I don't even know where to start with how wrong his logic is. Russia is the agressor in Crimea; Russia has hacked our elections. Does the logic carry that if the molester in chief pulls those troops back then he's in the back pocket of Russia? Not really, but it does look questionable. And the inquiry into the connections is another piece.

Yelly is putting a lot of words in her mouth too. She's not saying send more troops or even particularly taking a stance on. She's reporting that this is happening.

No prob, I was just wondering.
Oh...I'm sorry you took it that way. I gave her a pass on this story alone, and only on the specific detail that she didn't say what the commentator claimed she did, but she did IMPLY what he said, and to those that don't listen closely, that's likely what they heard. I did not "buy it", I do hear what she came close to saying, and I call her out for being completely biased in her assessments and implications about what this means. You are correct, however, that while I APEAR to give her a pass for qualifying, I would likely not give those on the right the same....but that's only an appearance. Her IMPLICATION that this would "prove" they have something on Trump is just biased, conjecture, and wrong, and is a reason I don't watch her, even though I agree mostly with her takes on things.....mostly.
Kyle was lying when he reported what she said....and that's what I took issue with. I also took issue with his take on the issue that Russia militarizing it's borders isn't something to guard against...history proves him wrong.

The 'proof' of Russian involvement in the hacking is classified, you won't get to see it. That's an issue with Trump decrying the intelligence community (who didn't really get Iraq wrong, btw, they were clear in their uncertainty in their reports, but the administration erased any hint of uncertainty and claimed the redacted reports were fact publicly.)...but as a whole, I still have some trust in them...perhaps it's misplaced but I have a hard time believing so many intelligence organizations came to the same specific conclusions based on pure bias.

Um...Russia expanded into 2 countries recently, and are eyeing the other Slavic states. To me, that's a renewal of a hot war if we ever react like we're obligated to by treaty, until we do, it's a renewal of the cold war (and a violation of numerous treaties, including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances) ...one that the pentagon is probably quite happy about, granted.

Again, don't feel you have to defend your viewpoint from me, or your admiration for a reporter....but allow me to have my own viewpoint, and to state and explain it if I choose. I am also quite biased, but not to the point of exclusion of fact.


EDIT: As to the troop placement in the Eastern NATO countries, I would like to see minutes of the 1990 summit where this agreement/guarantee was either made or not, not just reports of what Putin says today VS what Gorbachev says today...I want to see what was ACTUALLY said in the meeting, and more important, what was SIGNED by the parties. That the Russians haven't produced a signed treaty guaranteeing NATO wouldn't deploy farther in the East EVER is a pretty good indicator to me that it was not agreed on, so claims about what may have been SAID during negotiations are moot and have no bearing at all on what was agreed on. It's possible there was that agreement, if they just point us to it, I'll be on their side on this topic (unless it included a clause like "unless Russia begins expansion back into it's now independent satellites")

@newtboy
you were not the only one who put me on the defensive for supporting chis hedges.
so if you feel singled out,i apologize.

the point of this post is put into light an adored spokesperson for the left,and a commentator who is also left leaning (and many of his upvoted videos can be found on the sift) to make a point.

and by your comment,you are struggling to reconcile the two.
but you DID reconcile,and you did so by giving maddow a tacit pass and condemning kyle for being a "complete bombastic liar".

when the truth is:
they both are...kinda..sorta..

they both are approaching,and making their points by using biased and slanted data to influence you,and i for that matter,into adopting their viewpoint.

these are not outright and pernicious lies.they are lies that serve a purpose and i find maddows far more egregious,because it is far more subtle..and you appear to have bought it.

she did so by using the innocuous word "might",yet her inferrence cannot be mistaken.they call it the "dog whistle".this is a wink and a nod that those dirty ruskies own our new president.

wink wink...nudge nudge..know what i mean?

now kyle is not exactly lying either.
he is using russias reaction to the new deployment from putin himself.who has stated that there was an agreement that there would be no new encroachment after the GDR,but that simply reveals the cleverness and political saavy of putin.

the real truth is this:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

or is it?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
from 2009?

maybe this is the truth?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
from 2016.

well,personally i am going with the LAtimes and der spiegel.
brookings is a right wing think tank with deep tentacles in the pentagon and DoD.

but CNN reports that poland LOVES the new troops:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/14/europe/poland-us-troops-nato-welcome/

look,
while i will agree that putin is a vicious thug,who murders political opponents and tortures dissidents.that he is ruthless and relentless political player.

i do not see any evidence of russian hacking influencing our elections,nor do i see a new russian empire pushing for those cold war expansionism days.

the only entity/country i see pushing for expansion and a renewal of the cold war..is us..the pentagon and the department of defense,and those juicy juicy defense contracts!

i feel my time on the sift is coming to a close.
having to defend my admiration for a pulitzer prize winning,war correspondent and author is just...weird.

at least i know i am biased,but i do my best to self-correct.

