that a prerequisite, but only if a matching Senate should always do the bidding of a president of the same party. I suppose I don't doubt that Democrats could have pulled this first also, and I can probably guarantee they will do it in the future. If we keep down this road, really, what's to say an opposition Senate shouldn't just refuse to hold hearings throughout the entire term? By what mechanism could you force them? The thin set of precedents that keep things functional is clearly unraveling, with both Democrats and Republicans each pulling out threads.

11
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: September 25, 2020, 03:53:17 PM »
I guess we're going to see what a true "let 'er rip" strategy turns out like.

Florida is going to phase 3 of reopening, with very little allowance for local controls. That means bars at 100% capacity, gyms, etc etc. No masks! Anything goes!

12
Drake,

“You'd be adorable if you weren't dangerously ignorant.”

We hardly know each other.

“Health care workers have become infected doing the best they can.”

The “best they can... ” what?

“Grocery lines are nowhere near as long as polling lines have typically been.”

Based upon your experience with COVID-19 transmission, how long do you need to be in a heavily trafficked enclosed space, lacking positive ventilation, to be exposed?

“And people can have groceries delivered.”

Do you have your groceries delivered?

“You might not know about curbside grocery pickup, or instacart, but I promise you that exists“.

Do you use that service either?

Here is my take on all the leftist whining; none of you people walk the talk.

Actually, I do have my groceries delivered for the most part. That's not entirely new, but more so with covid.

Experience tells us that the length of time it takes to eat dinner is sufficient to transfer. I'm not sure if there is any study that tells us how many minutes it takes. Which is why I haven't been in a restaurant since March.

Health care workers using known best practices get infected, meaning that anyone can get infected no matter how careful.

None of which is truly material, since the question isn't whether I personally will choose not to vote, it is rather how many people will choose not to. My personal solution will be to sign up for early voting, and then drive by the place multiple times until I see that there is a short line. I have the luxury of a job where I can leave several times a day, or take time off if I wish.

13
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: September 25, 2020, 12:30:16 AM »
Number one, as an objectivist who admires Ayn Rand, I'm totally in line with her ideas. Expressed in atlas shrugged, that just because it's your son they should get no special avantage. Second, care to comment on Kushner getting a government position?

14
You'd be adorable if you weren't dangerously ignorant. Health care workers have become infected doing the best they can. Grocery lines are nowhere near as long as polling lines have typically been. And people can have groceries delivered. You might not know about curbside grocery pickup, or instacart, but I promise you that exists.

15
Quote
“Eliminated polling stations might be the difference between being able to get there on your lunch break, have access on public transit, or any number of other factors that do not, in fact, matter to me personally.”

In other words; “No bar too low”?

That's a bizarre one. Are you saying it is a good thing to make people walk 15 miles to their polling station?

I would in fact prefer for voting to be as convenient as most other things are in the average person's daily life.

16
Donald,

“Just like his vote fraud propaganda, he repeats this trope in order to facilitate ignoring the actual votes cast when it comes time to count.”

“Actual votes” are “ignored“ when the clutter of after election vote tally reconstitution takes place. Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3 came into being to avert that nonsense. I see nothing in Trump’s comments that are inconsistent with constitutional norms.

Drake,

“Excellent, glad to hear it! I guess I didn't pay attention when you railed about voters being incorrectly scrubbed from the registration rolls.”

Frequent “scrubbing” of voter roles is fully appropriate in a society where the average American residency is ~9 years. I would advocate clearing the voter roles for every election cycle. It would clarify the individual‘s obligation to be proactive. If you show up at the poll, and are not listed, submit a “Provisional Same Day Ballot”.

“Or when polling stations get eliminated.“

Has that ever really been a problem for you? Find out where your new polling station is.

“Or when felons in Florida are not being allowed back in to registration.”

I am for disenfranchising felons. You got me.

“Or when people are being forced to go in person to a polling station during a pandemic.“

Red Herring. Nobody is “forcing” you to vote. I assume that what you really mean is that you do not know how to protect yourself from COVID infection, correct?

“Can you not understand that without pre-emptive mail in ballots, some people who deserve to vote will not?“

No, I can not. Clarify that assertion fir me.

