Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
MOD OP EDIT: Please put general conversations about Trump here. Anything that is not exceptionally deserving of its own OP on this topic will be merged into this discussion. And let's keep things relatively polite. Thanks.
Comments (24161)
Quoting Chester
Part of the reaction is controlled by an ass with far more influence than any intelligent society should empower, proving beyond doubt that it’s not an intelligent society. The asinine narrative is full of bravado (appealing to insecure types like yourself) and focuses entirely on the violence of one side of the issue and completely ignores the violence of the other side, and does so for the singular and selfish purpose of maintaining power and wealth (a second term), utterly regardless of the damage this may do to society, or perhaps mindful of it, being that a fractured society is easier to control. Divide and conquer is the strategy that you mindlessly assist and don’t benefit from.
Quoting Chester
It’s not a plan. It’s not rational. Read the fucking signs if not the actual words. They can’t breathe.
And Trump is handling these riots perfectly! When the looting starts the shooting starts. Right? Didn't he also suggest that protestors should be given 10 year prison sentences?
Who needs first amendment rights when Trump gets such great T.V ratings?!!!
He said he stands with protesters but also wants to protect American‘s lives and property from violence, looters, and vandals. I’m not sure why one would have to pretend looters and vandals are protesters, nor can I understand why one would condone or excuse that behavior, but I guess that’s exactly what you need to do to politicize it and blame it on Trump.
And yes, state governments are in charge of their own public health. Coronavirus death rates in Democratic areas are triple those in Republican ones. So why do you think it’s Trump’s fault?
Obviously, viruses don't respect municipal boundaries, nor are they deterred by county lines or state lines, they run free with their hosts. A municipality, on its own does not have the power to prevent incoming traffic. Nor does a state have that capacity. So your point, which assumes that they do, is really pointless. Not surprising, coming from who it comes from.
Plenty of states have restricted travel. And for example it wasn’t Trump who mandated that nursing homes in New York couldn’t refuse patients diagnosed with coronavirus, which turned out to be a fatal mistake. So your point is pointless, which isn’t surprising.
With no self awareness of how egocentric that is. What is the fucking point of “responding” to a guy you know is banned?!
You show your colours here, you are not interested in discussion. You are interested in pushing your narrative, thats it. Pathetic and disgusting. And cowardly, he isnt here to defend himself.
I know, I know...its ok cuz he was a piece of shit right? He got banned after all, so how could there be anything wrong with your acts of cowardice and showing of low, self serving, agenda driven character? Right?
Fucking pathetic.
Is there something preventing you from responding for your fallen hero and righteously defending his honor?
Im not defending anyone you clown. Im calling you out. The fact you can’t see the difference should give you pause.
The guy was obviously a jack-ass, and deserving of his ban but for you to take the time to “respond” to him even though you know he is banned is unhinged. Its very telling about your character, and explains alot about the way you interact with others in here.
Even your childish framing of my “fallen hero” and “defending his honour” is dishonest and pathetic.
On the positive side, it's useful evidence to demonstrate that the American right and their representatives don't essentially care about the constitution or any other of the principles that found their hallowed slogans ("give me liberty or death" etc.), they will back anyone on their "team" no matter what the actual content of the behaviour is. They're a collection of ideologies without content, nothing but a black hole of power struggles against anyone who threatens their selfish interests (all the resources for me and those who look and sound like me, now!). So, when they talk of this or that right (guns or whatever) as being fundamental to their position as American citizens, this can be thrown right back in their faces: You supported the denial of the very same rights you're now claiming to be fundamental. Then just watch them fall into the gaping abyss of their own hypocrisy.
I don’t recall claiming sainthood. Anyway, shouldn't you be dismantling my narrative? Trump isn’t divisive? The divisiveness is not strategic? and whatever else.
Yep, just that there's absolutely no corner of ambiguity for them to hide in now. Video of police flash bombing, tear-gassing, and beating peaceful protesters engaged in exercising their supposed constitutional rights, punching members of the press in the face and generally just practising for the fascist state of their dreams can't be hand waved away. What the right, as a political force, want is an oppressive state that serves the interests of a socioethnic uber-class with everyone else untermenschen only around to serve them their lattes and mow their lawns.
Trump's clear model for the US is Putin's Russia. Only with more Walmarts. But the left is "authoritarian" and against "freedom". Anyway, yes, it poses a huge problem: as the balance starts to tilt towards right authoritarianism, it becomes normalized. If you've got China, Russia, and now the US going this route, open democracies start to look like a weird novelty.
I love the opening line: "Australia is now in line with the United States, Ghana and Botswana in terms of civil freedoms." Like - ew, not in line with the US!
That's disturbing. The UK to is probably next. Ireland is more naturally egalitarian but the neoliberal juggernaut crushes all in its path and if democracy just slows it down, who knows...
:lol:
Fuck, the UK is already "narrowed". Ireland is still green. Hang in their lads!
Quoting Baden
A fun exercise. Watch the following speech. Every time Trump talks about about 'violence', 'assaults' and 'wanton destruction', consider that he's talking about his state-sponsored terrorist cops, rather than the protestors. The effect is quite cool, and worth listening to that vomitus timbre:
1.
2.
3.
Reminds me of a certain bloodsuking poster here...
Reading that now. All too likely. Add in technological advances in bioengineering etc. applied in a polarised fashion dependent on social strata and you've got a nice little dystopia in the making.
Ooh. Bullseye!
And plenty of people seem to be in favor in Europe, too. Even those that aren't are hardly enthusiastic about open democracy. "The West" seems to have lost it's promise to the people. A large part of that is economics, but there is also a lack of idealism.
"When the looting starts, the shooting starts... Protestors should get 10 years in prison.'
Be honest: if Obama had said this, you would be advocating for civil rebellion right?
I'm not blaming the riots on Trump, I'm ridiculing Trump for being incapable of properly handling them, and for making them worse with his words and actions/inactions. (his tweets have obviously exacerbated the riots, and his failure to acknowledge the seriousness of covid-19 back in January obviously contributed to America's deaths. These two facts alone render his performance incompetent at best).
Also, what do you mean "politicize"? We're talking about the most politically relevant issues of the day. Are you offended that political issues are political? Are you just incapable of comprehending how a global health pandemic affects politics, and how political and policy decisions affect the outcomes of said global health pandemic?
Again, I'm calling trump stupid for making demonstrably stupid statements and taking demonstrably stupid actions in response to the challenges he has been faced with. As president it was his duty to lead the nation's preparations for the pandemic (he had the most advanced knowledge of it, and the main central powers for quickly taking preparatory action at the national scale. Instead of informing and warning us, he ignored, downplayed, and spewed outright bullshit. And during the pandemic, he seems to have done nothing but bull-shit more and play the never-ending blame game).
Remember when Mitch McConnell, Trumps most valiant supporter, came out and blamed the Obama administration for failing to leave the white house any pandemic response plan, but then had to shut his mouth and hide in his orifice when it was pointed out that since Trump has fired so many people, they just completely forgot about it entirely? It's like republicans have had their heads so far up Trump ass for such a long time that they've forgotten where they're at. The inside of Trump's asshole is now the new norm and standard...
Congratulations.
Quoting NOS4A2
I don't quite get why Republicans love playing stupid... Is it some kind of inside joke?
They spend 8 years (and beyond) blaming every audible hiccup and dog-fart directly on the eternal Kenyan soul of Hussein Obama, and how all they do is obfuscate//deny/deflect any perceived criticism as a matter of course. At this point the apologia is so transparent that Trump's surrogates are starting to intellectually resemble Trump himself.
"When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside."
Hopefully more will come out of the woodwork to call out this human excrement for what he is.
Ah, I see Baden linked to a related article.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/
Meanwhile Barr has squadrons of paramilitaries on the streets of Washington with no ID, no doubt acting out a Trump fantasy. Although if Trump had his way it would be water canon, police dogs and teargas.
*Bullets.
Did Mattis just call Trump a Nazi?
I would like to think so. :fire:
An alternative to being sucked in to becoming pawns in Trump's media strategy would be to ignore Trump to the greatest degree possible, and focus instead on finding common ground with his base where ever we can. His base is the real power, not Trump.
Trump is President because the Democratic Party has not only ignored it's traditional base, it seems to often enjoy insulting them. There is a regrettable passion among we lefties for snotty superiority poses which are often directed at the very people we need to be winning over. Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comes to mind as a quick example.
Let's work on developing a list of common ground projects. Here's a start....
1) Immigration - The population of the United States has doubled in my lifetime. Over the same period the population of Florida (where I live) has grown from 3 million to over 21 million, a seven fold increase. It's certainly reasonable for any citizen to question how much farther we wish to travel in that direction. Politicians on all sides have generally ignored such questions for decades and so, no surprise, large segments of the population are attracted to any national figure who won't ignore them.
We don't have to become Trumpers or agree with a wall or the demonization of immigrants or any of that. We just have to acknowledge, to Trump voters, that they have raised a serious question about the future of the country which merits open minded discussion. We just have to acknowledge, to Trump voters, that we are part of the problem when we vote for any politician who sweeps such concerns under the rug as soon as they are elected if not before.
2) Abortion - Many religious people held their nose and voted for Trump due to their concern about abortion. It's not unreasonable for them to have serious concerns about the mass killing of babies. Who's next, inconvenient old people like me?
I'm not suggesting any person of conscience needs to change their position on abortion. But what we lefties do need to do is reach out to Trump voters and publicly acknowledge that they have reasonable concerns. If we choose to demonize and insult them instead, then we shouldn't be surprised if they then choose to vote for somebody other than us.
Nothing serious on pretty much any subject can be accomplished on party line votes. If we win that way then whatever we're won gets undone the next time the other side takes power, which happens regularly.
Remember, every time we insult Trump for no better reason than it makes us feel good to do so many millions of Americans hear us insulting them. The wiser strategy is to largely ignore Trump, reach out to his base, and win them over. Winning them over will require offering them respect where ever possible.
I'm OK with that.
Besides, I insult him because he says and does things worthy of insult. It's not to make me feel good.
Except for a lot of people their "reasonable" concerns aren't reasonable at all. Pro-life, pro-religion (to an extent that allows LGBT discrimination), and pro-guns are red lines that many liberals just aren't willing to negotiate over, just as pro-choice, LGBT-protections (at the expense of religious beliefs), and gun regulations are red lines that many conservatives just aren't willing to negotiate over.
You're ok with not reaching any of our substantial goals? Is that what you meant?
Quoting Michael
Rather than challenge a report from inside of your own mind, let's try this instead.
I recently spent about 3 months daily following every nuclear weapons expert and activist I could find on Twitter. These are intelligent, well educated, well informed, well intentioned people, some of whom are risking jail on this issue. And yet, I couldn't find a single such "expert" who understood that there is exactly no chance of any real change in nuclear weapons policy without millions of Trump voters agreeing. Instead, Trump bashing, Trump bashing, Trump bashing, tweet after tweet after tweet, day after day after day, a clear triumph of emotion over reason and self interest.
Of course Trump is worthy of insult. That doesn't make insulting him a smart tactical strategy.
Before we run around the net calling Trump voters stupid, perhaps we should wise up and become smart enough to grasp what is in our own self interest.
I'm OK with them feeling insulted when I insult Trump. That's on them, not me.
Somehow I don’t think that a public “there there now, you have reasonable concerns” will do the trick. Validation may be a good starting point but it only goes so far. Got any other ideas?
As I already said, we don't have to negotiate away anything that is important to us. We just have to start respecting those whose votes we need. We need to acknowledge, to ourselves at least, that we lefties have a problem with the snotty superiority poses, and that the price tag for those poses can be pretty high.
When the forum has acted on what's already been suggested, which you seem to agree is a good starting point, I'll see if I have any other ideas.
Ok, fair enough, that's your choice to make. I'm just trying to alert you to what the price tag is.
An immature leader which tries to divide the American people.
Mattis has refrained from telling the truth about Trump for a long time, perhaps out of the courtesy the the Presidency itself, but now he came out.
And then he says the obvious:
The present secretary of Defence, that succeeded Mattis (if we skip the brief acting secretary Shanahan) is unfortunately backtracked after the White House hinted at his removal. Trump just yearns to get those paratroopers to patrol the Capital.
Yet I think that now really the back is broken of the Trump presidency. I think that simply there are too many Republicans who have before never voted for Democrats and they'll do that now in the next elections. The handling of the pandemic was bad, but this thing is not working also.There of course his base and this has a big enough echo chamber to live in La-la-land. Trump's performance is so absurd and he's showing his inability so clearly that it's hard not noticing it. But of course, things can also just get worse.
I don’t follow, there really are no Trump supporters on this forum of the sort you describe.
Right. And so the rational point of Trump bashing with those who already agree is.... what exactly?
The answer is somewhat inconvenient. Preaching to the choir operations serve as a mutual validation society which helps bind the tribe together in the illusion that they are the "one true tribe", ie. superior to those people over there. It happens on a billion sites on a billion subjects, one of the primary uses of the Internet. Tribalism serves a useful purpose emotionally, but is typically an obstacle to achieving one's public policy goals.
The fact that there are no Trump voters here does not stop us from considering how we might productively engage them when we do encounter them. That's not a matter of being nice. It's a matter of realistically appreciating that little of significance can be accomplished without them.
There are.
And yet, he is President, and we are not. Perhaps what we're seeing here more clearly than before is that it is the fate of democratic societies to be ruled by salesman.
The real damage that he does is making the government not to react properly. Trump cannot control his White House, it's chaos there, and surely he cannot just roll over the federal state. He is incapable of doing that. Trump isn't a dictator who's absurd policies someone tries to put in practice only to save his or her life. The real havoc he creates is the void which this little tweeting self-centered man does.
Of course when what should be reacted are things like a global pandemic, then it does have an effect.
Trump kills.
Here's a little story to illustrate how the game works.
Remember that preacher a few years back who got a lot of attention for threatening to burn the Koran? That happened about a mile from my house. That guy was a complete total nobody. He led a congregation of about 50 people, and made his living selling used furniture on eBay. He wasn't at all influential even locally here in town. Just a little crackpot total nobody.
But he knew how to play the media game. He supplied the media with the drama they crave, and worked it from the local media, to state, to national, to international. He went from local nobody to global somebody based on one simple trick, threatening to burn a book.
Terrorists do the very same thing. They provide drama to the media, and in return are rewarded with millions to billions of dollars worth of free advertising.
Trump is a realist. He knows how it works, and he works it.
Is what I wrote on the Joe Biden thread nothing more than unfactual, or misinformed, "Trump bashing"? :mask:
There are, as Michael pointed out, but the few hardcore ones of the kind you've been describing tend not to last long, and their motivations are dubious. That's my experience anyway.
You've been promoting the idea of reaching across the aisle to this 'tribe' but have yet to offer any good ideas about accomplishing this difficult task aside from validation, which, by the way, can come off as condescending.