I'm not at all sure if you're referring to me in your description.
I thought I explained well why a respected reporter working for a propaganda site is both making themselves suspect and lending veracity to the propaganda machine, and that you mostly agreed.
I also mentioned Maddow specifically as being willing to fudge the news for her bias....BUT it bears mention that here she did NOT say what the narrator said she said, she said "we are about to find out if Russia MAYBE has something on our president." That's arguing that, if Trump does what Russia wants, it MIGHT be because they blackmailed him into it...or might not. If he goes against Russia on something serious like securing our allies borders from an expansionist Russia that indicates they MIGHT not be blackmailing him. This guy totally exaggerated and misstated her statement to feign outrage, he's a complete bombastic liar....sorry @enoch. That's not to say she doesn't also exaggerate and omit.

As to the troops on the border, that's what Russia did, and claimed it was just defensive until after they took Crimea and part of Ukraine proper.
As to the treaty with Russia, we also have a treaty with the Ukraine (and so did Russia) that, in return for their nuclear disarmament, we would guarantee their borders and come to their aid militarily if anyone attacked them....and we completely failed to stand up when Russia invaded TWICE. Of course now our allies want our troops ON the border, if American troops aren't killed, we don't care if Russia invades them, and they want us to keep our word, so we need our troops in harm's way to force us to live up to our responsibilities since we've horrendously failed to do so incredibly recently and now look even less likely to oppose Russian expansion.

I'll bite. (needless to say, spoilers)

The characters certainly had motivation.

Jyn's motivation, much like Rae in FA, is simple, daddy issues. She isn't so much invested in the rebellion as she is in enacting vengeance for her father. She is stunted emotionally and is not idealistic, but I think she uses that as a vehicle to push other characters along with her. Her last moments with Cassian aren't driven by any great romance, just the solace of two people who don't know if what they did will make a difference, but they succeeded in what they set out to do. I suspect she understood before she left Yavin that she was not going to get out of it alive, which sort of fits with her fairly nihilistic view of the universe.

Cassian was entirely driven by the fight against the Empire. He was willing to do anything, and was completely ruthless at the start, but he does mellow towards the end as Jyn makes a point of saying that he was like a stormtrooper. He is a zealot, a true believer, and is willing to sacrifice everything, even his humanity, for the cause.

Orson, the imperial commander, is a mixture of patriotism and self interest. He's a fervant believer in the imperial ethos of bringing order to the galaxy, but he is also deeply interested in recognition and commensurate rise in rank. He is so motivated that he risks his life directly to try and stop the rebels (not something you typically see bad leader types do outside of superhero movies, that's what henchmen are for) at the end.

The droid is all programming, but his comedy relief is explained by the dialogue that slicing an imp droid can affect it's personality. He is the one of the few light hearted notes (and consequently gives us a pretty poignant note when he says goodbye and get's shut down) in what is a fairly depressing movie. His bluntly honest statements are perfectly ironic and as such really do deserve the laughs they get.

The monk and the warrior were guardians of a temple but are now displaced. While it's couched in the monks mysticism, I think honestly they were happy to stand up to the big bad guys who wrecked their temple and extract some form of revenge. I think it would please both of them to know that it was worth it in the end.

The imperial defector seems to have little motivation, but he has already taken the dangerous step of defecting and getting the ball rolling for the entire plot etc, he's obviously completely displeased about the empire and willing to risk his life to do something about it.