“That states like Texas that won't even allow you to request an absentee ballot without passing strict requirements...”

What “strict requirements”?

“... are going to have a certain non-zero number of people stay home, and that number of people might well be greater than the number of fraudulent ballots that slip through the cracks?”

This is overly wordy, and doesn’t strike me as an effective argument.

Okay, got it. No bar too high. The Texas strict requirement is that you have to basically prove you will be physically unable to get to a poll station. Eliminated polling stations might be the difference between being able to get there on your lunch break, have access on public transit, or any number of other factors that do not, in fact, matter to me personally.

Quote
In 2012, there was one polling place for every 4,000 residents. By 2018 that figure had dropped to one polling place per 7,700 residents. A 2019 paper by University of Houston political scientists found that after the county’s transition to vote centers, more voting locations were closed in Latinx neighborhoods than in non-Latinx neighborhoods, and that Latinx people had to travel farther to vote than non-Hispanic whites.

Some counties closed enough polling locations to violate Texas state law. Brazoria county, south of Houston, closed almost 60% of its polling locations between 2012 and 2018, causing it to fall below the statutory minimum, along with another county. In a statement, Brazoria county clerk Joyce Hudman said the closures were inadvertent, and that this would not happen again in 2020.

pre-emptive mail in ballots ensure the vote for people who didn't realize they had to apply for an absentee ballot, or found it challenging to meet witness requirements, or just forgot to ask for one in time.

I know your attitude is "fine, forget it, who needs them anyway!". Which is very much not a stance of someone who cares about vote suppression tactics.

And as far as protecting against covid, there is unfortunately no way to accomplish that standing in line next to a bunch of anti-maskers for hours. So it's not that "I don't know", its that that knowledge doesn't exist. And if I, or anyone else, decides it is not worth the risk - well we just had our votes suppressed.

17
Quote
“Its great that people are so worried about mistakes in casting ballots, but don't mind at all when mistakes result in someone being removed from registration.“

I worry about both. What is your point?

“A vote suppressed is exactly as bad as a fraudulent vote. It results in a +1 or a -1.“

I agree, again; what is your point?

Excellent, glad to hear it! I guess I didn't pay attention when you railed about voters being incorrectly scrubbed from the registration rolls. Or when polling stations get eliminated. Or when felons in Florida are not being allowed back in to registration. Or when people are being forced to go in person to a polling station during a pandemic.

Can you not understand that without pre-emptive mail in ballots, some people who deserve to vote will not? That states like Texas that won't even allow you to request an absentee ballot without passing strict requirements are going to have a certain non-zero number of people stay home, and that number of people might well be greater than the number of fraudulent ballots that slip through the cracks?

18
He very much implied that they COULD do so if they wanted to.

"Hey, I hear that house on the corner has the doors unlocked. I'm not saying you SHOULD rob it. But there it is!"

Its great that people are so worried about mistakes in casting ballots, but don't mind at all when mistakes result in someone being removed from registration.

A vote suppressed is exactly as bad as a fraudulent vote. It results in a +1 or a -1.

19
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: September 24, 2020, 01:42:28 PM »
It's a matter of degree. I'll respect someone's claim to be self-made a lot more if they were an orphan, raised in foster care by drug addicted parents. Paid their own way through school. Got their job by sending out there own resumes without being recommended.

20
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: September 24, 2020, 01:40:20 PM »
Let's look over to the other side again. Ivanka managed a Bachelor's degree in economics, at... wait for it.... The Wharton school. Where daddy went and made donations. Then worked for her daddy, directly, for almost her whole life, with the exception of a brief stint at Forest City Enterprises, which does..... real estate management.

21
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: September 24, 2020, 01:36:23 PM »
Let's get one other thing clear. It isn't like Hunter Biden was sitting around eating Mayonnaise from a jar prior to the board appointment at Burisma.

He got a Law degree from Yale in 96. Worked for MBNA (yeah, through daddy's connections, but not because Joe could do foreigners a favor from the White House). Founded a VC firm, worked in another law firm. And so on and so on.

22
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: September 24, 2020, 01:23:32 PM »
Ivanka Trump never launches a clothing line if she isn't Trump's daughter. You're not wrong about Hunter, but you're blind to the Trump nepotism.