Quoting Nuke
Actually, I think they only account for about 30-40% of Americans. Half the nation didn't vote in 2016.
If you want more ideas, why not get off your butt and share some?
Showmen can be OK Presidents. Reagan was an actor, but then again, he did have been a governor of the largest state in the US, and before that had been the President of the Screen Actors Guild. Trump had a rich dad and many bankruptcies and nothing similar abilities to lead. Sure, he's the teflon entrepreneur that bounces back from failure after failure, but that really doesn't say anything about his leadership skills.
Which he hasn't got any.
I completely agree. But saying it over and over and over again is unlikely to accomplish anything. The fact that we already know that, and keep doing it anyway, illustrates where Trump is smart. He knows we're not serious people, even if we don't. Trump is a realist, that's his gift.
Well said. Many former democrats and independents who voted for Obama have voted for Trump, myself included. This isn’t because we abandoned the left, but because the left abandoned us. Once our former political allies trended towards the illiberal and globalist, there was no home for us in that space.
Cuz I'm not sitting on any.
I live in the capital of British Columbia, Canada. The rules here are not as hard elsewhere in the country.
— NOS4A2
Is there a point there?
Really? It seemed pretty clear you were trying to point out a contradiction. So quoting those two separate posts was your way of...asking him if he moved to Canada from the US? Or just as a roundabout and non-sensical way of expressing surprise about his interest in US politics?
You expect anyone to believe that?
I was born in the US and I moved here in 2008. Canadian women can be quite convincing.
What is the democrats traditional base at this point? Studies suggest it's college-educated people, young people, women and minorities. Trump is president mostly because the Republicans have successfully used voter suppression to get a candidate with no majority support elected. Running against Hillary Clinton of course helped.
Also, I am pretty sure the democratic party employs strategists who know what voters to target better than we do.
Quoting Nuke
But the national figure they did gravitate to didn't offer any reasonable take on immigration. He instead pandered to fears and misconceptions. There is no reason to suspect that these voters could be won back with a nuanced take on immigration. The US already had fairly restrictive immigration policies prior to Trump.
Quoting Nuke
I don't think it's strategically viable for Democrats to appeal to the religious right. But even if it were, a more fundamental questions occurs: is politics about doing what is right, or doing what people want? To what extent is building a broader coalition worth encroaching on your principles?
Let's see how the elections will go. Biden has a lead.
Well, Trump isn't an existential threat to the US or it's constitution, he likely won't go get into a catastrophic war with China or do something really disastrous. The outcome is just that the executive branch doesn't work at it's best, the US is a bit more polarized and the US has lost a huge ground in international relations. How many thousands more of Americans died because of Trump lagged in the pandemic response, who knows. Questions like those cannot be answered.
The world is getting to be basically more multipolar and the Pax Americana after the Cold War is over. Trump is just increasing the tempo of the US withdrawal from the Superpower status. You can see for example from the Libyan civil war that allies of the US are backing up different sides. That would be totally unthinkable during the Cold War, but the doesn't care about it's alliances or that's it's basically starting to resemble pre-20th Century politics. Now many American's argue that is a great thing. Well, one Superpower leaving it's place creates a vacuum. And this we are seeing all around.
For decades that included the working man. Democrats largely abandoned those folks, so they found a new home. That's not Trump's fault, that's our fault.
There you go, that's it. Thanks for saying it better than I could.
It's not just policies, it's culture too. Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment sums up the snotty superior mindset of so much of leftie culture pretty well. We need to face that attitude squarely and do something about it.
"Many former democrats and independents who voted for Obama have voted for Trump, myself included." NOS
Quoting NOS4A2
How did he vote for Trump in 2016? No ad hom here.
This is a good question. I'm not asking any Democrat to give up their principles. I'm suggesting we dial down the tribalism and show those with different views more respect. You know, the urban leftie mindset which thinks of rural citizens as country bumpkin bozo yahoos. Stuff like that has to go.
I tried to offer some examples, and would encourage members to think of more. We don't have to agree with Trump's immigration policies to acknowledge that being concerned about immigration and population is a reasonable concern. Same for abortion. Same for guns. Same for religious freedom. What else? What am I missing?
Then why did they lose the last election to a comic book character who boasts about assaulting women? Why were all the Democratic candidates in 2020 second rate figures who don't even know that a Presidential candidate should have something useful to say about nuclear weapons? Why did Bernie and Warren not grasp that "all angry all the time" is a recipe for failure, as has now been proven?
I don't share your confidence obviously.
What got them to vote for the guy, who tried several times a coup but then got elected in 1998, was their disappointment in the earlier government. It had left many lower middle class people falling in hard times. Afterwards Venezuela has been a trainwreck, but why then do they still support their "revolution"?
The real success has been what Trump is trying to do in the US: division and polarization at such level that there's no turning back. Chavez was a master in this. Populism was the basic ingredient of Chavez: every failure was because of the evil imperialists and their evil henchmen inside the country. And some people believe it. That absolutely catastrophic socialist experiment and totally reckless policies don't matter. The supporters have alienated themselves so much that they have as their only option to support the government (or if matters are inbearable, move away). But admitting the policy failure isn't something they are willing to do.
Right. You were playing “gotchya!”, I get that. What I was commenting on is your post afterwards where you said:
Quoting Monitor
To NOS asking you:
Quoting NOS4A2
So you indicated pretty clearly your point was something about moving to Canada or surprise at his interest US politics. Now youre back to playing “gotchya!”. So your answer to his question about your point was dishonest. I'm not accusing you of making an ad hom, im accusing you of being a liar.
I hear ya, but there is a turning back. We can simply cut out the tribalism and superiority poses etc. Again, I'm not making a moral point, but a tactical one. It's not in our interest to play Trump's game with him. Here's the bumper sticker slogan. :-)
Ignore Trump, and embrace his base.
I think you are making a good point here, but how do you ignore Trump? His effect on discourse and divisiveness is very real, and has very real effect on trying to fo what your suggesting and make peace with his base.
How can you repair the rift with Trump stirring the pot? It seems to me that rather than ignore Trump, he must be accounted for in whatever solution employed.
First of all If you have followed anything that NOS has posted on this forum you know that NOS can defend himself if he feels it's necessary. But of all the highly personal flaming that has occurred and been discussed on this forum you get triggered by:
So you lived in the US and then moved to Canada? I was just always surprised at your level of interest in US politics.
— Monitor
And you leap from your foxhole to defend poor NOS from such a vicious unprovoked attack.
I urge you to contact the Mods about me.
As for the Gotcha, I didn't ask him if he still beats his wife. In fact I was trying to let him correct an inconsistency that was apparent in my post and deflected in his response. This is not the first time there has been inconsistency in his posts. And we still don't know how he voted for Trump in 2016 while living in Canada? Dual citizenship? I don't know. But he has incensed people around here to the point that some think he is a Russian troll so I don't think I out of line by quoting him directly.
Perhaps you are like NOS and the late Chester and just love to argue for the sake of arguing.
Please check my spelling. You might find some ammunition to use against me that's accurate.
Studies of voter movement don't support that conclusion. The republican / democrat split doesn't run along income or occupation lines, but along education lines.
Quoting Nuke
It's hard to disagree with that. It's essentially prejudice against your political opponent, and prejudice is rarely a good thing. I think your intentions are good here, it's just hard not to conclude that people who still support Trump really must be in favor of tyranny, so long as they get to be part of the ruling class (or race).
Quoting Nuke
Any concern can be framed as reasonable from the position of the ones who have it. Even outright racism can be made "reasonable" if you're willing to entertain the notion that there are races, and some are just inferior. People don't usually hold intentionally unreasonable beliefs. But I am very sceptical about calls to "understand" such reasons. Shouldn't we instead figure out how to make people be better at being reasonable?
Quoting Nuke
They obviously failed. The question is whether we could do better.
Agreed. The condescending class were so out of touch with the country that they believed their chosen candidate had it in the bag right up until the night of the election. Then they cried wolf for years, promising us future Hitlers and nuclear wars, and here we are are still caught in the bubble they have built for themselves.
U.S. citizens can vote whilst living abroad.
Yes, that's it. It's not just that we lost, it's that we had no idea we were going to lose. Me too!
Aren't income/occupation and education very related??
Quoting Echarmion
There are such folks on all sides. You know, some lefties want the government to control pretty much every aspect of our lives. If you need to fart, you must first file a 17 page application with the EPA. :-)
Quoting Echarmion
Is it reasonable to be concerned about abortion? Yes. Is it reasonable to be concerned about immigration? Yes. Is it reasonable to want to own a gun? Yes. Is it reasonable to be religious? Yes. Is it reasonable to be worried that we are over spending ourselves in to a disaster? Yes. Is it reasonable to stop voting for people who think you are a "basket of deplorables"? Yes. Is it reasonable to stop voting for those who have ignored your concerns for years? Yes.
There will always be policy debates of course. My point is just that those debates will be more productive if we stop thinking of those on the other side as deplorable idiots etc.
When Trump says something ridiculous so as to stay in the headlines, we don't have to feed the beast by playing his game and getting all excited. Example: If I was making a bunch of wild angry claims on the forum you guys would yell at me for a bit, and then you'd get bored and ignore me. Like that.
We all know who Trump is now. There is no educational value in describing him any further.
Ignoring him normalize his behaviour. That's not a good thing.
Related, yes. But as an example, non-college educated business owners aren't "working class", but apparently are an important part of Trumps base
Quoting Nuke
Fair enough. I guess every side tends to portray it's opposition based on their extreme fringes. When talking about US politics in particular, though, a big problem remains that the republican power base is a small, highly mobilised voting block. In almost all policy questions, the majority leans democratic. But because of the electoral college, voter suppression, and highly polarizing rhetoric, the Republicans have so far managed to stave off their demise. I say "so far" because the demographics have steadily shifted against them.
The flip side is that, on the part of the voters, views are more and more entrenched, and fears of becoming irrelevant work against any conciliation. Usually, the only chance of overcoming such divides is to leverage an existing emotional connection. So for friends and family members who you disagree with, seeking common ground and being understanding is a good idea. But I don't know how one would translate that into a nationwide reconciliation.
Quoting Nuke
Well, yes. I see what you mean. Differences in world view don't mean someone is an idiot. And basing your self image on being one of the enlightened fighting against the dumb Trump voters is dangerous.
What I wanted to point out was that there must be limits to what is considered a reasonable position. I am sure "white replacement" theorists think of their concerns as "reasonable", but there is no way to consider their concerns without buying into their worldview. While it's definitely a good idea to try to understand their emotional state, I don't see how one could "address their concerns" in any meaningful way while maintaining that their worldview is irrational.
That is, they care about their issues enough to actually vote.
Quoting Echarmion
That is, too many lefties don't care enough about their issues to actually vote. We can't blame that on anybody but ourselves. There's nothing about the electoral college, voter suppression, and highly polarizing rhetoric that can stop us from winning, if we will get off our ass and vote, and drop the pathetic victim claims which so often infect the left.
Quoting Echarmion
Stop demonizing the opposition in public conversations. Be intellectually honest enough to publicly admit that the opposition has some reasonable concerns, even if we can't fully agree on how those concerns should be addressed. Look for win/win solutions. To the greatest degree possible, ignore those on the left and right who want to stoke the partisan divide. All the same kind of things we have to do if we wish to have productive debates here on the forum.
Quoting Echarmion
There are a minority of extremists on all sides who don't merit our respect, agreed. And there are many on all sides who care more about the emotional stimulation provided by polarization than they do the successful future of the country. So there is no perfect solution, I agree.
Which one is it? They can't be not real and real terrorists at the same time.
I was attacked by paramilitary unicorns!
I thought I was the only one!
You joke, but it’s not a joke for the people you’re talking about, who’ve been lead to hold all sorts of absurd prejudices.
How do you deal with prejudice? Firstly, the prejudiced need to want to overcome their prejudice. Then they can dissolve their prejudice by merely getting to know what they’re prejudiced against.
Yea man, that's what I'm trying to discuss. Do we lefties wish to overcome our prejudices?
Or do you mean that prejudices are an affliction that only those other people over there suffer from?
Again, this is not Father Nuke giving a moral sermon about being nice. This is a rational tactical political calculation. Which is more important to us? The joy of superior finger pointing? Or reaching policy objectives?
Again, what triggered all this for me was watching serious nuclear weapons experts and activists choose the joy of superior finger pointing. These highly educated and very well informed folks are so distracted by Trump bashing that it never seems to dawn on them that few to none of their objectives can be reached without lots of Trump voters on board. Seeing that was a pretty sobering experience. That really brought home to me how truly dangerous prioritizing emotional agendas can be.
You aren’t listening. You even quoted me on it. This isnt about flaming, personal attack or defending anyone. You were being dishonest, and Im holding you accountable. Its important not to be dishonest, dont you think?
Quoting Monitor
“Trying to let him correct..”? You were trying to play gotchya, trying to expose him as a liar. Your rephrasing is an attempt to
frame your response as something other than what it is, which is you playing gotchya. Thats very dishonest.
I understand it a subtle dishonesty, but we shouldnt do it. Its bad for discussion, to say nothing of the ethics.
Quoting Monitor
Please. Like they are the only people who love to argue in this forum.
Im not interested in arguing, Im interested in people being honest so discourse is productive and interesting.
My preferred pronoun is “he”.
I'll leave that right where it is. Go ahead and take the last word.
Ok, last word. You shouldnt be dishonest, it ruins discourse and even subtle dishonesty like yours habituates deception until it isnt even noticed as dishonesty anymore.
Lol, well I was referring to you and someone else so individual pronouns aren’t relevant.
Anyway, I didnt mean to speak for you or condescend to you by defending you, its about this clueless, blind dishonesty from way to many people on this forum. Its really starting to annoy me, So much bandwidth is taken up by this back and forth, posturing gotchya shit that it derails what would otherwise be interesting discourse.
Hear hear.
Populism is inherently divisive at it's core, be it right-wing or left-wing. Being against Trump is one thing, but being against the supporters of Trump is totally another. Then you are actually against what democracy is about and what a republic is based on.
I agree, as I said I think you are making a good point here. I think I can be more clear...
What Im wondering about Is if Trump is being ignored by his opposition, than how do you prevent his empowerment among the people who are not ignoring him? Wouldnt the cult of personality only get stronger?
No, only three sentences after this you say the objective is "reaching policy objectives." Can that be achieved by everyone but Trump supporters overcoming their prejudices, and if they're not an obstacle to that objective then why bother? If it's true that "few to none of their [non-Trump supporter] objectives can be reached without lots of Trump voters on board," then the prejudices of Trump supporters might need to be somehow overcome.
Not denying biases on both sides, and personally, I've been working on trying to understand Trump supporters from day one, and studying the situation from various angles.
One of the things feeding the cult of personality is our demonization of Trump's base. If we insist on calling them things like a "basket of deplorables" then we reap what we sow. I'm not saying we are the entire problem, only that our part of the problem is a factor we can do something about.
