#JAILTOTHECHIEF- Shit Just Got Real

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Here's an interesting piece by Matt Taibbi in the Rolling Stone, named: "Donald Trumps's plan for the Middle East and Syria: nothing unites our political class more like the threat of ending our never-ending war."

Basically Taibbi muses, that Trump pulling out of Syria, Afghanistan and maybe the NATO might be more than enough to alienate some of the more hawkish Republicans in a way, that they want to get rid of him - and if it is by impeachment together with the Democrats, then so be it. The author himself considers the troops being there a waste of resources and money, finds America being at war at the moment with seven countries just ridiculous and believes the population has been kind of brainwashed into believing that such long conflicts are normal, where they should be not. So basically he agrees with those moves, even if Trump does them maybe for the wrong reasons.

In the end he concludes America is not divided into Repulicans and Democrats, the poor and the rich, but foremost between the war party and everything else, and the war party most surely is ready for a coming-out party in his opinion:

The Democrats’ plan until now was probably to impeach Trump in the House using at minimum some material from the Michael Cohen case involving campaign-finance violations.

That plan never had a chance to succeed in the Senate, but now, who knows? Troop withdrawals may push a collection of hawkish Republicans like Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Ben Sasse and maybe even Mitch McConnell into another camp.

 

[Essence Lumin]

If the orange one actually withdraws all the troops from Syria it will be the first really good thing he has done.

 

[Kara Spengler]

If the orange one actually withdraws all the troops from Syria it will be the first really good thing he has done.

It depends HOW he does the withdrawal though. Just having everyone leave all at once causes a power vacuum that someone will fill. If you only leave a few people they become targets. Yes, leaving is a good goal but if you do it wrongly (which he always does) you could have an even worse situation.

 

[Essence Lumin]

It depends HOW he does the withdrawal though. Just having everyone leave all at once causes a power vacuum that someone will fill. If you only leave a few people they become targets. Yes, leaving is a good goal but if you do it wrongly (which he always does) you could have an even worse situation.

As the author of the article pointed out, that would likely be the Russians. Let them exhaust their money killing people, and get the US out of the war business. If they gain power that is not great but better than us being there. I'm a pacifist and find it all disgusting.

 

[Chin Rey]

and believes the population has been kind of brainwashed into believing that such long conflicts are normal, where they should be not.

But they are normal for the USA. The nation has been at war with somebody almost continuously since it was founded and has only seen 21 years of peace since 1776.

It's certainly not how it should be and it's mind boggling for any non-American (and probably for most Americans too). But that's how it is and you can't really change such a fundamental and long lasting part of a culture over night.

As the author of the article pointed out, that would likely be the Russians. Let them exhaust their money killing people, and get the US out of the war business. If they gain power that is not great but better than us being there. I'm a pacifist and find it all disgusting.

I would have agreed if it wasn't for the Kurds. They are facing genocide once the U.S troops pull out. The only question is whether it's the Turks or Syrians who get them.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Original story: Did a Queens Podiatrist Help Donald Trump Avoid Vietnam?

 

[Tigger]

Has Trumpty Dumpty been shamed into visiting US troops?

 

[Free]

Maybe it's trying to chase down Santa's route to fix that phone call debacle.

 

[Free]

Has Trumpty Dumpty been shamed into visiting US troops?

President Trump, first lady make surprise Iraq visit

Always better to make a visit after Christmas is out of the way, amirite?

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

It depends HOW he does the withdrawal though. Just having everyone leave all at once causes a power vacuum that someone will fill. If you only leave a few people they become targets. Yes, leaving is a good goal but if you do it wrongly (which he always does) you could have an even worse situation.

When Obama pulled all the troops out of that region in - when was it, 2013? - It created a vacuum that ISIS quickly filled in, and we ended up having to go back in to clean up the mess.

We should never have been there in the first place, but we can't put that genie back in the bottle. The only responsible thing to do is to withdraw gradually as the local governments can maintain stability. Otherwise, we end up creating even more anti-American resentment in the area. That, and a bunch of Kurds get wiped off the map. Nothing good can come of us just abandoning the region.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

I would have agreed if it wasn't for the Kurds. They are facing genocide once the U.S troops pull out. The only question is whether it's the Turks or Syrians who get them.

Well the thing with the Kurdish people is that the West never really made his mind up on how to treat them really. Sometimes they are allies, like in Syria, sometimes not.

Turkey has been oppressing them since decades, and since Turkey is in the NATO there was politically never a big will to change that approach.

By the way here's where the Donald went:

 

[Cristiano]

Why can’t we just admit why Donald Trump really wants the $5 billion wall payment?

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Why can’t we just admit why Donald Trump really wants the $5 billion wall payment?