Ok, these are really not equivalent. Using your family's fame to create PR for a clothing line is exactly how business is actually supposed to work. You develop a brand ("Trump", in this case) and develop business from that branding. It may still seem unfair to those who really have to start from scratch in life, the rich get richer and all that, but it's still a fundamental part of capitalism. Assigning relatives and buddies to positions of power in government, or to boards of directors, is not a necessary part of capitalism but rather is more the norm in backward or third world countries that have corruption all through the system. In a place like America it's crony capitalism, of which this aspect isn't capitalism at all. Comparing that to Trump's daughter using the family name to pursue business is really not fair. Not that I am personally a fan of dynastic business empires, but that's a different matter.

I don't disagree, I just took exception to the concept that the Trump kids, or for that matter, Donald himself were "self made". But if we want to take a peek a more equivalent flip side, maybe you'd like to address how Kushner got a position in government? Paid for by taxpayers, mind you, which Hunter Biden never was.

23
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: September 24, 2020, 01:06:36 PM »
No. "Climate Change" was coined because Anthropomorphic Global Warming was proven to be a crock. The stable and majority huge group of real climatology scientists say we are in a short-term lull in terrible, damaging cooling that is coming all too quickly.

Who are these stable majority huge group of real climatology scientists?

As scientists they will propose models or theories can are falsifiable. Can you tell me when to expect this "damaging cooling that is coming all too quickly?"

He won't be able to answer that until the Orange God elaborates on his statement that "things are going to get cooler". Or perhaps the My Pillow guy can elaborate, or a wild eyed retired statistician, or perhaps an oddball religious figure. What won't be happening is an actual person with training in climate science backing up that BS.

24
Why did states mandate mail in ballots PRIOR to covid? Because the exercise of your most fundamental right as a citizen shouldn't be dependent on waiting in line for hours at some polling stations, paying for child care, getting time off from your multiple jobs, or getting a ride.

25
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: September 24, 2020, 12:53:05 PM »
...we have no insight into what deals the Trump kids have been cutting around the world.

It's a world of difference. Trump's kids have always been competent and successful on their own, way before Trump's Presidency. Hunter and the rest of the family just cashed in on Joe Biden's position to shake down foreign oligarchs and crooks. Remember, Hunter had zero experience in the fields he was hired to be an advisor for.

At the same time, Rich foreigners and royalty always stayed at Trump properties around the world before he ran for office. i don't think Chinese billionaires stayed overnight in Hunter's back bedroom.

They were absolutely not successful "on their own". Ivanka Trump never launches a clothing line if she isn't Trump's daughter. You're not wrong about Hunter, but you're blind to the Trump nepotism. Let's ask ourselves how much foreign policy experience Jared Kushner had prior to being dropped into the role? Can you, just for once, admit the obvious Lambert? That JK had no business being in that role?

26
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: September 24, 2020, 12:46:24 PM »
Oh how about when Trump tried to MANDATE that the G7 meet at HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY, Doral?

Meanwhile, Kuwait had already booked the 4 seasons hotel, and WHOOPS, cancelled and rebooked at Trump's property. All perfectly innocent, I'm sure.

Kuwait hearts Trump

27
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: September 23, 2020, 03:32:12 PM »
Quote
In the days before its release, Mr. Johnson conceded in an interview that there would be no “massive smoking guns,” saying that there was “a misconception on the part of the public that there would be.”

It doesn't appear that the guy who led the investigation and wrote the report thinks Biden is toast.

28
The racist-and-sexist in chief signs executive order prohibiting government contractors from providing diversity training.  Go low, Mr. President, go low!

Quote
A few weeks ago, I BANNED efforts to indoctrinate government employees with divisive and harmful sex and race-based ideologies. Today, I've expanded that ban to people and companies that do business with our Country, the United States Military, Government Contractors, and Grantees. Americans should be taught to take PRIDE in our Great Country, and if you don’t, there’s nothing in it for you!

Diversity Training is still allowed. What is not allowed is "Critical Race Theory" which is probably a good thing. It might in vogue with leftist activists in the Universities and beyond, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily a good thing.

Isn't it dangerous for the government to exercise control on how a private business chooses to train their employees?