If we want to understand Trump voters, we could start by trying to understand ourselves. Why are we clinging to polarization? Why do we so enjoy having an enemy? Why are we so drawn to the endless repetition of superiority poses? These are things we can work on which don't depend on anybody else.
[quote=DJT, 6.5.20]George [Floyd] is looking down right now, and saying 'This is a great thing that's happening for our country.' This is a great day for him, it's a great day for everybody. … This is a great, great day in terms of equality.[/quote]
[b]DESPICABLE.
RACIST.
CUNT.[/b]
:mask: - FDT.
Eric Hoffer, in a book called True Believer, wrote ......extremist cultural movements, whether religious, social, or national, arise when large numbers of frustrated people, believing their own individual lives to be worthless or spoiled, join a movement demanding radical change. But the real attraction for this population is an escape from the self, not a realization of individual hopes: "A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation"
And, "...when we renounce the self and become part of a compact whole, we not only renounce personal advantage but are also rid of personal responsibility. There is no telling to what extremes of cruelty and ruthlessness a man will go when he is freed from the fears, hesitations, doubts and vague stirrings of decency that go with individual judgment.”
I think this is the primary reason that Trump voters ignore so many faults of the man. They have a power now that they never had before and they want to keep it. The left looks at all the faults that we feel are harmful to all of us, while the Trump voters just want to be part of a winning team. The left feels superior to this position.
Yes, I understand that. Ive been saying that since he got in, you dont have to sell me on any of that. I think I misunderstood what you meant when you said to just ignore Trump. You mean ignore Trump in so far as listening to him will only make it harder to try and relate to his base/followers? Is that right?
I also agree anti-trumpers need to self reflect. The way id put it is they would get more mileage if they admitted their own part in creating the hyper-polarised state of affairs.
Hey, good post Monitor. I'm all for heading in this direction. Perhaps this is a semantic quibble, but I would phrase it enlargement of the self. That is, by attaching our identity to some ideology, club, sports team, nation, ethnicity etc we transcend the smallness of the individual and then think of ourselves as something larger.
In my often stated view, this phenomena arises directly out of the nature of what we're all made of psychologically, thought. The evidence for that is that this tribal phenomena is seemingly universal, appearing in all times and places.
Quoting Monitor
Well yes, that's called politics I think. :-) Trump is addressing, or at least pretending to address, issues that others largely ignore, and so he has won a following.
As example, what is the Democratic policy on immigration? Have any idea? Do we want the population of the US to grow? To shrink? To stay the same? Do we want to allow immigration based on need, or on ability to contribute? What is our game plan for controlling the border? Do we even want to have borders?
If a citizen doesn't wish for the US to become as populated as India or China, why would they choose Democrats? Have we expressed any concern at all, or even any interest, in the the fact the US population has doubled in my lifetime? Did you even know that? And if a citizen DOES want the US to become very populated, again why would they choose Democrats? In either case, in any case, what is our credible plan?
We have no plan. At least none that has been clearly articulated. And so by abandoning the field we leave it wide open for some hyper confident con man to win the day, because at least he has something to say on the issue.
How would we respond to a chronic troll on the forum? Ok, first we would yell at him for awhile. Then we would see the pointlessness of the yelling and would proceed to the next step, denying the troll that which he most craves, attention.
Trump wants us to yell at him, based on a philosophy that all publicity is good publicity, a strategy that may have (not entirely sure here) been crafted by Roger Stone the long time Republican dirty trickster.
So when we yell about and at Trump, we're doing exactly what he wants us to do. We're keeping the spotlight on Trump, and feeding the polarization machine he needs to keep his base fired up. Trump needs his base to be fired up because they are a minority of the population. But if they vote more than we do because they're fired up, they can be a majority of the voters.
In any case, Trump voters are the real power we should be addressing. After Trump is gone they will still be there. And if we keep ignoring their concerns and calling them idiots they will find somebody else to vote for other than us.
Yeah, I don't agree. Is that ok?
If I support Trump, I'm an outcast. Then I'm afriad that you don't deserve a voice in politics.
You would threaten people with force for support of a right wing party; isn't the philosophy of that as simple as a left bias? Is outcasting Trump supporters maturity? If you look at the comment section on all Trumps tweets, you get spammers saying lies; if you watch CNN, you get anti Trump lies. Here, on philosophy forum, you get lies and left bias. There is no truth or righteousness to all these claims you've made.
You've said(something along the lines of) 'Trump supporters are bad, demonize them' - you have not provided any reason for demonization other than, 'they support Trump'.
People have the right to vote Trump, if they want, and are not demons for doing so.
Trump has only succeeded, even in the coronavirus matter - if thought about logically. It was a poor start but the pandemic was hard to forsee. In response to 'Trump has succeeded' you'll probably say 'no he has not' with no reason. Assuming you militant leftists are not angelic, above all other minds, I'll stick with my right wing vote.
Yo fuck this forum it's so perverse.
For plaguing or threatening to plague the more healthy part of the world and punishing whites, you will one day find yourself burning, or being chopped up.
Quoting rec
Hello, rec, and welcome to the forum. That’s a valid point and indeed I am myself a quarter Mexican. My inclination to wish western downfall is of course based on a bad case of TDS. Know any good therapists?
I'm sorry we're not racist enough for you. Try the Breitbart comment section maybe?
Who represents us?
A hate-filled narcissist fantasist.
Hate Trump, hate the American voter. But your hate cannot match his or ours because you are too reasonable. Understand, or lose again.
:up:
Way to go democrats, that shows who is in the wrong doesnt it. Maybe its time to do way with all the moral righteousness anyway and just reduce it to pure hatred. Seems to be working for the black community.
Oh, the humanity.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/10/know-signs-how-tell-if-your-grandparent-has-become-an-antifa-agent/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most
The artist stated that he doesn't "want the dogs of Manhattan to feel left out of the pee party." Seems pretty decent of him.
Humiliating Trump in effigy is the consolation prize for those who cannot do it in reality. All they can do is preach to the choir with their little crafts.
Quoting Monitor
Only contingency, not 'progress'. I'm an absurdist bricoleur bluesman. Like "Didi & Gogo". The only sense 'tikkun olam' makes to me/us is struggle-in-solidarity.
As if.
"If we stop testing right now, we'd have very few cases, if any."
And Donald didn't complain about it. That's a point for Donald.
Certainly not everything he said over the weekend was sane.
Trump asked China’s Xi to help him win reelection, according to Bolton book
Trump didn't know that Britain was a nuclear power and inquired if Finland was part of Russia, according to John Bolton's bombshell memoir
Trump was willing to halt criminal investigations as 'favor' to dictators, Bolton book says
Trump backed Xi over concentration camps for Uighur Muslims, ex-aide Bolton claims
Trump said it would be 'cool' to invade Venezuela because the country is 'really part of the United States,' according to John Bolton's new book
Trump told China's authoritarian leader that Americans want him to change the US Constitution so he can serve more than 2 terms, according to John Bolton's new book
Trump cared little about North Korea's nuclear weapons and treated Kim Jong-un summit as publicity exercise, Bolton says
Quite a lot to unpack here.
And yeah, people don't know that we aren't part of Russia. Who would have known? (So that's why he was so nice to us Finns!)
Which bits are which? Or is it all both lies and classified?
He asked to be subpoenaed by the Senate...and would have testified under subpoena. They, cowardly, refused to do it. McConnell would not even let it come to a vote.
That did cause me a chuckle. It's classified information if he can block it and lies if he can't.
“Make sure I win,” Trump allegedly told Xi during a dinner at the G20 conference in Osaka, Japan last summer. “I will probably win anyway, so don’t hurt my farms.… Buy a lot of soybeans and wheat and make sure we win.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/06/boltons-unredacted-book-shows-trump-trying-to-hide
Because he's a shithead war hawk who is doing this for profit and nothing else. He knew about Trump's conversation with Xi, said and did nothing about it until he could turn it into a monetizable moment for his book. Don't give him money.
Apparently there's a criminal investigation into Giuliani.
Edit: Could also have something to do with what Bolton says in his book.
Quoting tim wood
Selfless heroes of the press have already suffered through it so that you don't have to.
Read the juicy bits in their reports and be glad that it's them and not you.
The Durham report is coming down the pipe, and all DOJ offices may be involved with the material under review, including the Southern District of New York, The Eastern District of New York, The Eastern District of Virginia, The Washington DC District, and probably even main justice. Hopefully we get to watch the swamp drain in real time. He will be fired, just like his predecessor.
Fuck dude this is really blowing my mind. A man is a man, and a book is a book. Two different things. Shit this is profound and insightful, thank you so much for this.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/DeAnna4Congress/status/1274522762502160386[/tweet]
Things might go so that they don't even debate.
What do you need debates for in your elections? Just go and vote if you can.
And Seattle, of course...
I don't forecast the elections to be ugly. I think they will be hideously ugly, even if Biden isn't as inflammatory to the Republicans as Hillary was.
Perhaps the most interesting factoid to come out of the Bolton book is that Trump actually wants to be re-elected. I had always assumed that Trump would be fine with loosing the re-election and leveraging his status as ex-president to stroke his ego. But, if the Bolton book is accurate in that regard, he has actually invested his ego into being re-elected. That will guarantee it gets very ugly.
Well I was working on the assumption that he didn't really want the job, just the prestige that comes with it, and for that it kinda doesn't matter whether he has one or two terms. But maybe that assumes too much reflection on Trump's part.
Yes.
I think he would have been happy to lose to Hillary, actually. He could have had that TV station he was thinking about and would be listened in the right-wing-realm as the prime Hillary-basher there is. Him being a presidential candidate of the Republican party would give him this clout.
Now it's different. He has finally gotten people like Barr who do what he wants. He has gotten comfortable with the Presidency. And he thinks he will look like a failure if he's a single term President. And perhaps he fears that he will be in court in no time if he isn't a President.
One hopes.
Not buying that he drank a whole glass of water; like the stadium, I bet the glass was only half full.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/24/michael-flynn-trump-judge-court-case
Let’s hope this comes back to haunt the unelected, anti-Trump bureaucrats who have abused their power.
So when Sleepy Joe Biden and his running mate Crooked Hillary cheat to win the 2020 election they can appoint Barack Osama Bin Laden as Attorney General and he can unilaterally order the Department of Justice to drop all charges against the corrupt FBI agents who are soon to be indicted by Saviour Durham.
Don't you think the ruling sets a dangerous precedent?
Quoting NOS4A2
Let's instead hope this comes back to haunt the unelected and elected pro-Trump bureaucrats who have abused their power. Or better yet, let's hope the decision is revisited by the full court and a better ruling is made.
He plead guilty to save his son from the same fate, and his family from financial ruin, arguing that he had been coerced into it and that the government had withheld exculpatory evidence. His case was, from top to bottom, unjust.
The Flynn case, the arguments, the rulings etc. is public knowledge.
Why not? It would give conspiracy theorists a little red meat, for which they are probably starving given the collapse of it over the past couple years.
And many times you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist. Implosion of the economy with a pandemic going on will assure the continuation of this… even if Trump isn't re-elected.
Only a once-in-a-century pandemic could disrupt such a term, which is amazing considering all that was thrown at it. And here you guys promised us the next Hitler...
I assume you're joking, a wide range of things could disrupt so fragile an economy. Not the current administrations' fault, though I think it could be argued that they've made it less stable.
M_oscow
A_ss(et)
G_overning
A_merica
was told[/b] that his "handler" Putin has been paying Afghan Taliban to kill US troops. Told months ago. And, like the Covid-19 outbreak, the pos-in-Chief has ignored this danger to Americans & our national interests. 'Treason' by inaction - depraved indifference mass murder - at best.
Nah.
He simply is inept at leadership and a very ignorant person with huge personal flaws, even if he's a great populist orator for a certain type of crowd. Trump is not the culprit of the downfall of US leadership and Superpower status, he is just contributor that makes the downfall even more rapid.
Quoting 180 Proof
180 Proof, many Americans really don't care at all about "national interests". National interests are the agenda of the evil political elites, so in their mind Trump is doing a great job!
Quoting ssu
What makes you think the USA will never recover. Other countries recovered from much worse. Even Germany recovered after Hitler.
Quoting ssu
Did you do a survey? or is this just another one of your prejudices?
Let's put another way. It's unlikely that the US will ever be in a position it was in the Eisenhower era. Now it's rather unlikely that the US will find itself in the position where it was at the end of the Cold War.
The downfall is in issues really like Global leadership. Things like what the US President says doesn't matter (yeah, people don't read the tweets no, but I mean in the classic sense). People in other countries don't care and vaguely even know what the US leadership is doing. Just like, well, with China now. Do we really care what the Chinese leader has said lately? Someone can vaguely know the "One Belt, One Road"-initiative.
That's the "downfall". And as long as the US dollar enjoys the status it has, there's not so much that actually changes for Americans.
I’m not too fussed to tell you the truth. Do you think all attention and pressure on the US has benefited it? Keep in mind all the foreign terror attacks and wasteful wars.
How about having the ability to print trillions of dollars with the World accepting the printed money (or treasuries) and finance the state through all that debt financing? Sorry to say, but part of your wealth (which is distributed quite inequally, as you know) exists because of your Superpower status.
You see, other countries would have had long time ago a current account crisis.
What should the US do about that now? Terribly sorry you don’t like the US, we’ll stop being the word’s currency, just for you.
Quoting ssu
True; but what's also true: Active duty US military care. US military veterans & retirees care. Families of US military personnel care. That'll be far more than enough defections from his "base supporters" (along with foreclosed farmers, uninsured coalminers, dead & terrified seniors in Florida & Arizona, etc) to guarantee Putin's Running Mate gets run out of office in November. Or, more mercifully, maybe taken-out before then "by one of his own" MAGAts who's been PTSD'd by the quadruple losses of "American Greatness" to pandemic, depression-level unemployment, mass social unrest and now this traitorous betrayal of US soldiers to GRU-financed Taliban hit squads. Yeah, FDT - "great job"! :up: :shade:
And he’s still doing a better job than any grandiloquent, Ivy-league lawyer that has dominated the position until now. That’s the best part: I get to watch Trump reveal the ineffectiveness of establishment politicians, and a better country to boot.
I am not confident in Trump’s re-election. So you will probably get your wish, if you haven’t lit the country in flames or torn it down by then.
Neither is Trump apparently.
Donald Trump Says Joe Biden Is 'Going to Be Your President' Because 'Some People Don't Love Me, Maybe'
He said a lot more than that. One should watch the whole thing than rely on out of context quotes.
"Protests have significantly shifted public opinion on race, creating potential political allies for a movement that was, within the past decade, dismissed as fringe and divisive. It also highlights how President Trump is increasingly out of touch with a country he is seeking to lead for a second term: While he has shown little sympathy for the protesters and their fight for racial justice, and has continued to use racist language that many have denounced, voters feel favorably toward the protests and their cause.
