link? General Flynn is the National Security Advisor appointee.

Whoops. Monica Crowley

correct

leave it to Thinman to have the dumb, knee-jerk reaction

Personally have been disappointed in Obama's failure to completely close Gitmo. I know there were huge legal roadblocks, but he could've done better.

i can multitask and punish everyone involved appropriately. that was not the question.

lol single level thinkers as usual.

If Snowden hadn't done what he did then we wouldn't have had evidence of the illegal surveillance that was happening. It is hugely muddy as to whether it is better to be lenient on whistle-blowers, to avoid deterring people from exposing similar illegal situations in the future (and other reasons), or whether it's better to say "the law is the law" and punish them harshly. Your treatment of it as being binary with apparently no consideration of the wider context is pretty much the absolute definition of "single level thinking".

I mean if we kept everything the same. Im not saying if we ran it tomorrow. Or if we ran it knowing what we know now.

Im saying if there are 100 parallel universes, hil wins in most of them. Proly like 70% of the time or whatever nate said. So does bern tho.

"Kept everything the same" from what point? I mean, the undecideds didn't make their decision based on last-second information. If you set 12:01AM election day as the point at which you run it again, TRUMP wins close to (or more than) 90% of the time. If you run it again from before the Comey letter, sure, Hil might do better.

solid burn

Yeah this is what I meant by I dont think probability works that way. Before the election we could say that Trump had a 5% chance or a 20% chance or whatever, but that probability is an assessment of our ignorance, not of what is actually happening in the world. We no longer have that ignorance. So the only things that would have been different in your scenario would be truly random things, or things about which we are STILL ignorant. I cant see any reason to think that any of those things would favor Clinton.

We are not really arguing about anything important here but it is kind of an interesting discussion, there are obviously other views on what exactly probability means.

But even that is assuming that if you run it again from before the Comey letter....then there is no Comey letter. But why would that be? What random factors led to that letter getting published, and why are they >50% not to happen again?

Once you start going down this rabbit hole you basically end up saying "If we ran it again but Clinton wins, then I think Clinton probably wins"

Seems that history and an assessment of the possible outcomes of each approach would lead us to being biased EXTREMELY heavily towards protecting whistle-blowers. Both the maximum harm and the likely harm from Snowden's information pale in comparison to the maximum and likely harm from government being impervious to accountability. Its only even debateable from the most extremely myopic POV. Even if you were 100% confident that Snowden caused more harm than good it wouldnt be enough to censor or punish him.

My post was purely intended to point out why Thinman's position is terrible rather than argue either way. If I were to make that argument though this post pretty accurately reflects my views.

God, Gitmo still being open really sucks. It's bull**** that Obama's "being reasonable" with it and not having many people there, because now the Trump administration will get to "just keep using it" and ramp it up to ****all again. There's no sense soft-pedaling it; Obama's half measures and compromises amount to a total failure, and he should have ****ing known it.

If by some freaking improbable WTF BBQ They *don't* repopulate Gitmo, it's still "**** him for that." I'd be delighted, but **** him. I suspect this one is going to suck, and even Obama will rue not closing it as one of his worst mistakes, and obviously his worst broken campaign promise.

But, back to the main point; I'm just wondering and/or incredulous that for Trump supporters, insulting other people and angrily casting shade and blaming someone seems like it'll just always be enough and the policies and promises don't matter. And to be clear, I don't believe he's ever actually made a coherent policy statement so much as rambled his way into a few quotable word coincidences--which is why to him it's the "dishonest media"!

Remember when Rob Ford said, "I told you, that was during one of my drinking binges. I might have said a lot of things I didn't mean, but I don't remember."

Well Trump's version is "I might have said a lot of things while I was talking." And I feel like the rust belters get this and I do not and can't grasp the process here. I don't think any of them will actually be upset if Mexico doesn't pay for "the wall" or even if there is no wall. It probably won't even be acknowledged as a broken campaign promise.

a trump supporter without a hint of irony posts this in response:



i mean, how

lol namath

(and epstein is a clown btw)

I would rate Obama's broken promises with the ACA as his worst mistakes. I'm not sure the faiure to close Guantanamo belongs in the top ten mistakes he made.

good post

Dont see how thats possible. Multipe US government agencies claimed that it did, and why would they lie?

Really no surprise here.

This is kind of a first but I don't really have a strong opinion on Snowden. I somewhat like what he did. But it also makes no difference. It's not going to stop. He's accomplished ~nothing. It was a brave effort but nobody actually cares all that much it turns out.

I also wouldn't have any problem with him being punished. He knew the risks.

https://youtu.be/XEVlyP4_11M?t=1351

yeah good job, good effort sacrificing your life for random dumbass american public who dont give a ****

http://rudepundit.blogspot.co.uk/201...tists.html?m=1