30
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 22, 2020, 02:40:19 PM »

Just for better public discourse and your state of mind towards your fellow Americans try not to group all Republicans in with the group of Senate Republicans who are being the giant hypocrites. They may explicitly or implicitly support those actions because it's "winning." But to hold them all equally responsible for the actions and hypocrisy of 50 senators is heading down the road of WM but on the democratic side where you see the opposition as evil.

Point of order, anyone who VOTES for any of those Senators is 100% complicit and responsible.

31
General Comments / Re: Welcome to the New Ornery American Forums!
« on: September 19, 2020, 01:35:05 AM »
Mod, I would like to deregister myself but I can't for the life of me figure out how to inactivate my account. Any assistance would be welcome.

32
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 18, 2020, 09:10:29 PM »
I'm sure Trump will have something nice and respectful to tweet.

Something like the name he is nominating as her replacement  :(.

Mitch McConnell would never let something like that happen! Oh wait, he already vowed to make exactly that happen. With several hard minutes of deliberation about the blatant hypocrisy inherent in that move, he realized that his constituents don't care about fairness, as long as they win. Worshippers of the Orange God know there is only one commandment - Win by any means necessary!

33
General Comments / Re: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
« on: September 18, 2020, 08:41:56 PM »
I'm sure Trump will have something nice and respectful to tweet.

34
General Comments / Re: TikTok
« on: September 18, 2020, 12:04:55 PM »
Those are great reasons for better data privacy laws. But why should I be more worried about TikTok than Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Google, etc? Even if I'm worried about the Chinese in particular, would it really be harder for their cyber army to hack one of the other many databases?

As pointed out in the Wired article, they are already hacking bunches of databases not located in China, and infiltrating companies.

...

Nor, why China is singled out when the US government can get user data from any US tech company with a National Security Letter and no oversight.

Maybe China is singled out because of their pervasive hacking and industrial espionage. Its also a little tit for tat in terms of this is how they treat our companies that want to operate within China. I'm not saying this is good policy. But I have no sympathy for China nor am I going to be up in arms about them being treated unfairly by any administrations policy. Trump has been completely ham handed and flip-floppy in his handling of China but being tough on China is one area where I haven't criticized his goals but his methods often suck.

I'm not weeping for China, or even necessarily for Chinese companies (hint, they will do just fine even if they lose the US market). I'm weeping because we should be concerned about our own companies handling sensitive data, our own government pressuring companies to hand over that data. I'm also weeping for myself, because I'm a TikTok user and its data collection is far more innocuous than some of the others I mentioned. The Chinese don't want or care about MY data, so let me make the decision to use it or not - I thought that's what freedom was about? If I were a government official, I would not have it installed. But then, I'd have an entirely separate device with no apps on it for official business. Likewise if I were in the other mentioned risk groups. In fact, I have a dedicated device for even my company connectivity to email, etc. More because I'm concerned about my company getting access to my personal data than the other way around.

35
General Comments / Re: TikTok
« on: September 18, 2020, 11:41:29 AM »
Those are great reasons for better data privacy laws. But why should I be more worried about TikTok than Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Google, etc? Even if I'm worried about the Chinese in particular, would it really be harder for their cyber army to hack one of the other many databases?

As pointed out in the Wired article, they are already hacking bunches of databases not located in China, and infiltrating companies.

EFF doesn't think the ban is Constitutional, nor TikTok a particularly severe threat for the average user.

Quote
There are people who may have concerns about China having access to their data who have not had the same concerns about the US or EU countries: student protesters in Hong Kong, Uighurs, Covid 19 researchers, executives at Fortune 500 companies concerned about theft of IP, journalists with sources in China that they want to protect, US government employees, military personnel stationed abroad. Citing security concerns, both the RNC and DNC have warned their campaign not to use TikTok, and Wells Fargo has banned the app internally. But you can acknowledge that there are genuine security concerns for certain populations while opposing efforts to unilaterally ban an app used by millions of Americans. It’s possible, even in this day and age, to have multiple thoughts about a complex issue.

Nor, why China is singled out when the US government can get user data from any US tech company with a National Security Letter and no oversight.