A survey of battleground states critical to November’s election largely mirrored the national results. Fifty-four percent of voters in those states said the way the criminal justice system treats black Americans was a bigger problem than the incidents of rioting seen during some demonstrations. Just 37 percent said rioting was a bigger problem, though Mr. Trump and his allies have tried to discredit the protests by focusing on some isolated incidents of violence.
It has not worked."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/27/us/politics/trump-biden-protests-polling.html
Obama brought the country out of the Great Recession, and was re-elected. I think that even Trump’s supporters realize on some level that he’s far too incompetent to deal with the current state of affairs.
Yet, there he is dealing with the current state of affairs, in a fashion I agree with, and in opposition to interests I despise. I could not have asked for a better job.
You could not have asked for better than 125,000 dead from COVID, a huge economic recession, and the largest hike in the national debt of any president ever in one term?
You must really hate America.
For once we agree, anything short of "the next Hitler" looks pretty good and better than expected.
Most Trump hate is unjustified, born of that militant-pseudo-intellectual, spook word trend. For example, people claim 'nonsense' without evidence and are able to maintain social security. This systemic abuse of all communication is what keeps Biden strong. People ignore him fumbling simple functions, and he jumps on the left's troll train, claiming 'Trump is nonsense'. What? The left is just anti-right. It is filled with corruption, terror and other stupidity - completely anti-west.
Trump has a great track record as president.
Trump haters are just non-intellectuals abusing America's system. All aboard' the leftist troll train, just claim nonsense and suppress, by whatever means, any sensible discussion. Otherwise, folks will notice the truth about Biden (he's stupid) and his policies (anti-white and anti-American).
Do you claim that you don't watch the news or that you haven't been updated?
Why should I provide evidence for you? You're clearly a waste of mind.
The West has a fine tradition of corruption and stupidity, just look at who we’ve freely elected as our leader. Truly terrifying.
Are you suggesting that being anti-white is being anti-American?
But totally not a racist, right?
They're not just saying that Trump sucks, they're calling his supporters stuff like "Nazi fascist pig," etc. The kind of things that sound better coming from Antifa kids. It's embarrassing to hear it come from the elderly who one might hope would have acquired a bit more wisdom in their long lives.
The bolded qualify FDT aka "Individual-1" as a traitor vis-à-vis knowing about and ignoring Russian bounties on US troops in Afghanistan.
Sarcasm, that's really what you're going with? Lol oh dear. :grimace:
Running desperately short on excuses at this point, clearly. Guess that shouldn't be surprising.
Is someone who has had two kids more trustworthy than someone who had one? What if you're child died when she was four, does that still count? Do Vietnam war vets beat Korean war vets? Does Trump beat the old fella who owns a jewelry shop on the corner?
Sorry, for being cynical. Well, I'm really not that sorry.
I’m not being an ageists. Did you watch the video? I can’t imagine you condoning their behavior. It’s obviously absurd and counterproductive to yell at a Trump supporter that they’re a nazi fascist pig merely for publicly expressing their support.
That’s my honest impression, though I could be wrong.
Did you watch the video?
I did, and that seems like quite the leap based on the short interaction we can see in the clip, and especially in light of all the other relevant context here (its no secret that plenty of actual, literal white supremacists are big fans of Donald Trump, or that a very non-negligible portion of his political rhetoric and governing history qualifies pretty uncontroversially/straightforwardly as white identity politics.. and that this was a not-insignificant factor in his election and his continued support from Republican voters)
Just like the stats here show how a great job he has done:
And as a Canadian, you don't have anything to fear as your government has it far better in control too.
At least GOP never Trumpers are more vocal, which is in my view is a great sign.
I do like the US, Wheatley. Yet is being truthful and realistic an act of hostility?
You could do what many have already said you should do: if you still have this lucrative opportunity, do something productive with it. Invest in R&D, in infrastructure, do something about your ultra-expensive health care system which performs so poorly. List goes on, but I think you know it too...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/treasonstickers/status/1243745187559403520[/tweet]
I'm thinking of buying his book. :joke:
Or do we already have that sentence already?
You are absolutely correct, NOS. The trouble with these leftists is that they all want to disregard the part of the perjury laws that say that if you have a good reason for lying under oath, it is no longer perjury.
The “other relevant context” could be skewing perception.
They guy was being taunted with “where’s your white hood?” and the like, just for showing Trump support. I’d have difficulty not responding sarcastically to such childishness, personally.
The typical ploy of blaming Trump for the incompetence and failures of the states, the worst of which are governed by democrats. The fact is Trump is not allowed to govern the states. He cannot enact health policy in New York, for example.
It’s the same in Canada. Quebec was harder hit than British Columbia, and have diverging policies, each with their own health officers and laws. So one cannot blame Trudeau for Quebec without praising him for BC.
And that the whole thing was brought up in March in the NSC, which isn't an intelligence gathering entity, but a policy decision making entity, makes it clear that this was not just speculative intel. As if Trump didn't know it? Nonsense.
I have said earlier and I will say again that the Trump Presidency is the greatest intelligence win in history ever achieved by anybody. And those denying it now will deny, forget it and move on just like those who believed that Saddam Hussein conspired with Al Qaeda and then that President Bush just got bad intel. But that of course is little compared to Trump. But I'm an optimist: Trump will be the worst President in US history.
Putin can only hope that indeed he has been successful of dividing the US that facts don't matter anymore. (He is now just paving the road to be the Russian president until 2036, btw)
True. You did however mention my ideology. What you meant by that is less clear now than it was initially. In case it has any relevance, I too think that Trumps brand of populism enlists an element of racism.
I noticed a news article this morning that the woman yelling “fucking nazi fascist pig” at Trump supporters was getting major props online. I seriously don’t get it. I imagine it might feel good on some base level to vent frustrations at those you feel deserve it. A tantrum, basically.
Perhaps some people suffer from Trump Derangement syndrome after all huh? :wink:
No, it was a PST (public senior tantrum).
Thats Agist. Lol
There's a biological basis to agism. :cool:
Try that sentence with a different “ism” in it. Suddenly not so shades worthy huh?
I'm not really an ageist. Sorry if I offended any old people on this thread.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-white-power-retweet-set-011126104.html
For those that support Trump if you've ever questioned whether Trump was a racist this video and him retweeting it and glorifying it clearly shows where he stands.
Hardly sarcasm.
Quoting praxis
You're probably one of those people who don't think racism exists because you don't see it.
Quoting praxis
It was quite wrong
AMEN!
He sounds like he was being sarcastic!
:lol:
What does Trump have to do finally to scare the sheep?
The woman yelling that wasn’t a Holocaust survivor. There may have been one in one of the golf carts she was yelling at as they passed by. I can’t imagine how that would feel.
How exactly did you reach that conclusion? Wait, don’t tell me, it might require you to rationally consider the issue.
It’ll probably come out eventually but for now...
Because you said this:
Quoting praxis
And this:
Quoting praxis
It was quite wrong
And what if it turns out that Stokes was being sarcastic, would the probability of me seeing racism improve at all? Sorry if that’s an awkward question but your logic is still unclear.
I don’t see someone at a senior citizen’s complex where nothing but the elderly some who are protesting, why would a man state “white power” for sarcasm? It makes no damn sense. It also doesn’t make sense how you could conceive it to be sarcasm in the first place.
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2241964/statement-by-assistant-to-the-secretary-of-defense-for-public-affairs-on-intell/
The pentagon has found no corroborating evidence of recent allegations regarding Russian bounties. It’s starting to look like 2016 all over again.
Because he was being taunted with "where's your white hood?" and whatever else. Why does the Miami Herald suspect that he may have been sarcastic? Is the Miami Herald racist? :scream:
Why'd you change what the DOD article means by leaving out the words in bold, NOS?
Quoting NOS4A2
:shade: -???????!
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/06/29/white-house-aware-in-2019-of-russian-bounties-on-american-troops-in-afghanistan-officials-say/
Read all about it: Putin's Bitch is a traitor!
(which is why none of the GOP cunts in Congress are defending this POS-in-Chief)
:mask: ~It's early yet, there's much more to come, folks.
Right and so of all comebacks and possible satire why would you validate a heckler’s claim by saying white power?
But let’s focus on why some anti-Trump protestors feel this way. Well, first we can start with Trump’s daddy being involved in a KKK riot. Then we can mention the Central Park 5. Then we can discuss his housing practices to which he was sued for, all the way to his birtherism accusation which was inherently racist.
Knowing that, people still support him and still give him the benefit of doubt. Then we can look at his majority base which was dubbed the “silent majority.” Many of whom did not like a black man in office for 8 years regardless whether you liked Obama or not. They hung effigy’s if Obama. They made pictures of Obama, his wife and kids as apes.
They challenged Obama’s citizenship. Not to mention in Charlottesville a white supremacist killed another white person because she stood on the right side of history. That is why hecklers who are anti-Trump, say such things because majority of his base (not all) subscribe to his white nationalist rhetoric.
Quoting praxis
The Miami Herald is not the only news outlet you do realize Trump has faced backlash in the media?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1232356
There are more media outlets than Miami Herald because apparently it wasn’t taken as satire
Right, according to “US officials with direct knowledge”, the sine qua non of anti-trump conspiracy theories.
sar·casm
noun
The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
i·ro·ny
noun
The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"Where's your white hood?"
"Where's your white hood?"
"Racist! Racist!"
"Yeah, you got it, white power! white power!"
Quoting Anaxagoras
I agree that Trumps populism contains an element of racism, by design. I don't think that yelling at his supporters that they're fucking nazi fascist pigs and racists is the best approach to dealing with them. If nothing else, it plays into the hands of whoever benefits from a divided nation.
Quoting Anaxagoras
I've noticed that. I've also noticed that you didn't answer my question, which is fine.
Do notice the media where published.
But we can see the Trumpist response already: it didn't happen, all the various intel was dubious (as if then it would be taken to NSC to think about the response). It's the Deep State against Trump! It's all a sham. A conspiracy. And note that everything about it will be now top secret.
Only afterwards we'll see from the documents that indeed the President was briefed about the issue. As always. Above all, now as it is "a hoax" or "unconfirmed intel", Trump will not do anything. Because "he wasn't informed" lie goes only so far as now he surely is informed.
And hence the reason why Putin would in the first place indeed do such a thing.
At least Trump is getting his version of angry mothers of killed soldiers that Russia has "had a problem with" since the first war in Chechnya: Mothers of military sons killed in Afghanistan want probe of Russian death bounties.
According to this, "some of Trump’s own senior intelligence officials viewed the information as credible enough to warn the Pentagon and allies so they could ensure they had measures in place to protect their forces in Afghanistan, and to begin developing options for responding to the Russian operation, national security adviser Robert C. O’Brien said Wednesday."
You can watch the interview here.
It might not have been corroborated but that doesn't mean there was no substance to it and so dismissed. Preparations were made in response to the raw intelligence. The concern here is over whether or not Trump was briefed on this. I don't know much about the inner workings of government, but are Presidents only briefed on things after they've been proved? Or are they made aware of potential matters of national security? There are reports saying that it was included in at least two written briefs (although there are also reports that Trump often doesn't read his briefs). There are also reports that he was orally briefed last year. If this is true then Trump needs to explain why he has continued to be so favourable to Russia, even suggesting that they be reinstated to the G7. That doesn't seem at all appropriate, and once again shows that Trump trusts Putin over U.S. intelligence (or worse yet, doesn't care if it's true).
Perhaps the sources were wrong (or lying) when they claimed that Trump was briefed, but evidently they weren't wrong about there being intelligence that Russia was offering these bounties. Clearly there was some degree of verification before the New York Times (and others) ran the story. Of course, being journalists and not government officials with direct access to confidential material, they're not going to know everything. So honestly, what do you want from them? Should the news only report on things that are already public? Or are you going one step further and suggesting that journalists are fiction writers who fabricate stories and lie about them having sources? Does the New York Times have brainstorming sessions where they think of something that sounds plausible and that hurts Trump and then publish it? By some improbable luck, did their made-up story on Russian bounties just happen to be true (even if the part about Trump being briefed wasn't so lucky)?
If I were a journalist and John Bolton contacted me to tell me about this intelligence and that Trump had been briefed, but asked to be kept anonymous, and if he'd shown himself to be a reliable source in the past, and if two or more other government officials had contacted me to say the same thing, then I'd run the story. Wouldn't you? That's how journalism and anonymous sources work. Just look at Deep Throat and the Watergate scandal. There's sense in this even if it isn't perfect or doesn't always pan out.
[quote=A Real President (1962)]We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.[/quote]
:fire:
[quote=A Reality TV President (2020)]Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away ... Don’t forget, we have more cases than anyone in the world, but why? Because we do more testing. When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn’t do any testing, we would have very few cases ... Maybe it is overrated ... Testing is a double-edged sword. … So I said to my people, slow the testing down please.[/quote]
:mask:
It's like as if American has less words today, you know?
*mode off*
Literally.
I bet a shiny nickel that one of his own will go Lee Harvey Oswald on that ass-gibbon. Let's hope this dead twat tweeting is the last president of the Confederacy and that he takes the fuckin "lost cause" and as many bleach-drinking, maskless, Karen & Kyle "deplorables" as possible with him when he goes away - "miraculously!" - full metal jacket, and all.
Happy Juneteenth, Maw (yeah, my red white & Blues is still stuck on that).
It's interesting what constitutes corroborating evidence to invested parties. US troops have testified to it. Afghan security council members have testified to it. Various Afghan tribes have testified to it. Captured Islamic militants have testified to it. The Taliban themselves have testified to it. We have intercepted large sums of money flowing from GRU to Taliban accounts.
But where's the corroborating evidence? I can only imagine this constitutes Putin saying, in English, "Yeah we totally did that and it was awesome", with Trump slamming him a high five.
I wonder whether Trump apologists would want the police to handle a local drug gang in their suburb the same way. "Sure, we can see those guys giving drugs to those other guys, and those other guys giving money to these guys, and these guys giving money to this guy, and literally every single person involved testifies thatthis is what's happening. But where's the corroborating evidence?"
Even Trump has moved his position from "It's unconfirmed" to "I didn't know." Imagine loving Trump so much you have to make yourself slower-witted than that.
I’d be weary of it for ethical reasons. The public should have as much information as possible in order to judge the reliability and motivations of sources. What if these “officials” are Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff? Wouldn’t you want to know that? Don’t you think the public deserves to know that?
I think the story, and source protection, is more important. Whether or not Russia is paying bounties and whether or not Trump was briefed matters far more than who leaked the information.
Besides, I'm pretty sure it must have been someone who works for the administration. Who else would know about what has been reported to Trump? And as far as I know the Gang of Eight (including Schiff and Pelosi) were only briefed on Thursday.
So this questioning of the source just seems like deflection from the main issue. We know whoever it was is at least somewhat trustworthy; there really was intelligence on Russia offering bounties – intelligence that was reliable enough that measures were prepared. It's not a stretch to consider that they were correct about Trump knowing about this.
