Julian Assange promises 'a lot more material' related to election will be leaked

[Acidbaron]

To be honest looking at this thread, i don't think most americans here would recognize an actual conservative even if they were hit by one in the face.

Still find it amusing that despite several links that others and myself have provided that link to government and private security firm sources, people deny it could be that Russia was involved but in the same breath they would also defend Trump call to Russia to continue to hack political opponents, so kinda lost here guys...

Who's telling the truth here, since if the sources of those articles are false, doesn't that make Trump a liar? Or if Trump is telling the truth since he's been defended here in doing something good, doesn't that make the sources provided earlier credible since they were right about Russian agents involvement?

[eschatological]

Well the "No More War" crowd at the DNC hatted Allen's speech. But the truth is, if the Democrats can net in pro-military political moderates, they're worth a lot more to them than the Code Pink crowd. Just in terms of numbers. The way to win in a center-right country is not to be move leftward.

I'm pacifist in my philosophy, and the use of force on the political level has always been an interesting one to me. For example, you look at cases like Rwanda, or Burma, conflicts we didn't enter (and Bosnia/Serbia which we did), and you see legitimate humanitarian crises against truly evil nutjobs, and you say to yourself, "Man, as the so-called defenders of the free world, we should probably do something about that." The debate is always whether it's fine to simply punish them afterwards or if there is a moral obligation to defend the defenseless. There's a strong argument for the latter.

The problem is, none of our major conflicts since WWII have fit that bill, except maybe Bosnia. You can debate the efficacy of combating the domino effect of communism in Korea and Vietnam, but both those seem, in retrospect, like bad ideas solely to propogate American hegemony around the world in a time when we thought American hegemony was a virtue in comparison to Russian communism (and it may well have been). Iraq was a problem we created ourselves with our 100 years of meddling in the Middle East and our thirst for oil. Even Afghanistan was a reminder of our failures in fighting the Russians. So you have the problem of the Taliban in Afghanistan, a legitimately evil organization ruling a country, or Saddam in Iraq, and they're problems you created - do clean up that mess? Or again, do you say, let the world burn and we'll clean up afterwards?

More and more, I don't know that we can be an effective partner and ally in defending the world from regimes such as the aforementioned, without the threat of force. The "No More War" people seem to have taken Iraq, a war we shouldn't have gone into, and conflated it to the idea that we shouldn't go into any war. I know that there's traditionally been a conservative/libertarian view of isolationism in terms of military interventions, but I feel like it was the Left, in the 90s, who lamented we didn't go into Rwanda, e.g. I'm all for stopping unjustified war....but I don't think I have a problem with the Democratic Party saying we will use our military against real threats to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - even if it doesn't directly affect us, like Rwanda.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Who's telling the truth here, since if the sources of those articles are false, doesn't that make Trump a liar? Or if Trump is telling the truth since he's been defended here in doing something good, doesn't that make the sources provided earlier credible since they were right about Russian agents involvement?

Don't try to look for logic or consistency where none exists.

[Skroe]

I'm pacifist in my philosophy, and the use of force on the political level has always been an interesting one to me. For example, you look at cases like Rwanda, or Burma, conflicts we didn't enter (and Bosnia/Serbia which we did), and you see legitimate humanitarian crises against truly evil nutjobs, and you say to yourself, "Man, as the so-called defenders of the free world, we should probably do something about that." The debate is always whether it's fine to simply punish them afterwards or if there is a moral obligation to defend the defenseless. There's a strong argument for the latter.

The problem is, none of our major conflicts since WWII have fit that bill, except maybe Bosnia. You can debate the efficacy of combating the domino effect of communism in Korea and Vietnam, but both those seem, in retrospect, like bad ideas solely to propogate American hegemony around the world in a time when we thought American hegemony was a virtue in comparison to Russian communism (and it may well have been). Iraq was a problem we created ourselves with our 100 years of meddling in the Middle East and our thirst for oil. Even Afghanistan was a reminder of our failures in fighting the Russians. So you have the problem of the Taliban in Afghanistan, a legitimately evil organization ruling a country, or Saddam in Iraq, and they're problems you created - do clean up that mess? Or again, do you say, let the world burn and we'll clean up afterwards?

More and more, I don't know that we can be an effective partner and ally in defending the world from regimes such as the aforementioned, without the threat of force. The "No More War" people seem to have taken Iraq, a war we shouldn't have gone into, and conflated it to the idea that we shouldn't go into any war. I know that there's traditionally been a conservative/libertarian view of isolationism in terms of military interventions, but I feel like it was the Left, in the 90s, who lamented we didn't go into Rwanda, e.g. I'm all for stopping unjustified war....but I don't think I have a problem with the Democratic Party saying we will use our military against real threats to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - even if it doesn't directly affect us, like Rwanda.