36
General Comments / TikTok
« on: September 17, 2020, 04:26:19 PM »
Can somebody explain to me this grave threat that TikTok poses to the American people? Will the Communists get access to our advanced choreography? Will they find out that I'm following Cart Narcs, Bob Menery, and the New Orleans Saints? Will they discover that this decadent American watches videos during work hours?

Wired doesn't seem to know either

If you need me, I'll be watching Gilbert Gottfried lip syncing to Katy Perry.

37
Had Covid-19 been more like the Spanish flu and more deadly for those middle aged or if the virus had more of a impact on our children I suspect our willingness to lock-down and be our brothers keeper would be different.
Then again maybe not.

Nope. Just look at the actual Spanish Flu, and the anti-mask league from that era.

38
General Comments / Re: read any good books lately?
« on: September 17, 2020, 12:24:12 PM »
And a way overlooked Heinlein book: Job, A comedy of justice.

39
General Comments / Re: read any good books lately?
« on: September 17, 2020, 12:23:06 PM »
Piers Anthony.... loved the Blue Adept series as a youth. Not sure I'd still love it now, and I won't reread it because I've disappointed myself that way before. But I have reread Incarnations of Mortality series, and not been disappointed. In fact, maybe I'll do it again on audio now!

40
General Comments / Re: October Surprise
« on: September 17, 2020, 12:19:08 PM »
...he's going to deny the conclusions of the JAG investigation, and say they "papered it over" to cover for the son of an Admiral. Even though the forensic evidence would tend to NOT point at where McCain's plane was parked.


The report said A4-#405 was 100 ft. from the launched missile which was aimed forward. The "Wet start" claim was made contemporaneously, and McCain was transferred off the ship immediately. The very first finding in the report was that the accident happened in the line of duty and not as the result of misconduct of those killed, missing, or injured. Of those not killed, missing, or injured, several were blamed for "a combination of material deficiencies and team operational procedures affording less than minimal emphasis upon safety" - but redacted. I wasn't there, but several of the witnesses were incensed at McCain for something. My info comes from contemporaneous observations before the official report was filed. Please look at the reports on the other destroyed planes to see how nothing McCain did ever splashed back on him.

Before McCain, no pilot who flew into power lines was allowed to keep his wings. Much has been deleted from the servers. Look up "negative ace" and you will find nothing, even though there were myriads of reports about McCain early on. Nothing I can say will stop you from "laughter by intimidation," but you probably can't find reports on any of those crashes and results.

Yeah McCain was totally wet starting his aircraft with the nose pointing off the stern.  ::)

Show me one person that made the statement "McCain killed us all". Lots of people are mistaken minutes after a traumatic event. What doesn't lie is the *censored* camera, you idiot. And also all the command staff, the people who were there and lost comrades in arms, show me one person on the Forrestal who claims anything against McCain.

But you go on believing that the command staff, the IG, the Department of the Navy all covered up for McCain and never recanted decades later.

As for being transferred off the ship, I'd imagine that during the FING Vietnam war, every able bodied pilot was immediately reassigned to another ship that wasn't crippled.

41
"the tougher and meaner they are, the better I get along with them,”

In his own words, guys. Recorded. So there's no "hey its an anonymous source", "hey its a never Trumper", "hey its the deep state", "hey its a disgruntled employee", "hey its a dishonest employee".

42
General Comments / Re: October Surprise
« on: September 16, 2020, 05:44:41 PM »
I just went over it, Lambert. The Navy inquiry into the Forrestal indicated that another aircraft had a malfunction which activated a missile, which hit an aircraft next to McCain's.

Quote
Forrestal was the first Atlantic Fleet carrier on Yankee Station, and she had been there only five days. As the ship prepared for its second strike of the day, at 1050, everything changed. The Navy in its definitive report on the event—Manual of the Judge Advocate General Basic Final Investigative Report Concerning the Fire on Board the USS FORRESTAL (CVA-59)—concluded that a stray electrical signal ignited the motor of a Zuni rocket carried by an F-4B Phantom II on the starboard quarter and shot across the deck, striking the external fuel tank of a fully armed A-4E Skyhawk on the port. At least one of the Skyhawk’s M-65 1,000-lb. bombs fell to the deck, cracked open, and was burning with a white-hot ferocity.