The onus is now on Congress to investigate the matter. They did it over Benghazi (10 times, in fact), so why not this too? That's part of their job after all.
Trump already has said the whole thing is a hoax. Fake news, never happened. End of story.
And, btw, both Russia and the Taleban have denied it. So I guess we have to believe what they say. :roll:
Sure, you can have later, decades from now, even interviews with the GRU agents confirming this and confirming everything, but that doesn't matter. Then when you have multiple detailed histories done about the Trump administration (and believe me, there will be a ton of literature), everything will be even more clear as it's now. But who cares, it's just history then!
According to “multiple intelligence sources familiar with the briefing”, Schiff was briefed in February, but for some reason took no action.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/02/schiff-learned-of-russian-bounty-intelligence-in-february-withheld-information-from-congress-and-took-no-action
So perhaps an investigation is indeed in order. I suppose we’ll see.
Suppose Schiff was derelict. Does this somehow imply Trump was not?
The bounty issue was conveyed to Trump in his written intelligence briefings - which his senior staff also receive. Trump is derelict on an ongoing basis for failing to read these, but even if we set that aside because everyone knows he doesn't read them - why wasn't this verbally raised to his attention by his staff? Trump is responsible for the activities, and inactivities, of his staff. Their incompetence is his problem - he appointed them. Compound this with the fact that Trump's initial reaction was that it was a MSM hoax, which was clearly wrong.
I couldn't care less if Schiff gets investigated. It has zero bearing on Trump's dereliction of duty.
If members of an intelligence committee are briefed with secret material, they cannot talk about it. Yet it's the action that counts. That is what matters.
And Trump acted just as I predicted him to do: he won't do anything. Even it say that there would have been some possible truth to this, would have been too much for Trump. For Trump, this has to be fake news.
And Putin could actually predict this outcome very easily. He's a brilliant case officer.
(Seldom Vlad smiles so happily:)
Not Trump related per se, but Gorsuch has been a very interesting justice so far...
Happy Juneteenth to you too!
:fire:
It wasn’t raised to his attention because it wasn’t credible intel and could not be corroborated. It’s gossip. So it’s no surprise opponents have grasped onto it.
If you truly believe the intel was not credible, why did you blast Schiff?
The publicly available information on this intelligence does not support your view that it wasn't "credible". It was unproved, but that doesn't imply it shouldn't be a cause of of concern. - it was not presented as a questionable, unsupported rumor. It was not a "hoax" as Trump initially alleged, and it WAS in the written briefing material he received. A competent President would have known it was not a hoax - he had the information, but failed to read it.
There's no way to spin this in way that is positive for Trump.
But there is a way to spin it so it is negative for Trump. Hence the leaker, the Democrats, the fake news singing the same songs in unison. They want hearings on unverified information, the leaks of which may have compromised ongoing intel and operations and even lives.
I'll quote myself from last week as you seem to have forgotten:
Quoting Michael
It's more than gossip.
It’s gossip. Robert C. O’Brien also said the reporting was a hoax, and that the information was unverified and not corroborated. This is why you should probably view the context rather than taking on faith what the WaPo tells you to.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?473567-1/national-security-adviser-robert-obrien-president-previously-briefed-russian-bounties
It IS negative for Trump. It highlights the fact that he doesn't read the written intelligence reports he's given. We knew this previously only because of leaks from his staff, but it had not been admitted by the administration. It also shows he's an idiot for his knee-jerk "fake news" response when he first heard about it. This is absolutely not fake news.
It's interesting that you make the most positive possible assumptions about this. We really don't know how credible the intelligence was, but we do know it was credible enough to include in his briefing. You parrot the administration (talking about singing in unison!) stressing that it's "unverified" - which is the general nature of intelligence.
Why was it leaked? Was it strictly for partisan purposes, or was it because someone had a genuine concern? I acknowledge it could be either, or it could be both. Why can't you?
There is no fact that Trump doesn’t read intelligence reports. It is fake news because the story is, according to the administration, false.
You make the most negative possible assumptions about this, and you also assume the mind-states of the president in the worst possible ways. You parrot the partisan news and the line of the democrat party, so if you don’t like hearing the other side of the story, you might want to include it in your analysis from here on out.
[quote=O’Brien]Well I think what is a hoax is the initial reporting ... that the President had been briefed about this unverified, uncorroborated intelligence and chose not to take action on it.[/quote]
He didn't say that the Russia bounties is a hoax. He says that "we've been working for several months on options for the President". I don't think they do that on gossip.
Also Top US general says Russian bounty intelligence 'wasn't proved' but 'proved enough to worry me':
[quote=McKenzie]"The intelligence wasn't proved to me. It was proved enough to worry me. It wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law. That's often true in battlefield intelligence," McKenzie said, according to a transcript provided by the Defense Department.[/quote]
Again, more than gossip.
Yes, he said the reporting that the president was briefed was a hoax.
If you don’t like the word use another one. Rumors? Whispers? Tales?
You said "[Russian bounties] wasn’t raised to [Trump's] attention because it wasn’t credible intel and could not be corroborated. It’s gossip. So it’s no surprise opponents have grasped onto it."
But the intelligence on Russian bounties isn't gossip. It's credible enough that the administration spent months preparing options and briefed allies.
I, for one, don't believe that intelligence credible enough to spend months preparing options and briefing allies wouldn't be reported to the President, and so I don't believe the claims that Trump wasn't briefed. I believe that they're lying because the truth would make Trump look bad.
You use the euphemism “intelligence”; I use the word gossip.
It wasn’t credible enough to brief the president or Vice President or the gang of eight. None of it matter anyways, because the leaks have ruined any chance at verification, putting everyone involved at risk.
It was credible enough to spend months preparing options and to brief allies and to worry that general.
I'm not using any euphemism. I'm using the exact word that O'Brien and McKenzie used.
It wasn’t credible enough to do anything, according to McKenzie.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-general-doubts-russian-bounty-program-killed-us/story?id=71653874
It wasn't credible enough for him to do anything, but was proved enough to worry him, and was credible enough that the Trump administration did something about it; according to O'Brien they have spent months preparing options, briefed the Pentagon, and briefed allies.
Then what is the problem again?
That, contrary to your claim, it isn't just gossip.
I wonder why you’d quibble about my use of the word “gossip” while leaving the media’s hysteria, which perhaps ruined all avenues of finding the truth of the matter, untouched.
Because the media aren't posting comments on here, whereas you are.
But less flippantly, I went over that here. Journalists were told by sources they deemed credible that Russia was paying the Taliban to kill American soldiers and that Trump was briefed on this. It's their job to report this. Their sources were evidently somewhat credible as there really was intelligence that Russia was paying the Taliban to kill American soldiers – intelligence that warranted months of preparation and briefing allies.
So I ask again, what do you want from them? To only report on things which are public or which have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
Great film. Terrible political philsophy.
Might watch that tonight, you've put me in the mood.
I know that if I was given highly classified, highly dubious information, the publication of which could ruin fact-finding missions and put intelligence sources lives at risk, I wouldn’t publish it, especially if it was for the purpose of making the president look bad.
And if the administration says so, it must be true. ROFL! It's pretty ludicrous to think Schiff's staff would have been given the information, but that it would have been omitted from the report Trump receives.
Love the film, but I don't find that it expresses or advocates any real political theme.
So, pretty good news when you understand the subtext. :party:
https://twitter.com/howardfineman/status/1281681337351626752
(Twitter embed isn't working for some reason).
How Trump can even pretend that this isn't a corrupt attempt to protect himself is beyond me. And how his supporters can even pretend to not know this is also beyond me.
There's no benefit of the doubt here. It's corruption, through and through.
That depends on how pessimistic you want to be. "Help me win by breaking the law, and I'll bail you out" is another possible subtext.
Not sure I understand that. It seems more effective to do it in advance as a motivation to break the law if necessary.
He probably doesn’t have a choice. Gotta stand by your partners in crime or they’ll take you down with them.
Why? Do you like it when criminals are spared punishment for their crimes?
I’ve explained my views on Stone before. I think the investigation and prosecution were political and unjust.
Stone was charged with, and found guilty of, lying to Congress and witness tampering. Even if the investigation was inappropriate, that does not excuse Stone's illegal acts.
It's hard to believe that Stone wasn't hiding something, and that's why he lied. We'll never know what it was because he got away with it. No one, other than a friend of the President, could get away with such behavior. Trump does not respect the rule of law.
I have a prediction. If Trump is defeated in November, then sometime before Biden takes office, Trump will pardon everyone, including himself, preemptively, claiming this will put an end to the "witch hunt" once and for all.
Typically US presidents make these political pardon's on the last day of office. Bill Clinton pardoned Susan McDougal from the Whitewater controversy on the last hours of his presidency. But I think Trump has a lot of people to pardon, so better start now.
People in the Trump administration likely are thinking how to make their quick buck before January 20th 2021.
The prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Stone was guilty of witness tampering, obstructing an official proceeding, and five counts of making false statements. He's a criminal and ought be in prison.
His sentence (which was less than the guidelines recommended) being commuted is political and unjust.
He’s still guilty and still a felon the last time I checked. Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller probe were a farce. They spied on a political campaign and ruined the lives of people who should not have been investigated, Stone included.
Just what you quoted there tells what an awesome spymaster Vladimir Putin really is.
Forget the Cambridge Five, forget the top spies of WW2 like Richard Sorge. Vlad really is the all time great. It will be very interesting how the American history depicts this time few decades from now. It's going to be interesting reading.
You're spouting the Trump line about the Mueller investigation being a farce. Even if there were problems with the FISA applications, the investigation was conducted in a legal manner - with legally obtained subpoenas that obligated Stone to tell the truth. He didn't. Why?
I meant the main character's political philosophy, not the film's.
You’re spouting the Pelosi line that the Mueller investigation was a legit investigation. The Steele dossier was payed for by the Clinton campaign and sourced from Russian intelligence, leading to unwarranted spying, investigations and a misinformed western populace, all for the purpose of winning an election—Russian collusion. Any indictments?
Stone was raided by a SWAT team with CNN in tow, and for what?
I love it when you foam at the mouth, Tim. But it’s a shame your insults are as about as good as your arguments.
You're jumping to conclusions about my motivation. I'm focusing on the fact that Stone committed crimes and was convicted. Any possible problem with the initiation of the investigation is irrelevant. Stone committed perjury and witness intimidation. A jury found him guilty. We're supposed to have rule of law. My "why" was intended to solicit an answer that would somehow relate to why he deserved preferential treatment. What makes it OK to commit these crimes? Can everyone expect the same treatment?
Because he was treated unjustly and wasn’t given a fair trial.
Why is it unjust to charge him with perjury, when he lied under oath?
He was raided by an FBI Swat team in the middle of the night with CNN in tow. He was gagged at his trial. His judge and jury forewoman were anti-Trumpers. All because he lied to congress during a farce of an investigation. Note: James Clapper and John Brennan both lies to Congress, but of course they were too busy spying on Americans to receive any punishment.
I don't understand why that matters. The Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS to find real dirt on Trump, not to write a fiction.
The Steele dossier wasn't the basis for the FBI investigation or for the Mueller investigation. The FBI investigation started after they were informed by an Australian diplomat about George Papadopoulos' self-claimed knowledge of Russian intelligence being in possession of emails stolen from the Clinton campaign. The Mueller investigation started after Trump fired Comey.
The Mueller investigation, which started after the election by Trump's appointed Deputy Attorney General had the purpose of winning an election? The FBI investigation, which wasn't made public until after the election, had the purpose of winning an election?
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/01/690305364/fact-check-did-the-fbi-use-unusual-force-when-it-arrested-roger-stone
Also, FYI, Stone was arrested after Trump became President, by an FBI led by a Trump appointee.
You frame these things as if it's the entire government machinery out to get Trump, as if Trump isn't the one ultimately in charge of everything. I can't be bothered to read back on previous posts, but have you at any point held Obama responsible for the FBI under his administration? Would be hypocritical not to do the same for Trump.
I think submitting someone to unjust investigation and treatment, and then convicting them because they weren’t 100% correct during that investigation, warrants leniency, especially for a 70 year old first-time offender. Others are getting let out of jail while he was being thrown in. It would have been certain death for him. I wager you aren’t that callous in real life.
Horowitz report was quite explicit:
“We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order.”
The start of Crossfire Hurricane was equally as flimsy, and had they not had the Steele report, they would not have spied on Americans.
No. If Russians wanted to use active measures in order to destabilize American institutions or democracy, to disparage a political candidate, to meddle in elections, they have done so through the Steele dossier.
Not that I recall. I am unaware of any evidence that Obama is involved in any of this.
Come on...not ”100% correct“? He lied under oath, which is a crime. Relativists point stands, his conviction for his crime was just and your position that it wasn't just is incorrect.
Is it just hard to admit it sometimes because of the constant mud and dishonesty you have to wade through on here?
I said his treatment was unjust, not his conviction. His conviction has not changed.
Roger Stone's Commutation is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems
It looks pretty solid to me, but my judgment may be impaired by bias. Help me be more objective by identifying the falsehoods in the story.
I see nothing wrong with the article save for the implication that speaking to Assange and Wikileaks and having interest in the emails (knowledge of which was already public) was somehow a bad thing. It’s not.
Stone maintains that he wasn’t prosecuted because he was covering for the president, but because he refused to lie about the president.
I wasn't talking about Page's FISA order, as that's not what you were talking about. We were talking about the Mueller investigation, and so I assume by extension Crossfire Hurricane which opened on July 31, 2016.
It wasn't flimsy. One of Trump's foreign policy advisors had advance knowledge of the stolen emails. They were also informed by British and other European intelligence agencies about contacts between Trump's campaign and Russian intelligence.
As for Stone, nothing in this search warrant has anything to do with the Steele dossier.
I stated, “The Steele dossier was payed for by the Clinton campaign and sourced from Russian intelligence, leading to unwarranted spying, investigations and a misinformed western populace, all for the purpose of winning an election—Russian collusion.”
The man who has been investigating the matter for the last year begs to differ. “Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened”.
We’ll see exactly what that means in due course, I’m sure.
And as I pointed out, it wasn't the Steele dossier that lead to the investigation, as the investigation started before the FBI knew about it.
It may be that the Steele dossier was the deciding factor in Page's FISA application, but there's far more to the investigation that just that.
Besides the point, you put spin on that. He lied, thats much different than not being 100% correct. I thought better of you than that, thats all.
What evidence do you have that he intentionally misled Congress? Perhaps I missed it and wouldn’t mind hearing it.
It might be worth pointing out that discussing Stone's conviction and some vague notion of "fair treatment" is playing the propaganda game @NOS4A2 wants to play.
For the judgement of Trumps action, all that is irrelevant. All that matters is that he commuted a sentence in a case he has a personal interest in. Even Stone himself admits as much when he claims he "refused to tell lies about Trump". That's what makes the corruption. Even if Stone's conviction had been some striking miscarriage of justice, it'd still be wrong and corrupt for Trump to commute that sentence.