Saul has been driven mad by the fight. The rebel leadership all seem to fit well within their established roles in the canon, as do Tarkin and Vader. Random rebel and imp personal are placeholders and who really gives a fuck what their motivations are? X D

/shrug As far as character development goes, it's certainly not a work for the ages, but to say these characters are going to get a thing because they need to get a thing seems to be nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

Oh yeah, and in regards to AT AT's, it's a strategic imperial world and heavily garrisoned. Likely a staging point for excursions around the galaxy as well. It has major shielding, AA and fighter complements, Star Destroyers standing guard etc. Sure, fan service is a thing (although the homages in R1 are far less clunky than FA, including things like the Hammerhead, references to the cartoons etc), but as an imp commander, I would certainly release AT AT and AT ST vehicles against an attacking force of unknown size, particularly when you see a whole bunch of landing pads explode simultaneously. Are their 10 commandos or 1,000? 10,000? Yeah, go lowball and wait for them to walk out in the open right? \= |

It's not like the AT AT's were stomping all over the archive looking for a guy hiding behind valuable Imp data infrastructure, they are roaming the outer regions and are fairly proof against ground troops. Makes sense to me.

Dunno, I think the RLM reviews are generally entertaining and thoughtful, but in this case whoever writes Plinkett has let his acerbic dislike of "new" Star Wars cloud his objectiveness imo. It was an enjoyable flick and certainly one I intend to own. I don't think it's anywhere near the best sci fi (although I kinda like it on par with Empire) movie out there, but it's far better than RLM gives it credit for, imo.

Congratulations! Your comment on 'Spy Monkey' Mistaken For Dead Baby And Mourned By Troop has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, 'Spy Monkey' Mistaken For Dead Baby And Mourned By Troop, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm basically done with defending WikiLeaks as well, after the shit they pulled with the leaks of Turkish data. Completely irresponsible, that one.

However, WikiLeaks doesn't need credibility -- the data does. And the data they published vis-á-vis Clinton/Podesta/DNC is, as of now, solid. There was one fake document, but that was shown to have been injected by someone other than WL.

"Strong bias" -- oh, I do have a strong bias. Plural, as in biases, actually. For instance, I'm disinclined to take anything the US intelligence agencies say at face value, given how they manufactured more than one casus belli. I don't put much weight into (un-)official statements in general, but especially since all the misinformation they spread about issues like the coup in Honduras or the actions of Nazi militias in Ukraine.

In this particular case, however, my argument is much simpler: Occam's razor seems much more likely than malicious intent. Propaganda outlets on both sides are run by people. Maybe the propaganda outlet Sputnik intentionally twisted the content of email, or maybe they just fucked up, like people are wont to do. Maybe someone intentionally fed Trump this bad info, maybe his people are just as incompetent as he is.

There are too many parts in this that include people who have more than once proven themselves to be utterly incompetent, or in complete ignorance of even the concept of truth. I don't think Trump gives a shit about truth or facts, he strikes me as the typical blowhard who spouts whatever shit comes to mind, and spins stories on the fly like a 4-year-old when caught red-handing.

No need for a conspiracy there, with all this incompetence, naiveté and plain disregard for facts.

So when they keep on pushing the Russian angle in this, it just seems like a desperate attempt to conjure up the old unifying enemy. Why worry about Russian propaganda when there's plenty on FOX and MSNBC/CNN? Why worry about Russian hackers when you accept the unbelievably insecure method of eletronic votes, partly without paper trails, and completely controlled by private companies?

It's just very strange to an outsider like me to see them focus on perceived external influences when the internals are a complete clusterfuck. And this presidential election is the biggest clusterfuck I've seen in 30 years, which doesn't mean much, admittedly.

That said, we can't just be looking at it from the outside with binoculars, not when people are back to full-blown Cold War rhetoric. When the ruling class in the US and/or the ruling class in Russia start their pissing contests and other forms of grandstanding, it's usually brown people who pay the price, like they have been in Syria for the last couple of years. And Libya. And Yemen. And Somalia. And Afghanistan, And Iraq. And Pakistan.

Personally, all the rhetoric about "standing up to Russian aggression" and similar nonsense makes me keenly aware that the bridge just outside my hometown was constructed with a shaft to place explosives in, to slow down advancing Soviet troops... so yes, I would very much like to bitch-slap all these warmongerers on both sides, but particularly the ones in the US since they are currently the ones racking up the highest death toll.