Even the pilot of that aircraft was not at fault, and it wasn't McCain's in any event. But if you haven't comprehended that by now, I assume you subscribe to some bizarre conspiracy theory. I'm sure I can't convince you with facts, but I make the response so nobody else subscribes to your nonsense.

Full report

A key phrase to read, "The Investigating Officers were of the opinion that no blame attached to... any of the officers of his command... or to the pilot of the plane from which the ZUNI rocket was fired." - paragraph 8

43
Why did you even bother with the matter of Trump’s alleged breach of national security? Clinton’s cluster screwup ultimately resulted in Iran’s ICBM program, and you started our exchange by claiming that mere exportation of “rocket” technology bothered you.

I don't know why I let you lead me down the Clinton road anyway, since what Trump did was either objectively wrong or right. It is entirely irrelevant how the evil Clinton was 9000x worse. That was three Presidents ago, and unlike the Trumpian right and QAnon, I am not obsessed with the Clintons.

Keep cackling about the 10cm, I'll leave you to it. Making the classified photo available served no legitimate purpose.

We can also talk about how he revealed Israeli intelligence to Russia, but I'm sure you've got lots of excuses ready for that one also.

44
General Comments / Re: October Surprise
« on: September 15, 2020, 10:50:00 PM »
What a pack of lies. He did not "destroy his own plane 5 times". He crashed once during training, he was deemed at fault. He had an engine failure. His plane caught fire on the deck of the Forrestal because of a missile accident not involving him. He nearly lost his life on that one, and we lost over 100 brave souls on that day. The fourth time was when he was shot down by a SAM, which can't reasonably be called "destroying his own plane" unless every downed pilot has destroyed their own plane. In the final incident, the plane was unharmed, certainly not destroyed, although he did manage to destroy some Spanish power lines.

45
Yeah, I'm not about to read an entire book on your recommendation that describes 30 year old espionage by China. If the Cox report couldn't hang anything on Clinton, that book isn't going to do so.

46
Drake,

“What did Clinton authorize? He authorized Loral to put their satellite on top of the Chinese rocket. Not all the rest of the stuff that you're whining about. Meanwhile, how bad was that transfer anyway?“

We don’t we just “put satellites on top of Chinese rockets” anymore? Why?

Clinton deauthorized oversight by the State Department to facilitate this sale, why?

Three years following Clinton’s licensing transfer to Commerce, authority was returned to State. Why?

He did this in-spite of State Department notification of risks associated with approval of the contract. Why?

Chinese rockets performed reliably following this collaboration. Why?

Broken record. I'll bother exactly one more time, despite you ignoring the vast majority of my last description of the situation. Chinese rockets were not that unreliable. Here's the full history, and even if they went from 50% reliable to 100%, how does that possibly affect US security? Only 7 of our cities get nuked instead of 14?

Not to mention, again, that the improvement of Chinese rocket reliability was ILLEGAL. If a US company transfers tech to China illegally under Trump, are you going to blame him for that? I wouldn't.

As for moving departments around, it makes far more sense for the commerce department to oversee, well, COMMERCIAL ventures. Go ahead and cite for me the part of the Cox report that draws damning conclusions about this nefarious bureaucratic move.

Why did it change back, gee, do you think it might have been because the Cox report recommended it?

Quote
New procedures and deadlines for processing Commerce Department export
license applications instituted in late 1995 placed national security agencies under significant time pressures.
Commerce officials alone are less likely to have the expertise for identifying
national security implications of exports of militarily useful technologies. While
national security agencies may be informed of applications, due time is needed for
their consideration.

All that reads like "mistake" not Chinese Collusion to destroy America.

as for the intelligence photo, I'm not qualified to make a determination about exactly what was revealed, or how important it was. This guy doesn't seem to think it was such a hot idea.

Quote
Patrick Eddington, a former CIA satellite imagery analyst, said the photograph tweeted by Trump appeared to be a classified image taken by a U.S. spy satellite.

“If the president simply tweeted out an image from classified briefing that utilizes our most advanced overhead collection capabilities, it is no doubt welcome news to our adversaries,” said Eddington, now a research fellow at the CATO Institute.