All else is misdirection in the interest of propaganda.
Btw, from the site: https://www.fbi.gov/about/mission
"Our Priorities
Protect the United States from terrorist attack
Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage
Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes
Combat public corruption at all levels"
So how dare they do what they say their priorities are. It's a conspiracy! :grimace:
Quoting Michael
Well, NOS4A2 is playing a broken record when it's this subject.
The steele dossier was certainly a part of the investigation, directly leading to spying on American citizens, and Steele gave info to the FBI well into 2017. Not only that, but the Steele dossier was probably Russian disinfo and they knew it. In other words, it all worked out for the Russians thanks to the useful idiots doing their bidding.
It’s a shame they let reach and influence the highest echelons of American security, intelligence and media.
It was used to spy on Page. I'm not aware of it being used to spy on anyone else.
We were talking about Roger Stone, remember? You were claiming that his prosecution was unjust because the Mueller investigation and Crossfire Hurricane were illegitimate, and then claimed that the Steele dossier was what lead to these investigations. I'm explaining to you that you're mistaken. Trump firing Comey is what lead to the Mueller investigation and Papadopoulos having advance knowledge of the stolen emails is what lead to Crossfire Hurricane. Both investigations were opened with good reason. And the search warrant for Stone had nothing to do with the Steele dossier.
So all in all, the claim that the investigation into Stone and his subsequent prosecution were unjust is bullshit.
What's the shame of the highest echelons of American security and intelligence (services) doing their job?
The fact is, that all people connected to the Russian active measures campaign were quickly sidelined in a few months during the Trump administration, now later have been put to jail (for Trump to commute them). Yet multiple people in the Trump administration genuinely had nothing to do with this, so this really was a limited case. Mattis, Kelly and other had nothing to do with this and weren't at all in the pro-Russia camp. Bannon had nothing to do with this. Even Rex Tillerson, who the Russians liked and had done business with them, truly wasn't some stooge of them as obviously the CEO understood who he was representing in the role of the secretary of state.
Which is the tragicomic thing here.
I firmly believe that without Trump firing Comey the FBI simply would have gotten out a report that would have said "Yes, the Russians were active in the 2016 elections." Period. And nothing else. Comey wouldn't have said anything more of Trump (would have been as silent as Christopher Wray is now) until he would have retired.
The simple fact was that Trump could have just stated that, yes, apparently Russians tried to meddle in the elections, just as they did and supported JFK, for example. Case over. But Trump being Trump, of course, is so inept that he desperately wants to show his guilt.
It would be the opposite imo, if “striking miscarriage of justice“ occurred, then its moral and not corrupt to correct that injustice isnt it? Isnt a striking miscarriage of justice precisely the circumstance under which you would want an overriding executive decision?
Still besides the point, but I dont blame you for being guarded.
They did their job poorly, as we now know. Not only that but the animus of the lead investigators are well documented.
“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,”
Not in a political case. A single miscarriage of justice is tragic for those involved, but not a threat to the rule of law. Politically motivated executive intereference, on the other hand, is perhaps the biggest threat to the rule of law. Creating even the appearance of such corruption will weaken the judiciary as one of the forces of checks and balances.
The only way such an intervention could possibly be justified is if there was near unanimous consent in the judiciary that the result ought to be corrected. Needless to say, that is not the case.
I said his treatment was unjust because he was treated unfairly. As for crossfire and Mueller, both were opened with bad reason. Both were expensive farces. Both ruined the lives of innocent people, and I stand by that judgement.
And it's the wrong judgement. The investigations were opened for legitimate reasons, the search warrants and prosecution of Stone were lawful, and no innocent lives were ruined; only guilty lives. But that's the price you pay for being a criminal.
Unless you're a friend/co-conspirator of Trump, I guess, and he let's you off.
It’s the right judgement. As we now know, government investigators failed to include key sections of the Papadopoulos transcripts in the Page FISA warrants, including denials the campaign "was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks”. We know Papadopoulos was spied on. We know that zero evidence shows Papadopoulos was guilty of any such thing related to Russia. So what was legitimate about it? Not a damn thing.
Your criminals are innocent of everything you once accused them of, so all you can do is be gleeful they got busted for specious process crimes.
Why is it politically motivated? How did you determine that it was politically motivated rather than correcting an injustice? Im not buying this threat to rule of law bit, nor the appeal to consensus that follows. The fact it benefits any involved party doesnt mean it isnt the right thing to do, it can be both.
Anyone with the power to do so should always correct a miscarriage of justice.
I'm not defending the Page FISA warrants. But their failings do not mean the entire Crossfire Hurricane investigation and subsequent Mueller investigation were illegitimate.
Quoting NOS4A2
Investigations aren't retroactively made illegitimate by not finding sufficient evidence to prove guilt. Papadopoulos had advance knowledge that Russian intelligence would release stolen emails. That was sufficient justification for opening an investigation as Horowitz concluded in his report.
The only people I accused of anything were Trump of obstructing justice and the people in the Trump Tower meeting of violating campaign finance laws. The Mueller report showed that my accusations were founded.
As for Manafort, Stone, Flynn, and the rest, whether a "process crime" or other, they're guilty. Being innocent of one thing (or rather, there not being sufficient evidence to prove guilt) doesn't mean you're not guilty of another. You don't just get to decide that lying to law enforcement, tampering with witnesses, etc. aren't "real" crimes and so ought not be prosecuted.
Is that a serious question? I have eyes and a working brain, that's how I know. Anyways It's the threat of politically motivated interference that does the damage. With corruption, it doesn't so much matter whether it can be proven that there is corruption. It's sufficient that the trust in impartial justice is damaged.
Quoting DingoJones
Not much I can do about you "not buying" the importance of the judiciary being and being perceived as impartial.
Quoting DingoJones
I think the operation of the system of checks and balances is more important than individual corrections. There is a reason this system exists: The people making corrections might themselves be wrong or corrupt.
The facts belie what Stone says. Here's some quotes from the article that you agree is factual:
[i]Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, the unredacted report shows. Yet in written answers the president provided to Mueller’s office in the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Trump insisted that he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign or any discussions with Stone of WikiLeaks. And shortly after he submitted those answers, the unredacted report states, Trump began tweeting publicly in support of Stone—calling him “brave” and congratulating his “guts” for refusing to testify.
...Stone did, indeed, refuse to provide testimony adverse to Trump. And while his precise relationship to WikiLeaks and Assange was never fully explained, he stood trial for lies to Congress denying his efforts to contact WikiLeaks, and for intimidating another witness who could have contradicted those lies. As the judge in Stone’s case put it: “He was prosecuted for covering up for the President." [/i]
It wasn't a refusal to tell lies that got Stone in trouble, it was a failure to admit truths that would make the President look bad, and conceivably could result in a case of perjury against Trump. Further, it appears Trump was dangling a pardon to encourage Stone to stay mum. This seems like pure corruption to me, but surely you must at least recognize how bad this looks.
:up: :up: :up:
Quoting Echarmion
So if someone disagrees with your assessment, or doesnt place the same value as you do on appearances then they have no brain or eyes (or lack the ability to use them)?
Trust in the system is more important than the system actually working and it trumps ethical consideration of individual cases? Gosh, what could go wrong doing it that way?
Quoting Echarmion
Sure there is, you could have a stronger justification for writing off miscarriages of justice.
Do you not see how similar your argument is to the ones used by places like China and N Korea where the state reigns supreme and individuals dont matter?
Quoting Echarmion
Well this is the fundamental disagreement we have. I understand the importance of impartiality, but its not more important than individual corrections. Ultimately the justice system is about justice being served, not the system itself.
Totally not what I said.
Quoting DingoJones
Yes, actually. A lot of things can go wrong either way, but I trust the self-regulation of the judiciary more than I trust the ethical considerations of any one president.
I cannot think of any historical examples where the rot started in the judiciary and tore the house down. I can think of several (including current attempts) where the executive bend the judiciary to their will and used that freedom of movement to tear the house down.
Quoting DingoJones
It's difficult to explain the value of functioning institutions if you're used to thinking mostly in terms of individual merit. Essentially, liberal democracies depend on a lot of unwritten rules about what behaviour is and isn't acceptable to function. Fundamentally, a constitution is a piece of paper. What gives it force is a commitment to actually live the intended system. One of those unwritten rules is that political interference in the judiciary is taboo. By extension, any appearance of such interference is to be avoided.
Without such a taboo, all you have is the trust that every leader will use their powers wisely and not subvert the judiciary for personal gain. But once someone starts, their opponents will be under pressure to respond in kind, and then the democratic system collapses.
I have no idea why you think limiting the powers of the executive is "similar to arguments used by China and North Korea". Are China and North Korea arguing that the executive shouldn't have the right to intervene in the judiciary even with good intentions?
Quoting DingoJones
But everyone knows that no justice system always serves justice. Yet it must still function in some way. Would you install some superintendent with absolute power just so you could overturn those decisions that did not ultimately come out just?
Well thats not the terms I think in, im not a “libertarian, freedom trumps everything individualist type”.
I just wanted to respond to that for clarities sake. If your inclined Ill just stick to the main disagreement at the end. (But we can go through the other stuff too if you think its important.)
Quoting Echarmion
So this doesnt directly address my points, but lets start here cuz I think its our main point of disagreement.
The purpose of a justice system is to serve justice. The fact that a justice system is fallible doesn't mean we should ignore justice, we should still try to make sure justice is being served wherever we can. It doesnt mean we should ignore injustices, that cant be part of the justice system.
I wouldnt want to give absolute power to anyone of course, but ya I think someone making sure there are no miscarriages of justice as best they can would be a good thing. Youre saying that It wouldn't be good because of potential corruption but couldnt that be said about any part of the system at any level?
This article makes a pretty good case for corruption: Roger Stone's Commutation is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters during Monday's daily press briefing that President Trump "believes that the Native American community would be very angry" about Washington's NFL team changing its name source
[B]Meanwhile, back in the world of sane people:[/b], the Navajo Nation put out a statement on the retirement of the Redskins name:
“July 13, 2020 is now a historic day for all Indigenous peoples around the world as the NFL Washington-based team officially announced the retirement of the racist and disparaging “Redskins” team name and logo,” Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez wrote. “This change did not come about willingly by the team’s owners, but by the mounting pressure and advocacy of Indigenous peoples such as Amanda Blackhorse, and many other warriors who fought long and hard for this change.”
[Url=https://www.foxnews.com/sports/navajo-nation-releases-statement-washington-redskins-retire-team-name-logo]source[/url]
I had to double check the first article to see if it was real. It's the sort of thing I expect to see in The Onion.
Yes, I think we're in agreement this far. The system should be set up as well as possible. Usually, the way this is done is to ensure first that everyone has a chance to make their case, and second that all decisions can be appealed at least once. Of course, there are practical and all too often monetary constraints on how much oversight you can establish. Eventually, someone needs to make a final decision that will stand.
Quoting DingoJones
I'd say my argument is about points of failure. A system with appeals and other forms of oversight can control and perhaps even weed out corruption. There is no single point of failure - no single corrupt judge can cause widespread injustice. Even the supreme court has a panel of judges.
On the other hand, there is no oversight over the presidential pardon. It's a single point of failure. A single corrupt president could neuter any conviction they disagreed with. Imagine a democratic president in favour of legalisation of marijuana pardoning every single person convicted for possession. The entire system would become a farce. Now you may agree with their specific goal, but once we establish that in effect voiding laws you dislike is something presidents do, what is keeping the next president from pardoning everyone who beats up members of the opposition?
There is actually recent precedent for this process in the US. Obama widened the application of executive orders to enable "Obamacare". Trump is now using that same precedent to defund and neuter not just healthcare, but any agency he (or his handlers) doesn't like.
Yes, and I would also say having a someone in place to make a judgement call when the systems rules fail at the primary purpose fir which the system was made, in this case justice, would be a good thing as well.
Quoting Echarmion
Thats a good point, though thats less about Trump and more about the presidential pardon. I agree that oversight is needed. Thats the absolute power we mentioned...not a good thing for any system really.
Right, bad optics. I don’t care what people think when justice is on the line. That sort of politics is for the birds.
According to Stone they tried to force him to say things about the president, offering him deals if he had done so. He refused. He was gagged. The jury was stacked. The judge was biased. The perjury was not material. People, including congress itself, lie to congress all the time with no threat of punishment. I think we have different views of corruption.
"According to Stone..."
That's a ludicrous preamble. The man is an incarnate lie.
The fog makes it impossible for anyone inclined to believe Trump to hold him accountable for a mistake. If you give a true believer for his real politics (racist-nationalist populism + corporate handouts + repealing welfare programs), somewhere in the fog they will find a narrative that suits them. Even better, if anyone points out a flaw, there'll be a flipflop statement or reframing to substitute in! Avoid ever having to think about why you believe what you believe! Make America Great Again!
My conspiracy theory is that it's all part of Steve Bannons plan to destroy the institutions of the American political system in order to replace it with a right-wing populist regime.
Russia is certainly in favour of whatever damage and discord can be caused, but too many of the powers that be in the US would have to be enlisted by Russia to support such a move. I therefore accord that low probability. What I find more likely is that you can find plenty of American capitalists who couldn't care less about whether the 99% have a say in government, and are at least complacent to, if not actively engaged in, winding down America's liberal democracy in favor of something more akin to a corporate oligarchy.
Always be grifting.
Hanlon's Razor applies here.
Quoting tim wood That is most likely the correct explanation
He accuses whistleblowers who report on inappropriate behaviour "spies" and suggests that they committed treason and threatens a journalist who took a photo with jail, but when asked about someone accused of rape and sex trafficking, he "wishes her well"?
And also it's great training for how to handle the situation when Trump declares that the elections were rigged and he will not leave office. That will be so much fun.
It's going to be a wonderful fall in the US after the summer.
See article The Lead Federal Agency Responding to Protesters in Portland Employs Thousands of Private Contractors
Btw, do note that the picture above is from a game Arma III, which actually goes well with the Trump fakeness, but Triple Canopy is indeed now looking for people to work as "Top Secret Protective Security Officers" among other positions. For example in California.
And the list goes on...
Just look at careers at https://constellis.com/careers .
:chin:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/1315
And I have to say it’s satisfying watching the feds kick around these privileged twerps.
That's the image the election campaign of Trump wants to show for his devoted followers like you, NOS. Of course those that are actually US Citizens, it should be added. And who cares if the "feds" are just private contractors, right?
Trump desperately wants the riots to continue, because he hasn't anything else going on than the "Law & Order" thing. Basically he's totally clueless about anything else and the campaign team likely has understood that there's no need to take up policy issues as Donald doesn't care a shit about policies, he get's tired of anything that isn't personally about himself. Heck, Trump campaign team should hire people as "antifa/blm-people" to topple monuments of George Washington, there's many statues of him in every state! Of course, knowing what a inept leader he is this kind of cunning plot would be immediately be leaked out to the media probably by Trump bragging himself about it.