Edit: I should have made it clearer. Yes, WL is absolutely biased against Clinton and they do seem to act in support of Trump. Assange in particular. Which bums me out to no end, since I actually met the guy in person when they presented WL at the 26C3.

Actually, yes. That's 100% correct.
Read some of the post WW2 books from the German perspective about what happened during WW2. They are very enlightening as to what people thought they were a part of. The guys that were shooting at American/Canadian/British and other troops on D-Day, those "Nazi's"... They had all been fed a steady diet of propaganda. They were told that the Nazi party and Hitler had united Europe under a single flag for the first time ever and that the Allied powers were coming to try and take that away. In many cases they didn't know the horrors that were being committed upon the Jewish people, sometimes just a few miles from their town. Sounds a lot like the situation in the middle east, except I think most people in Isis know what is going on and actively cheer for murder because their religion demands it.
Now I do think that within National Socialism as well as Islam ,and for that matter any idea (looking at you Christians), there is a potential for people to use the idea in order to corrupt others and spread hate. I think it's perfectly fine to hate those assholes.

Both candidates are not the same based on their platforms which he equates to the be same which is a laughably naive notion. Beyond that, he fails to see the importance that the next president will seat at least 2 if not 3 judges on the supreme court. That isn't up for an election every 4 years. That is 30+ years. 1 supreme court vote made a difference between having Citizens United and not. Alito being dead has already had an influence on how some rulings went e.g. Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole and United States v. Texas.

Furthermore, his whole contention lies on the ability for the American people to vote people out of office. Well in 4 years George Bush managed to invade 2 nations and destroy relationships around the world and creating an even larger terrorist threat that Obama had to deal with drones because the American people wanted safety and didn't want troops deployed and you needed a third way. Then the economy tanked. I can't believe people have this view that we didn't need to bailout the banks, it was a difficult decision but the other choice was a complete collapse of the financial system. Obama just came into office. What would you have done?

I don't understand this bizarre view Americans have every 4 years that when a new president gets elected the whole thing resets like the fucking Matrix or something. A lot of what Obama had to do was to undo the damage of the previous administration. 2008 crash can be linked back directly to Bush's promise that every American deserves to have a home. All while the right and the GOP constantly undermined him. Tell me the last time the government was shut down by the GOP over a health care act meant to help Americans?

Nader got 2.74% of the popular vote in 2000, the people who voted for him might as well as burned their votes because there is no post for 2nd or 3rd place. You just lose. Nader was very well known among the American people. Who is Jill Stein or Gary Johnson?

We've all been here before. Last time it was Ron Paul. But Sanders did succeed in creating a new class of fired up people who I hope will focus on the actual battlegrounds of any progressive movement mayoral, state, senate and house races. Not just wake up every 4 years.

"We need to find out how many vets are willing to do war crimes. Jesus."

You don't really follow current events, do you?

Since the Vietnam war, American soldiers have been rigorously trained to act instead of think. It's been very successful. So successful that the US is now the best country at the world when it comes to killing your own and accidentally targeting civilians. In the first gulf war, 12 Bradley AFVs were destroyed, NINE of them were by US troops. I saw a video during that war of a spotter for an A-10. Even on the poor-quality video we could see it was a Bradley (this was while I was working with an Armored regiment). The A-10 obliterates the Bradley and all the on board were certainly dead, he calls back over the radio, "I believe that was a friendly, over." To which the spotter says, "Oh shit, I was afraid of that."

Your soldiers kill eachother without fear of repercussions. Why the hell would they worry about war crimes against other people?

Oh, you mean the small area between Poland and Lithuania? The one that Russia is pouring troops and weapons, -- including missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, into at such a rate that the region is now one of Europe's most militarized places?

Moscow is stationing "thousands of troops, including mechanized and naval infantry brigades, military aircraft, modern long-range air defense units and hundreds of armored vehicles in the territory."

I mean, it's only scaring the piss out of two of our friendly countries in the region. Well, more if you consider that Russia's military buildup in the region allows them direct coverage of Sweden, Germany, and other nations that really don't trust the former USSR.

So, to use your example, I would absolutely expect Russia to get antsy and not sit by idly if we suddenly moved a LARGE portion of our active military forces to the Florida Keys. All of this is more posturing and sword rattling by Putin, a direct throwback to the USSR leaders of old. If he thought he could get away with it without open warfare, he would be rolling tanks into all the old USSR satellite states.