“While he has the authority to declassify any federal document, Twitter is not a legitimate or responsible way to do so.”

I'd say a CIA satellite imagery analyst who works for the conservative CATO institute is probably qualified to dismiss something if it was no big deal.

47
Quote
The State Department did not authorize the launch, get it? To the degree State Department licensing expressed an opinion, it was “criminal” for Loral to contract with China, and Clinton was notified prior to the deal. Bill then transferred licensing authority to the Commerce Department, which does not scrutinize contracts for national security issues. Yes, the rocket was Chinese. Their rockets were not working prior to the Loral collaboration. They were working very well afterwards, and Loral pushed hard for clearance 24 hours prior to the approval deadline. Loral was the largest Democratic donor at the time. Now ICBM technology has spread as far as Iran.

And this has been documented for you!

Quote
Two of the U.S. companies named in the report – Loral Space and Communications Corp. and Hughes Electronics Corp. – were later successfully prosecuted by the federal government for violations of U.S. export control law, resulting in the two largest fines in the history of the Arms Export Control Act. Loral paid a $14 million fine in 2002,[7] and Hughes paid a $32 million fine in 2003.[8]

WOW their lawyers must have been supremely negligent, since you claim they were authorized to do all that by the shaaaaddy Clinton Administration.

Maybe you'd like to point out the smoking gun in the heavily biased and somewhat discreditedCox Report which resulted in zero indictments, and didn't even put a dent in Clinton's reputation with non-crackpots.

You'll want to turn your attention to chapter 6, which covers Loral in depth.

Quote
The Independent Review Committee activity was not authorized by any U.S.
Government export license or Technical Assistance Agreement.24 Loral had
obtained two export licenses (No. 533593 and No. 544724) from the State
Department in 1992 and 1993 to allow the launch of the Intelsat 708 satellite in the
PRC. Neither of those licenses authorized any launch failure investigative activity.25

Quote
The Defense Department advised the Loral officials to halt all Independent
Review Committee activity and consider submitting a “voluntary” disclosure
to the State Department.
The State Department made similar recommendations, and sent letters to both
Loral and Hughes soon afterward that reported that the State Department had reason
to believe that the companies may have participated in serious violations of the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
The State Department also requested that the companies immediately cease all
related activity that might require approval, provide a full disclosure, and enumerate
all releases of information that should have been controlled under the International
Traffic in Arms Regulations.

What did Clinton authorize? He authorized Loral to put their satellite on top of the Chinese rocket. Not all the rest of the stuff that you're whining about. Meanwhile, how bad was that transfer anyway?

Quote
China has had the ability to hit the United States with DF-4 and DF-5 intercontinental ballistic missiles for nearly two decades. But it has moved very slowly to improve or its arsenal of these liquid-fueled weapons, estimated to number 17 or 18, according to U.S. experts. Although new, mobile, solid-fueled DF-31 and DF-41 missiles are under development, U.S. specialists say China's military doctrine calls for maintaining only a small number of city-busting nuclear weapons rather than investing in many, high-precision missiles for taking out military installations in a first strike.

"Even if some U.S. technology transfer has occurred, enabling the Chinese to improve the accuracy of their missiles, it's not going to change their doctrine, which requires simply the ability to come within a mile or two of a U.S. city," said Bates Gill, a China specialist at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California. "I can't see how this latest development will change the strategic reality that Americans have been under from the Chinese for more than 15 years."

Chinese Missile Gain Questioned by Experts

48
Drake,

“What's the point? It is like a brick wall.“


No, you asked me what lasting damage was done to U.S. national security by the Democratic left, and I demonstrated to you that Bill Clinton transferred technology enabling the Chinese to launch a ICBM attack upon the continental U.S. , which you first attempted to excuse, then ignore. Even Will Lovell, chief licensing officer at the Clinton State Department, believed that the security breach was criminal. This is, no doubt, why Bill transferred licensing authority to the Commerce Department. :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-may-23-mn-52739-story.html%3f_amp=true


This link? First line "authorized a US aerospace firm to launch a satellite". NOT "authorized the transfer of launch technology to China".

And This, from your own article that you must have read very selectively.

Quote
Clinton’s national security advisors also counseled him that the Loral satellite project “will not contribute to Chinese military capabilities.”