It's certainly no coincidence that during his depression-and-drug-fueled Christmas Eve tweet spree he blurted something about being in the Oval Office and signing some contract award for I believe it was a 115-mile section of the "wall" - a tweet that we know was a simple lie both because news agencies confirmed the president wasn't in the West Wing at the time he made the tweet and because government contracts aren't personally signed by the president anyway, they're handled by the GSA. Although we know nothing was officially signed by the president on the 24th, that doesn't mean the contract Trump alluded to is nonexistent or that an agreement hasn't been made. GSA admins are presidential appointees and there's just as much room there for corruption as anywhere else in Trump's administration.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

It's certainly no coincidence that during his depression-and-drug-fueled Christmas Eve tweet spree he blurted something about being in the Oval Office and signing some contract award for I believe it was a 115-mile section of the "wall" - a tweet that we know was a simple lie both because news agencies confirmed the president wasn't in the West Wing at the time he made the tweet and because government contracts aren't personally signed by the president anyway, they're handled by the GSA. Although we know nothing was officially signed by the president on the 24th, that doesn't mean the contract Trump alluded to is nonexistent or that an agreement hasn't been made. GSA admins are presidential appointees and there's just as much room there for corruption as anywhere else in Trump's administration.

According to this, though, the contract is non-existent (or, if it is, it's completely invalid) since Trump can't sign contracts to build the wall (or anything else).

Fact check: Trump confuses, misleads on border wall

Trump can't award construction contracts. U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers award contracts for border wall construction after Congress approves funding and months have gone into planning.

In March, Congress approved funding for 33 miles (53 kilometers) of construction in South Texas' Rio Grande Valley, the busiest corridor for illegal border crossings.

CBP announced in November that construction in the Rio Grande Valley would begin in February. Targeted areas include the nonprofit National Butterfly Center, a state park and privately owned ranches and farmland.

 

[danielravennest]

• We're losing precious years of climate change mitigation that will cost lives and millions of dollars in the short term and disaster in the longer term.

Coal-based power is down 7% since Trump took office, and renewables of all kinds are up 18%. Renewables now supply 64% as much electricity as coal, up from 19% in 2008. We're still making progress.

If you mean mitigation in the sense of moving away from the coast, or adapting farming to higher temperatures, I don't have data for that.

 

[danielravennest]

government contracts aren't personally signed by the president anyway, they're handled by the GSA.

That's not correct. The GSA, as their name indicates, procures general government stuff, like office space and computers. Individual agencies have their own procurement officers who sign contracts. I've met one of NASA's when I was working on a change order to the Space Station contract Boeing had. However, the President sure as shit doesn't sign contracts, not even big ones, like the F-35 fighter. It's not his job. Legislative bills, executive orders, and treaties are what he does.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Wait, what? I just noticed this:

Dems Reject Trump’s New Demand Of $1B Immigration ‘Slush Fund’ To Avert Shutdown – Talking Points Memo

Slush fund.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Here's a presentation about the sorrow state of security the voting machines used in America, and how easy it would have been to manipulate the 2016 election:


The short version: the voting machines are unsafe shit with no update since years, some decades; having no paper trail is just nuts, a haven for manipulation and most likely some happened, either by Democrats/Republicans and/or Russians, your choice. And manipulating the 2016 result for example into a tie would just need tweaking around 0,2% of the votes thanks to the electoral college.

Summary
Recent attacks against elections in the U.S. and Europe demonstrate that nation-state attackers are becoming more aggressive, even as campaigning and voting are becoming increasingly reliant on computers. How much has changed since 2016, when the U.S. experienced unprecedented attacks on its election infrastructure? What has to happen to ensure that the 2020 presidential election is secure? In this talk, I'll give a progress report on election security in the U.S. and around the world, informed by results from my own research and my work with legislators and election officials over the past two years. I'll also hold a mock election with a current U.S. voting machine to demonstrate how cyberattacks on election infrastructure could potentially change the results of national elections. Finally, I'll explain what everyone can do to get involved and help safeguard the foundations of democracy.

Strengthening election cybersecurity is essential for safeguarding democracy. For over 15 years, I and other computer scientists have been warning about the vulnerable state of election security, but attacks against recent elections in the U.S. and Europe demonstrate that sophisticated attackers are becoming more aggressive, even as campaigning and voting become increasingly reliant on computers.

Since 2016, I’ve been working with election officials and members of congress to strengthen election cybersecurity. In this talk, I’ll give a progress report about what’s happened since then and what still needs to happen to secure future elections. While many U.S. states have made progress at securing some aspects of their election infrastructure, and Congress provided $380M in new funding to the strengthen elections, significant vulnerabilities remain that put the integrity of future elections at risk. To demonstrate the ongoing threat, I’ll hold a mock election on stage with a real U.S. voting machine still used in 18 states, and show how remote attacks could potentially affect the outcome of a close national contest.

Finally, I’ll explain how defenses developed by researchers over the past decade could provide practical and cost-effective safeguards. Unfortunately, they have yet to be widely deployed due to a lack of resources and political leadership. I’ll describe legislative efforts in the U.S. and other countries that could, if successful, go a long way to making elections secure. I’ll also explain what technologists and other concerned humans can do to help secure elections at all levels.