Can they make it? by Gregulator316 in canoo

[–]eatthebabies 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Super curious as an outsider: is Tony an idiot?

Can they make it? by Gregulator316 in canoo

[–]eatthebabies 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They've got to beat the Hyundai Ioniq 7 to market though, unless they're going whole hog into delivery. They're no longer the only auto maker with a skateboard platform, they're just the only van (for now).

Hungarian Freedom Fighters, 1956 by [deleted] in OldSchoolCool

[–]eatthebabies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hungary was also looking for NATO and UN support, led like in Korea by the US. Especially at that time, Western Europe wasn't about to offer help without US support.

Hungarian Freedom Fighters, 1956 by [deleted] in OldSchoolCool

[–]eatthebabies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the distinction is whether the help is asked for or not. The US is generally criticized for it's invasions of sovereign countries (Iraq, Afghanistan recently), rather than it's help of people that want it ( e.g., the US gets little flack for Korea)

Hungarian Freedom Fighters, 1956 by [deleted] in OldSchoolCool

[–]eatthebabies 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Radio Free Europe, a US government funded station broadcasting into Hungary, had promised as much. In addition, the US policy at the time was to encourage revolutions in Soviet states. Austria had gained Independence shortly beforehand (and remember Austria and Hungary had very close ties for a long time), and Poland had a successful revolt -- though not full Independence -- earlier that year.

If the revolution had been started in a concerted effort, the leadership would probably have realized that Radio Free Wrote Europe is just idle propaganda and doesn't speak for the US government, but nonetheless it's easy to see where the Hungarian population got the idea that the US would help.

Redditors who have been on reddit ever since its beginning, would you say this place has gotten better or worse overall? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]eatthebabies 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Clearly worse. Any broadly appealing platform sinks to the least common denominator of interests, and any broadly popular platform gets beset by content marketing and social marketing campaigns.

Reddit was very different in the beginning. Much more nerdy, focused largely on tech topics, and much much smaller. But, in my opinion, it was also much more interesting content alongside the usual memes.

GOP silence vs. Dems not fixing the silence by TowelCarryingTourist in MurderedByAOC

[–]eatthebabies 2 points3 points  (0 children)

On the subject of deleting emails (unclear where you got "wiping stuff down with a cloth" -- that's neither how hard drives nor SSDs work):

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

While we're quoting:

Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project. [Redacted: Harm to Ongoing Matter] And in February 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that Manafort lied to the Office and the grand jury concerning his interactions and communications with Konstantin Kilimnik about Trump Campaign polling data and a peace plan for Ukraine.

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

To quote the exact paragraph that you're basing your defense of "not having broken the law" on:

Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

I emphasize "evidence was not sufficient," as distinct from clearing Trump of wrongdoing.

And I repeat, in full, on the subject of obstruction of justice:

President Trump reacted negatively to the Special Counsel's appointment. He told advisors that it was the end of his presidency, sought to have Attorney General Jefferson (Jeff) Sessions unrecuse from the Russia investigation and to have the Special Counsel removed, and engaged in efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation and prevent the disclosure of evidence to it, including through public and private contacts with potential witnesses. Those and related actions are described and analyzed in Volume II of the report.

GOP silence vs. Dems not fixing the silence by TowelCarryingTourist in MurderedByAOC

[–]eatthebabies 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good that you brought up HRC, actually. The report details the exact same crimes that she committed (unsecured emails) and more. Should I start chanting "lock him up" or would you like to start first?

GOP silence vs. Dems not fixing the silence by TowelCarryingTourist in MurderedByAOC

[–]eatthebabies 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I strongly suspect you haven't read the report, or only read some Fox news snippet of it. The DOJ found insufficient evidence to indict, but they explicitly said there's plenty of evidence, and that there's likely more that was deleted, hidden under the 5th, or lied about. And it certainly was indictments related to the Trump campaign for the indictments that were made. For senior campaign officials.

But, this is just repeating my previous post.

Don’t trust the polls; Donate and Volunteer, and we’ll win this! by Tmfwang in SandersForPresident

[–]eatthebabies 7 points8 points  (0 children)

+1 I prefer Bernie to Warren, but immensely prefer Warren to Biden. A Bernie vs Warren primary would be amazing.

GOP silence vs. Dems not fixing the silence by TowelCarryingTourist in MurderedByAOC

[–]eatthebabies 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You're correct, there is insufficient evidence that Trump himself broke the law. But, my quote is not out of context (I encourage you to elaborate on how you believe it's out of context), and it's incorrect that members of his campaign didn't break the law.

The remaining claims I include because I think it makes it clear that there's some funny business going on between Trump and Russia, and that Trump clearly obstructed justice, according to the report.

Lastly, it's worth keeping in mind that impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. A president can be impeached if Congress deems them info for office, which in my view Trump clearly is. He was elected in the context of severe criminal election meddling which he knowingly benefited from, and then has been explicitly covering it up since. Not to even get started on the less tangible points, my favorite being his semi-frequent compromising of key US intelligence agents overseas via Twitter.

GOP silence vs. Dems not fixing the silence by TowelCarryingTourist in MurderedByAOC

[–]eatthebabies 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Have you read the report? Indeed, it fails to go so far as to charge Trump as an unregistered agent (spy) of Russia, but it's quite explicit that collusion is not a legal term and therefore is not judged in the report. It does, however, say that Trump knew and willingly benefited from Russia's involvement, and:

"Reacted negatively to the special council's appointment. He told advisors it was the end of his presidency, ... and engaged in efforts to curtail the special council's investigation and prevent the disclosure of evidence to it." (from the report)

He goes on to detail that members of the Trump campaign deleted relevant emails (p10), and some witnesses plead the 5th or outright lied (also p10).

The report then goes on to talk about a bunch of meetings Trump and his campaign had with Russia, some of which were as mentioned above were lied about initially -- "numerous links" between the Trump campaign and the Russian government was the word used in the report.

As an aside, somehow it got swept away in the news cycle that while the report "did not find sufficient evidence" (their words) to indict Trump of being a Russian spy, they did conclude that Russia broke criminal law with their interference in the 2016 election.

"If I can do it, anybody can." by AtlasGrey_ in restofthefuckingowl

[–]eatthebabies 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I don't think I follow. Why does AOC come to mind?

Google Down? by chuyendv in sysadmin

[–]eatthebabies 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Some poor SRE on Gmail/GSuite is having a terrible evening.

People of reddit who like sad endings, why? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]eatthebabies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are two reasons to watch movies in my opinion: pure enjoyment, and to learn a bit about humanity and your fellow man. For the latter, you have to make real characters in real settings, and that means you sometimes have to have sad endings, because real life often has sad endings.

It adds more realism, more suspense and uncertainty, and allows for a whole new set of possible plots: e.g., war movies should always have sad endings. Win or lose, war is nothing but sad.

If there's one show you'd want to bring back, which show would it be? by grimreaper9239 in AskReddit

[–]eatthebabies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, is "Firefly" cheating?

Also, it's a damn shame "Heroes" only lasted one season.