It isn't just this incident alone, either, as Russia has been steadily stepping up calculated shows of force and close encounters with our forces well away from anything close to their territory. Primarily, if you ask me, because the world outcry over the Ukraine situation stifled their little miniature coup attempt from taking over the entire country.

***Edit***

I just wanted to add, I don't want to go to war with Russia. I agree that many of the things that we are doing, such as considering adding former Soviet states to NATO, are antagonizing them. But I feel that in some cases our hands are tied by the fact that Putin, directly or indirectly, is making a lot of those former states think that he is planning on re-absorbing them under the umbrella of a new USSR. If he would keep his nose out of their internal affairs, I am pretty sure we wouldn't be building up in response.

I've already discussed why helicopters and drones are good in areas of light cover while sucking in areas of high cover. They fulfill a role, but realistically they aren't always the best option.

I also explained what happens in real combat. So called fast movers end up being tasked to do roles that they were not designed for. No plan stays certain in the face of the enemy. There will come a time when the F35 is expected to provide the same type of support as the A-10 and it is going to suck hard at it, planes will be shot down and pilots will die or be captured. I suspect this will happen especially with the forces using the F35 that are not the Air Force, such as the Marines. Here is a link to the laughable failures that the Marines had with the plane, but due to the 'cannot fail' nature of the project, they certified it anyway. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/not-a-big-suprise-the-marines-f-35-operational-test-wa-1730583428

Finally, the A-10 was absolutely not designed initially to be a Soviet tank killer. The initial A-X program was created because of the DISMAL performance of the Air Force and F4 in providing close air support to troops.

The Secretary of the Air Force contacted Pierre Sprey and asked him to come up with a design spec for a close air support plane. After consulting with the pilots we had in Vietnam, mostly the successful ones that were flying the prop driven A-1 Skyraider (which btw, destroyed the F4 JET in CAS operations), it was indicated that the ideal aircraft should have long loiter time, low-speed maneuverability, massive cannon firepower, and extreme survivability. It was only later, after the plane had been mostly designed, that the USAF asked that it be also tasked to counter the Soviets.

As I said, the Air Force has always hated providing CAS to the other branches of the Armed Forces. They constantly forget that you need to make a multi-role fighter actually function in a multi-role environment, preferring to think that they can buzz in and buzz out while the rest of the military does the 'dirty' work. However, they always get burned for it. Just like now, when they were fighting as hard as possible to kill the A-10, they discovered that fighting a force that is mobile and that hides in cover/cities (ISIS) is damn near impossible with fast planes/drones. Which is why they changed paths and rescheduled the A-10 phase out to 2028 (or beyond).

What? Helicopters are LESS vulnerable? How do you figure? They're vulnerable to small arms fire from ground troops, unlike a Warthog (unless you have a super sniper around that can do supercomputer type calculations in a fraction of a second and hit it on the fly with a 50 cal. depleted uranium round). They can pop up and down behind cover and do awesome targeting tricks, but in my eyes, for every advantage they have, there's another disadvantage.

But then you hit the nail on the head. Drones do it ALL better, for exponentially less, without putting a highly trained pilot in danger. I think it's just plain dumb to make piloted planes when we have working drone tech. For the current cost of the R&D on this single plane, not including the cost of building a single working F-35, we could have 1.3 million drones (+-, if we make that many, I'm sure we can make them for <$1 million a piece) and own the skies of the entire planet for eternity....or at least until Skynet takes over. Drones are far cheaper to maintain, don't have the G-force limitations human pilots do, can do far more dangerous jobs because we can afford to lose them, etc. We should never make another fighter that has a pilot IMO....maybe not any kind of military fighting plane.
I also love the A-10, but I've never had to fight in one. That cannon though, so satisfying.

When Baron Von Steuben was asked about the colonial troops he'd trained during the American Revolution, he wrote, "‘The genius of this nation is not in the least to be compared with that of the Prussians, Austrians, or French. You say to your [European] soldier, “Do this,” and he doeth it, but I am obliged to say, “This is the reason why you ought to do that,” and he does it.’”

That, in a nutshell, is what it means to be an American. We'll do it, but first you have to explain yourself. Of course, that can be trained out of them, but it's a lot harder than you'd think.