And what was the result of this investigation? Impeachment? Censure? Or was it just a witch hunt?

Quote
Earlier this week, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) created a special panel headed by Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) to look into charges that Clinton approved the technology transfer in response to hefty campaign contributions from aerospace executives. The Senate is planning a parallel investigation.

Then this happened:

Quote
Loral has acknowledged not telling the State Department before it provided the help but it denies that the information enhanced China’s military technology.

“If Justice is correct on this matter, the proposed waiver might be criticized for letting [Loral] off the hook on criminal charges for its unauthorized assistance to China’s ballistic missile program,” Berger wrote. “We will take the firm position that this waiver does not exonerate or in any way prejudge” Loral and the issue under investigation.

UNauthorized. Get it?

And:

article

Quote
The White House has come under fire for having approved the transfer of satellite technology to China, particularly Loral's request earlier this year to mount a civilian commercial satellite on a Chinese rocket. It is not unusual for U.S. businesses to use foreign rockets, including those of China, to put satellites in orbit, but questions have been raised in this case about the possibility that Beijing gained militarily useful information from the venture.

It was ALREADY THEIR ROCKET. Whether a US satellite was strapped to it, or a nuclear warhead. The rocket existed.

Let's check back in on that Cox/Gingrich investigation shall we?

Quote
One GOP-led witch hunt directly to the another. The Loral satellite scandal so intrigued Newt Gingrich, then the House speaker -- who stopped just short of publicly accusing Clinton of committing treason for money -- that he set up a $2.5 million commission headed by Christopher Cox, R-Calif., to look into it. It was the Cox Commission that later fed The Times its Wen Ho Lee stories; the commission's final report concluded hysterically that for more than 20 years China had stolen secret information on every nuclear weapon in the United States arsenal.

Ultimately, all of these scandal stories collapsed. Completely. No charges were ever brought against anyone in the Clinton administration, and no one resigned. Bernard Schwartz was exonerated of all wrongdoing when the Justice Department "turned up not a scintilla of evidence -- or information -- that the president was corruptly influenced by [him]." Wen Ho Lee was exonerated of spying charges; he pleaded guilty to a single count of mishandling classified data and received an apology from the judge for having been shackled and jailed in solitary for a year.

Congressional charges that the Clinton Administration had been remiss in pursuing the spy investigations petered out as well -- especially as it became clear how troubled the Wen Ho Lee case was, and that the president had in fact ordered a revamping of nuclear security the year before, in 1998. The Cox report was discredited for its over-the-top allegations about the dangers of a Chinese spy network.

How about that?

Your scandalometer must be broken, it's still set to discredited charges from the previous century.

49
Drake,

“What's the point? It is like a brick wall.“


No, you asked me what lasting damage was done to U.S. national security by the Democratic left, and I demonstrated to you that Bill Clinton transferred technology enabling the Chinese to launch a ICBM attack upon the continental U.S. , which you first attempted to excuse, then ignore. Even Will Lovell, chief licensing officer at the Clinton State Department, believed that the security breach was criminal. This is, no doubt, why Bill transferred licensing authority to the Commerce Department. :



Except you did not do that at all. You're implying that was his intent, when he might clearly have just been delegating.

And also, every nation has a right to be able to launch satellites, a side effect of that is that they can rain down nukes, and if we didn't sell them that tech, the French, Russians, Indians, North Koreans, and others would have been delighted to do so.

50
WS,

“This thread demonstrates that there are plenty of actual examples of Trump doing wrong for those willing to see.  Trump's actual mistakes and weaknesses are more real than the possible ones that Biden might make.”

I am not worried about what this thread demonstrates, I am depending upon it. Would you like to pick up for Donald, and  Drake? They seem to have wilted.

What's the point? It is like a brick wall. I picked a bad guy to quote apparently, but is there anyone on Earth that I could trot out that would actually make you contemplate that maybe Trump shouldn't have put out that photo? Or that he put it out for the wrong reasons, to taunt Iran and assert his dominance, like he does with every real or perceived enemy? That JFK put out a U2 photo to PROVE to the world that these missile sites actually existed, and that U2 imagery was well known to the Soviets at the time, given the depth of their espionage activities?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 95