The law refers to "employees" of the Department of Homeland Security or transferred from other departments. That excludes contractors doing this.
It also states:
So, their duty is limited to the protection of federal owned or occupied property or persons on such property and that duty only extends outside such property "to the extent necessary" to protect such property or persons. That's a rather limited scope.
Even so, while an arrest without warrant is allowed, this is only possible on specific grounds. Those grounds are:
1. see you committing a crime
2. think it is in the public interest to arrest you in order to find out your identity, preserve evidence, or prevent the continuation of a crime
3. have reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed or are about to commit an indictable offence
4. have reasonable grounds to believe there is an outstanding warrant against you
Finally, only "brief and cursory" holding of a person would be detainment. This does not include moving someone into a vehicle and driving around.
By not arresting the protesters and not limiting themselves to brief and cursory holding of protesters (detention), it's easy to conclude they are engaged in illegal activity.
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/133.245
The alleged manner in which they are arresting protestors is illegal under Oregon law. They're not identifying themselves and not explaining the reason for the arrest.
Here's some citations.
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/133.005
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/131.605
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/131.615
Reading minds again, right ssu? You know what Trump desperately wants, even if he has exclaimed the exact opposite. It’s a shame that such loose prognostications aren’t thrown into the conspiracy theory bin, but it’s probably because so many believe the same and diet on the same media. Meanwhile violent mobs move throughout the streets, trying to light fire to a federal courthouse, looting and assaulting others along the way.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, just look at Donalds own approved adds now.
He's actually very hard to understand. He says he opposes mail-in ballots but uses them himself, and has his campaign promote them to his supporters.
So is he for or against them?
It can't be that he's being deceitful and is just concerned that he'll lose the election if every voter uses them but wants his supporters to use them because some of them might not be able to or want to vote in person, right? That would be very dishonest, and we all know the President wouldn't lie about something as important as the foundation of democracy?
I'm not sure what the harm is in detaining a person of interest for the legal amount of time.
I really disagree.
He gives the preferable answer at the moment when he is asked something and if this isn't in line what he has said earlier, doesn't really matter. If someone tries to pin him on this, he or she is just a Trump-hater. Besides, opposing mail-in ballots and yet having his campaign promote it is exactly the type of answer that Donald Trump gives. Elections are rigged if he loses and honest if he wins. He has improved ties with Russia, but on the other hand according to Trump nobody has taken such a hard line against them. This is classic Trump.
Quoting Michael
:grin:
Has Trump ever lied? :halo:
The problem is that they're arresting people without identifying themselves or explaining the reason for the arrest. By Oregon law they need to do that, even if they don't then charge you with anything.
It would explain so much...
Good question. I don't just watch and vote. I try organizing people. Right now we have a 180 members in a local group here in New Hampshire, "Seacoast Progressives." I'm getting more involved with people running for state assembly, etc. I try to sign petitions and join protests when I can. My strong suit isn't in protests, however -- I hate them, but recognize their importance.
I think I would start fighting if it came to a civil war type scenario. Say Trump refuses to leave office -- I think at that point we'd have to band together against the military. That's not too far fetched anymore.
Quoting tim wood
Yeah, I think it's strategic. I think that's exactly what Trump wants.
Yeah, Trump seems to like to manufacture these imaginary crisis situations at election time. I seem to remember something about a caravan of immigrants at the midterm. It's rather pathetic that he ignores the real crisis and manufactures an imaginary one.
Of course it is. There's no way US military will fight against US citizens. Trump isn't popular worthy the military.
Do you know for sure that those being detained are actually being arrested and charged with a crime? Or is it assumed if a person is being detained and questioned that they are automatically charged with a crime?
Update: not the most reliable source but I doubt it is completely fake. When I get to my PC I will research it more.
Abuse of power is, to some degree, in most government. You suggest that "even in Arizona" so I am not sure if you follow our State government, nor do I expect you to but detaining people for illegal reasons was a long standing order made by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa county. Maybe you missed his first evil rein but he is running again so maybe you can watch it this time around.
Quoting tim wood
When do I get excited? Are you asking when I stand up against abuse of power? Or are you referring to the poem "First they came..." ?
Quoting tim wood
I don't really understand why you said what I quoted above or how it relates to the discussion between you and I but if it makes you feel better, hey go for it. It's certainly not gaslighting nor do I get the shriveled up dick but again if it is your reality, go for it.
Quoting Benkei
I would emphasize this, what our favorite Dutchman is saying here.
The US military will surely not put itself to the side of Trump in this kind of scenario. We already can see this as this has already happened. Do not underestimate the importance of the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff sending this letter to the chiefs of the various branches of military when Trump cleared Lafayette Square to stand with a Bible in his hand. Army troops were withdrawn from Washington DC and now Trump has to rely on private contractors hired by the Department of Homeland Security, which is lead by ONLY BY AN ACTING Secretary, a lobbyist WITH NO background in the judicial sector or the military. The amount of former Homeland Security secretaries that have opposed the use of the department in this way is telling. Yet you still cannot make lobbyists generals in the US.
Hence to think that American people have to fight their own military is as utterly bonkers as the idea that rednecks of the fly-over-USA pose a threat with their shotguns to the latte-drinkers in New York or California. In fact such ludicrous ideas just flame the "culture wars" more and wage the ideological gap between Americans even more.
Detaining someone is making them stay where they are (e.g. stopping them in the street). Forcing someone into a car and driving them somewhere else is an arrest (or a kidnapping).
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53534950
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1286982002604998656?s=21[/tweet]
(Another reason why health care is so goddamn expensive in the US.)
Why do you approve of market intervention when pappa Trump does it?
:razz: And by executive order, no less.
You're more likely to find bitcoin in a rock than you are an authentic political position in NOS.
Reelection-purposed political posturing more like.
"the moves are largely symbolic because the orders are unlikely to take effect anytime soon, if they do so at all, because the power to implement drug pricing policy through executive order is limited. Voters will not see an impact before the November elections, and the drug industry is sure to challenge them in court.
...most of the proposals cannot be implemented via executive order. Instead, the administration must complete the rulemaking process, which could take months or years."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/24/trump-expected-sign-drug-pricing-executive-orders-friday-angering-pharma/
Political pantomine. Some of it probably in response to stories like this, which more closely reveal the Trump administration's relationship with big pharma.
"Government contracts obtained by consumer advocacy group Knowledge Ecology International show that the Trump administration is giving pharmaceutical companies a green light to charge exorbitant prices for potential coronavirus treatments developed with taxpayer money by refusing to exercise federal authority to constrain costs.
Through the Freedom of Information Act, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) last week got hold of a number of heavily redacted agreements between the Trump administration and major pharmaceutical companies like Johnson & Johnson, Regeneron, and Genentech."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/07/02/scandal-contracts-show-trump-giving-big-pharma-free-rein-price-gouge-taxpayer-funded
Most likely this is a PR stunt carefully engineered to make sure nothing significant will actually change.
That’s what I suspected.
No doubt many of the Trump culties believe that they’re somehow already paying half for their Benzos and such, so, mission accomplished as far as that goes.
I'm not so sure about that. But there's also militias to worry about. In any case, I'm hoping you're right.
You sure 'bout that?
Perhaps a video clip?
It was a ways back... '71.
So to remind us of history, listen to this Banno.
But I guess for you the American military is more of a threat to American people or something. In truth, it's a different thing for an armed forces to go and fight an enemy than you have when you have an instance where deadly force is used. And National Guard is a bit separate from US Army troops or Marines, which should be clear to people here (as you were referring to Kent State massacre).
What I'd use as a the "canary in the coal mine" is when Democrat politicians starting from Joe Biden start saying that "the state has to deal with domestic terrorism". Then things would be bad. We are not anywhere close to that. We are more closer dealing to something similar as "The Caravan" of 2016 here.
Why do you disapprove when devil Trump does it?
I think this is more or less correct; it's been well reported that military leadership doesn't think highly of Trump and I think a scaled assault by military against US citizens is a fantasy.
Eastern European, right? like where NOS’s employer is from.
Scandinavia :)
There's a saying in my country that whatever happens in america will happen here ten years later, so many of us look to america with great concern. I'm afraid I don't know what NOS stands for, sorry.
So you hope for a Trump-like win in your country in ten years? Tax cuts for the rich, a judicial system further skewed to favor the rich and powerful, deregulation and the associated degradation of environment, a severely polarized political body, etc? Good luck with that.
I'm not a big fan of any of those things, actually. You will have to forgive me for having limited knowledge of american politics, but my interpretation is that it boils down to a a question of either or, either Trump or Biden. This is not the case in my country. Anyways, it then becomes a question of better best (or worse worst) and through that perspective I would choose Trump. Not because of anything you mentioned though.
Did I hit a nerve?
You’re contradicting yourself and in that way I can see a Trumpian affinity, but in reasoning, you say that you’re not a fan of that which you would choose to move towards.
My nerves were shot years ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/us/politics/igor-danchenko-steele-dossier.html
He’s also an author for the Brookings institute and is closely connected to impeachment witness Fiona Hill.
https://www.brookings.edu/author/igor-danchenko/
Deep state gonna deep state.
That was your assertions, not mine. Do you know what a contradiction is?
Why so hostile? It's not good for your chakra, you know.
They’re not controversial. You haven’t contested them yourself, in fact, which lead me to believe that you accept them.
Quoting MadWorld1
Let’s keep my chakras out of this, shall we?
Quoting MadWorld1
I do believe this is a hostile query, good Sir. Shame on you.
No worries! No, I didn't accept them. I also disagree with the notion that your depiction of Trumps policy is noncontroversial. Some of it, sure, but you're obviously spinning a narrative (that is controversial). There's nothing inherently wrong with narratives, but for a more nuanced discussion it's often not the way to go. Also, I did actually put forth a counterpoint.
Do you want to know why I would vote for Trump if I where an american?
Quoting praxis
Sorry, my bad :) Gotta keep those chakra pure and open!
Oh goody, I'm just dying to figure out why you'd vote for a racist. Oh wait, no, don't care.
If anything I’m parroting a Trumpian narrative. He prides himself on cutting taxes, deregulation, installing conservative Supreme Court judges, and the like. It is a fact that this works against the interests of the working class in many significant respects. It may have helped lead to the recent level of unemployment, but we’ve seen how tenuous an achievement that is, built on a model that’s bound to periodically fail with ever increasing regularity.
Quoting MadWorld1
No, you put forth a related point.
Quoting MadWorld1
No, you admitted ignorance of American politics. I would like to know why you would support a “leader” like Trump in your country rather than a leader like Biden.
Quoting MadWorld1
No need to apologize. Be as hostile as you like. We’re both adults.
You can't catch them all! ;) Cared enough to write though. Oh well, I'll settle for my good friend praxis over here.
Oh, come on praxis! Both r/woosh and projecting at the same time? Must be some kind of record.
Quoting praxis
You're literally changing the spinn on what you said before, literally proving my point in the process. What did you think I meant by "Some of it, sure, but you're obviously spinning a narrative (that is controversial)"?
Quoting praxis
Yes, exactly! Now you're getting it! As I said before I would rather have Trump as president than Biden, even in my own country (if I had to choose).
It basically boils down to my moral framework, which dictates a bunch of conservative stuff that I feel Trump would better facilitate; decreasing immigration, consolidating the nuclear family, restricting late-stage abortion and the like. And that's not a soulless NPC narrative, mind you, that's simply what I want to happen. For me it's very much a cultural issue.
Surely Trump is more conductive in these regards?
Quoting praxis
That's disputable, although I tend to agree with you. It's my understanding that massimmigration is even worse for the working class, so that plays a role in the decision.
Should I go on? I feel like I should give your shot nerves a break.
The r/whoosh continues. :yawn:
Quoting MadWorld1
My stating that I was parroting a narrative is indeed an admission of narrative recitation and proves your point, such as it is. Your reading comprehension is excellent.
You still haven’t disputed any of my allegedly controversial assertions, by the way.
Quoting MadWorld1
Just did a quick search and it looks like they’ve managed to reduce legal immigration by about 11%. Good enough? I assume you’re cool with bungling illegal immigration, appropriating billions of tax payers dollars (no pesos :sad: ) via executive order (because a minority support the effort), and the longest government shutdown in American history. I’d mention the issue of separating asylum seeking parents from their children if I thought it might register with your moral framework at all.
Quoting MadWorld1
Nuclear families in Scandinavia are disintegrating? Do you guys send your old folks to care facilities also?
Quoting MadWorld1
Why do you think Trump would be more successful at this than Biden? But the more urgent question is why doesn’t Scandinavia have any restrictions on late-stage abortion?
No no, this is one of those manly men whose manliness is threatened by gays and trans people.
Quoting praxis
This is false. (Although it should be mentioned that MadWorld 1 didn't say that there were no restrictions).
For some reason this isn't a hot topic in any Nordic country (I could be wrong, but I haven't heard about abortion clinics set on fire or the thing...)
Sweden:
Women can freely opt for abortion before 18th week. After that they have to have permission from the authorities and after 22nd week it isn't allowed.
Finland:
Abortion requires the signature of at least one physician (and in some cases, two), and in some cases additional permission from Valvira (the National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health). One doctor's signature is enough in the case of terminations 0-12 weeks when the applicant is under 17 years old or has passed her 40th birthday. Above 20 weeks, a threat to the physical life of the mother is the only valid reason for terminating a pregnancy.
Denmark:
Women can also freely opt for abortion before 12 weeks. An abortion can be performed after 12 weeks if the woman's life is in danger and even in cases where the woman has mental health problems. A woman may also be granted an authorization to abort after 12 weeks if certain circumstances are proved to be present (such as poor socioeconomic condition of the woman; risk of birth defects to baby; the pregnancy being the result of rape; mental health risk to mother)
Norway:
Women can have abortion on before 12 weeks, by application up to the 18th week, and thereafter only under special circumstances until the fetus is viable, which is usually presumed at 21 weeks and 6 days.
Abortion on request is legal until the end of the 22nd week of pregnancy
Iceland:
Abortion on request is legal until the end of the 22nd week of pregnancy. The request can be done for many reasons. Medically, an abortion is lawful if a pregnancy threatens a woman's physical or mental health, if the fetus has a serious congenital defect, or if the woman is deemed incapable of caring for a child because of her age or mental disability. Social grounds for allowing abortion include: if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; if the woman has had several children already with only brief periods between pregnancies; if the woman lives in a particularly difficult family situation; or if the woman's or her partner's ill health prevents them from being able to care for a child.
And if people don't know it, abortion laws in the US are actually more lax than in the Nordic countries. Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont don’t limit abortion by gestational age at all. I think Roe vs Wade puts the limit to 28 weeks. It can be argued that state by state, a nearly uniform consensus has emerged in America: After roughly two dozen weeks, women should not be able to get an abortion for non-medical reasons.