I think your perspective here largely represents the political mainstream to a degree... maybe a bit of a liberal slant on it but pretty close. There is a spectrum of course. There are Americans who would see, Jeremy Corbyn style, the US unilaterally disarm because they have moral objections to using taxpayer dollars to build machines of death. There are conversely Americans who would see the US commit huge forces to Syria to fight ISIS (for example) because they've gotten swept up in the mythology of using our awesome might to actually fight evil (our awesome might being translated often as: billions of dollars, immense national resources and somebody elses kids).


Most Americans I think, want to stand by our allies, fight terrorism, deter the existential threats in the world, defend the free world, and intervene to protect life when absolutely necessary. But going out looking for dragons to slay, so to speak? Periodically Americans get a patriotic power high off of that, but it never lasts, and is always dangerous to our wider national interests. I myself am guilty of that. I supported the Iraq War, for years. I came to deeply regret that years later. The Iraq War, from the perspective of geopolitical power, gave the US about 18 months of seeing how high the peak of the unipolar moment went, and then gave us about 13 years of our advantages and leads over our rivals being slashed roughly as a consequence of our national investment into that war. The United States was able, in 1991, to evict Iraq from Kuwait ( a very good and moral thing), in part because except for Panama and Grenada and a few choice things, the US military had been largely idle and rebuilding since the end of Vietnam in 1975. Today, it will be around 2022 before the US Military could do something Iraq-style again, if it needed to, from a pure readiness, equipment and dollars perspective.

The legacy of Iraq, in other words, will consume all said and done, 20 years of this nation's military attention, on top of all the other costs.

"No More War" is immature and dangerous because it is a political position that does not take into account the commitments the US has made and how our rivals will fill that void were that policy to be enacted.

Rather the key word is judicious, and the I think the smartest way to get back to that is to return to the Powell Doctrine that George W Bush abandoned. It is as relevant as ever and will prevent the US from blowing power, manpower, resources and national will on problems that don't deserve the biggest hammer we got.

[oxymoronic]

Rape defined as "Two women which had sex with him said he didn't use a condom."

it is a pretty big violation of somebody. imagine if every time you have sex with somebody they use a condom then one time they fake it being on or have sex with you while your sleeping. i dont know how much of a crime it is, but morally that is one fucked up thing to do and would be awesome if one of those women gave him something.

[Deleted]

it is a pretty big violation of somebody. imagine if every time you have sex with somebody they use a condom then one time they fake it being on or have sex with you while your sleeping. i dont know how much of a crime it is, but morally that is one fucked up thing to do and would be awesome if one of those women gave him something.

No you don't understand.

He didn't fake it.

The condom broke.

(She claims he's broken that on purpose.)

[Wells]

Well the "No More War" crowd at the DNC hatted Allen's speech. But the truth is, if the Democrats can net in pro-military political moderates, they're worth a lot more to them than the Code Pink crowd. Just in terms of numbers. The way to win in a center-right country is not to be move leftward.

The DNC did a pretty notable job the last day or so of presenting multiple different arguments for voting for them. Its worth noting though that most of the chanting after day one came from the California delegation, which apparently is overly full with activists compared to other states.

[Deleted]

(She claims he's broken that on purpose.)

and we have a "she say, he say" situation, hence the curt will free him, if there is no other evidence, but he like to play the martyr.....

[Deleted]

and we have a "she say, he say" situation, hence the curt will free him, if there is no other evidence, but he like to play the martyr.....

There's enough evidence he might be handed over to CIA if he does.

[Deleted]

There's enough evidence he might be handed over to CIA if he does.

Thus he is afriad to be extradited to US, so he run to US closest ally England....does not sound reasonably

[Deleted]

Thus he is afriad to be extradited to US, so he run to US closest ally England....does not sound reasonably

He was already there in England when he found he was in danger, and hid himself in Ecuadorian soil inside the Embassy.

Hasn't left ever since in fear of kidnappings.

[Deleted]

He was already there in England when he found he was in danger, and hid himself in Ecuadorian soil inside the Embassy.

so he only flee from Swedish justice then.....

[Deleted]

so he only flee from Swedish justice then.....

It's like you cannot hold information for more than 1 post LOL.

Read the previous ones.