I think the next real issue the Trump administration has is what to do with the unemployment benefits that are ending.
I think over 20 million Americans are recieving unemployment benefits and the 600$ a week has been lucrative as in 2019 the average unemployment benefit was 378$ weekly. GOP wants to go to a model with an unemployment benefit of 70% of the former salary while the Dems argue that this is too complex.
And here we should have again that actual leadership of the President (as in the Corona-virus). Because the future is grim.
If nothing is done or the response is unsuccessful, maybe later in the fall those protest won't be just about George Floyd.
Come on praxis! At least be original!
Quoting praxis
No, that's not it. This is what you originally said:
Quoting praxis
You later claimed, as a counter to me pointing out that I never said that, that these assertions aren't controversial, and when I called your depiction a simplistic narrativ you said that
Quoting praxis
Can't you see how you're ad hoc modifying your claims to avoid my original argument? Trump priding himself in "installing conservative Supreme Court judges" is not at all (!) equivalent to him creating "a judicial system further skewed to favor the rich and powerful". It may be true, but you have to argue for it. You weren't parroting a Trumpian narrative, you did afterwords in an attempt to refute my point. If you think it through you'll see that it makes no sense.
Quoting praxis
What is there to even respond to? Your Trump derangement syndrome? If you calm down we can discuss the topic at hand, but you have to at least act like you're doing it in good faith. I made the original claim, and I have defended that claim.
Quoting praxis
I never did that, btw. Why the loaded language? Think of your chakra for crying out loud!
Quoting praxis
Not good enough, but it's in the right direction. Your assumption is wrong (who would have thought!). When it comes to the billions of tax payers dollars I don't know what the hell you're rambling about, and the last part is totally irrelevant to immigration.
Quoting praxis
Yes and yes.
Quoting praxis
I thought that was given, maybe I'm wrong. It's my understanding that republicans are more conservative on the issue of abortion. Of course we have restrictions, once again that's not what I said.
Wait... Are you Cathy Newman?!
Quoting Benkei
Never said that. Ad hominem aside you're assuming my gender :(
Is this to much for you? I think I'd better stop. Let's do this: you respond, I respond to your respons and you get the last word. I don't want to spend all week "arguing" with you.
Very informative post.
Quoting ssu
You're right. I don't remember exactly, but the last polls I saw showed that around ten to fifteen percent of the population wanted to restrict abortion more than is. The topic is rarely if ever brought up on national debates and the like. And no, no burning clinics (at least where I'm from).
I'm not going to say I know what the Federal laws are as opposed to state law but I can only imagine the bar gets lower and the charges stiffer.
Here is what I could find on a quick search of AZ law regarding how to determine the process of narrowing down to make sure citizens rights are being protected.
No sense of humour. Check. Obviously a girl then.
So you're one of those happily oppressed types that want men to take the lead and can't handle the moral conundrums freedom hands to you so you prefer comfortable repression. Good for you.
Damn the burn lol
Oh man, now I feel bad calling praxis unoriginal for saying "The r/whoosh continues. :yawn:", because, you know, the r/whoosh continues.. Unfortunately I'm a cis man, even white at that. Not many intersectionality points there I'm afraid.
Quoting Benkei
Benkei! You had my curiosity, but now you have my attention. Software upgrade or actual dissident?
I seriously have no idea of what you’re babbling about with that.
Working class Trump supporters working against their own interests is entirely senseless.
Exactly.
But you would still vote for a candidate that under performs. Anyone who supports Scanexit, aye?
No reason for self loathing really.
So why would Madworld be inclined to vote for a candidate based on the criteria that they support late-stage abortion restrictions?
We need a better class of trolls around here.
r/whoosh-ception? We're three layers deep!
It's indeed wise to disengage when you know you've lost. To some it might seem petty or squalid, but at least you won't be embarrassed any further. Dito for falling back on quoting me out of context and pitifully weaseling yourself out of your absurd train of thought, aka your response to the actual topic at hand.
Quoting praxis
You are quoting ssu out of context. You are either daft, sophisticated (se sofism)
or both. I'm afraid safe spaces such as this one and the accompanying lack of challenge has made you soft and your nerves fragile :(
But if a person says the following:
Quoting MadWorld1
That clearly doesn't mean that in Scandinavia there aren't any restriction on late-stage abortion, just as decreasing immigration doesn't mean that there aren't limitations on immigration to Nordic countries (which actually there are).
If your mental gymnastics were more entertaining I might engage with more of them, but I haven’t completely disengaged.
I don’t know what to make of your irrational aversion to narratives. Did your mother only read unpleasant stories to you as a child?
And if you don’t want to dispute my assertion about the Trump administration favoring the rich and powerful over the working class that is your choice.
What makes it an issue is our glorious leader saying things like the following at campaign rallies:
Such comments are designed to appeal to the conservative moral framework, and pathetically, they actually work.
But you have, you know that. Otherwise you wouldn't have dropped every topic of our discussion to end up at
Quoting praxis
Big man praxis defending the utility of narratives with an ad hominem. It's really quite funny - and fitting.
Quoting praxis
Clinging by the mast, boat sinking... Someone should play the violin. But seriously: why should I do anything when you've plainly ignored most of my points, and distorted the rest through selectively quoting me out of context and the like?
Read our dialog from the beginning, understand that you've been an incredibly rude, emotional and bad faith actor throughout. Oh well :)
I was merely attempting to simultaneously explain your aversion to them and amuse myself. Only questionable stories need defending.
You choose to whine instead of dispute, how unsurprising.
Hush now, my child. Soon you'll be asleep again in the garden of safe space.
Damn, botching quotes is actually kinda fun. I finally understand why you're doing it.
Trump makes up things? OMG! :gasp:
Quoting praxis
Scaremongering isn't limited to one side, it's a way of the country.
Polarization rules!
You mean like that the-shy-is-falling climate change bullshit or that Trump is Hitler reincarnated? The latter is definitely true. :scream:
Funny you would say such a thing, I received a PM today from Outlander demanding that I “hush” because he fears that you are suicidal.
Is that a hoax or should I be the one reassuring you?
...at first I was trying to be concerned, allegedly. But the fact that semi-unique word is used by him only an hour after I suggested you should... is interesting. Politics, man. Game of Thrones. Good people can be controlled by emotions, by those without. Trust no one. Especially on the internet.
Or to put it in meme speak. I'm in ur inbox eating ur PMz.
Fight battles of spirit not flesh. Or mind not matter. Of course, spillover can always occur.
Why do people work? So they can be rich like them. You can set a negative example or a positive one. Which would you prefer?
So you like to let people sit in darkness when you say you have an answer. Don't knock your own creation. It might knock back.
Because if you did care about equality and "education" you would share your belief- "cold hard facts", sorry- with someone less educated. Yet you don't. Which shows your attitude is far worse than your presumption of any so called elite you speak of. See. You're no different. At all. Perhaps no one is.
Aww, you're worried about me? Am I your daddy now?
Quoting praxis
Parroting again huh? Say it with me praxis: "Projecting my insecurities won't make them go away".
I would freely divulge my conscious insecurities but I don’t want to bore anyone, and we’ve stayed far enough from the topic as it is.
You shouldn’t be ashamed of your condition, I will add. Many of us have been there and worked through it. The trick is learning how to relax.
If you're gonna flame each other about politics, please make sure you're burning something substantive.
Anyway Madworld, why do you have preserving "the nuclear family" as a political goal? What threats is it under?
How did you grow up, fdrake? You're a mod so you're open to more scrutiny of course. Did you enjoy it? Eitherhow, others who did, usually do.
Not in a traditional nuclear family!
People who really defend it have a load of crossed wires in their heads, in my experience anyway. It's all mixed up with feelings of home and security, with parents it's close to their belief that they're "good parents", some people think that all those gays and queeros raising children is going to destroy society because it's "attacking" the nuclear family structure - as if daddy and mummy fucking In The Missionary Position while thinking of England is what's keeping the world afloat.
I do think the nuclear family has some horrible design problems. Parents honestly want the complete and total responsibility over the flourishing of their child - really? Two people? Are they both that confident in their blindspots? They wanna make the kid dependent on a romantic relationship that the kid's presence interacts with? Predicating a child's safety on the single point of failure of their parents' romantic relationship is a fucking huge design flaw. No redundancy in it. Things being as structurally fragile as they are, the slack of the nuclear family's childcare has to be picked up by close relatives and the state.
I mean think about it, the nuclear family is so ill adapted to the current requirements of society in the political north that (1) the kids get sent away as soon as they're able to socialize, on pain of stunting their social development (IE: mummy and daddy alone are never enough) and (2) the kid's gotta be elsewhere so much to enable the parents to work, they do not even have the luxury of deciding that one partner will be the primary care giver - both have to work otherwise the situation of providing for at least three people on one income rears itself. And that's fragile, so fragile.
I think of someone who wants to make a politics of the nuclear family as being armed with a shotgun and highly agitated. I expect everything they say is rooted in emotional attachment if not blind and unexamined prejudice, a theological noncognitivism with the nuclear family as God.
On the other end of life, things aren’t looking good for eldercare, with the working class losing ground in recent decades and entitlements or “free things,” as some conservatives say, being cut.
But wasn't this thread was about Trump?
Yes. @MadWorld1 wants to vote Trump because he will allegedly protect the nuclear family. You never see arguments against the nuclear family, so I thought I'd provide one. If it turns into a thing, I'll split the thread.
The fragility and insufficiency of the nuclear family as a child raising strategy in the modern world aren't arguments against it because...
Quoting ssu
Single parenting is bad. And:
Quoting ssu
The nuclear family is a better child raising strategy than leaving a baby alone in the woods.
That's not a very good argument. Here's why: the alternatives to the nuclear family as the predominant child raising strategy aren't just single parenthood and leaving a baby alone in the woods (having no social net); it's having multiple parent figures who collectively raise kids and thus have a larger social safety net. You agree that having a reliable and large social safety net is a massive benefit for a kid, why stop at the nuclear family?
Nuclear families don't even stop at the nuclear family; they depend on nurseries and elderly relatives. Parents know intimately that two parents aren't enough to raise a kid; the kids don't get socialized in that structure, the parents need time off from being nuclear parents to recover, the parents can't even commit to raising the child together because they need to work. So; nurseries. Two authority figures that must remain in some kind of love aren't enough, they get bored and tired, and offload the kid to their friends and family, the state and businesses. The nuclear family requires being embedded in a larger social network to function well; IE, other people and institutions must pick up its slack.
It isn't the social safety net we're both agreeing is good; the nuclear family requires a large one to limp along like it does already.
:up:
The nuclear family is neither sufficient nor necessary for well adjusted adults.
Other than that as a parent with two kids; I rely heavily on extended family (1 day a week 1 kid, 1 day a week 2 kids 1/2 day), child care (2 days a week 1 kid), school (3 full days, 2 half days for 1 kid) and neighbours (all the time) to take care of my kids. Seems natural to me.
Sure. And in the way you describe it:
Quoting fdrake
Kindergartens, schools, grandparents and the extended family is of course very typical. And in many parts of the World where there aren't other social safety nets the only thing people can rely is to a far more extended family than just the nuclear family. Social relations differ as for example in Latin American countries the extended family is more important than in let's say the Nordic countries.
To me those that emphasize the nuclear family make the point mainly reasoning that single parenthood is bad as you agreed. I neither think that the proponents of the nuclear families are against the extended families either, likely they just admit that the extended family has broken up.
Yes, there are other groups who view the issue from a religious point of view and those conservatives that simply oppose alternative families. Of course then being against alternative families is a bit different: just saying that nuclear families are important doesn't mean that you are against alternative families.
Very typical because it's socially necessary. How's anyone expected to juggle kids and all the other responsibilities they have? Especially when you've gotta do those other responsibilities to take care of the kids.
Quoting ssu
When someone believes the nuclear family is under threat, what threats do you think they're imagining? Hint: it's absolutely nothing to do with nurseries, schools and close friends + family helping out with raising kids. The "nuclear family" already requires alloparenting networks, one wonders if alloparenting isn't a threat (indeed, is socially necessary), what possibly could be...
It's about "family values", you don't want your kid becoming one of those degenerates. Or horrible virtue signalling (dog whistles) regarding "single mums" (old welfare queen shit).
So what's the solution? @MadWorld1, how would a President like Trump (rather than like Biden) help prevent single parenthood? Require single women to have abortions? Require men to marry the women they impregnate?
The obvious answer is that Trump is heavily committed towards taking funding from police and military budgets and creating social programs, good quality cheap housing and good quality education in poor communities + instituting or raising a living minimum wage.
Oh wait, no. That's absolutely not what he's about. Good question!
Unfortunately, few families voluntarily can choose that one stays home raises the children. At worst this view is depicted as being against women being in the workforce.
Quoting fdrake
Basically the correlation between single parenthood and poverty.
I think this above is the main reason. That single moms raising children on their own have it worse shouldn't be any surprise to people.
I really really wish that was what was engendered by "the nuclear family is under threat", however it absolutely is not.
I'm going to take a wild stab in the (not so) dark and assume that it's code word for being against same-sex marriage and same-sex parents.
Yes. But also more. These conservative talking points don't function like actual policy suggestions, they're signifiers that condense and reaffirm a worldview. The nuclear family is under threat by sexually degenerate relationships between parents, but also single parenthood; and it's not because single parenthood correlates with poverty, it's that single parents are welfare queens and can't possibly transmit "our cultural values" to their children while being such scroungers.
They'll look at @ssu's graph about poverty and marriage and treat marriage, the individual choice of fidelity and commitment, as the causal factor to be manipulated in solving the problem. But no matter what you do, you're not gonna be able to make kids' welfare - dependent upon the functioning of parents' relationship - better by making people marry or stay married, it's the social problems that inflate the risk of trauma, relationship breakdown, single parenthood and poverty together. Keeping a contract signed between parents is just a bit of paper.
What makes it worse is that the sheer unreasonableness of this structure will be blamed on whoever points it out, rather than on the person who's using the stupid talking points as described. *sniff sniff* Pure ideology.
First issue is naturally having an economy where people can get jobs and prosper themselves, that gives also the government that ability to have programs and incentives. Avoiding that huge areas fall into wastelands that have no jobs, few services, meager tax income and hence a poor and not working public sector creates the environment where social problems start to emerge.
Then of course coming from Finland I think that our programs are rather good, personally having enjoyed them as I have two kids. Unlike in the US (I believe) where having maternal or paternal leave depends on the job contract, here it's a law and I think in Sweden they have longer maternal leaves. Paternal leave for the father is 54 days. Programs that help young couples to plan and ease the burden of parenthood I would see as important. And things like a Finnish maternity package is great. Even if you have the money to buy all that stuff, a well thought package of everything helps a lot. The worse issue is if the government programs would incite single parenthood.
Even if there's a cultural / political component to this (which fdrake emphasizes), I would say that good social politics can make a difference and do something to prevent future problems. Unfortunately the discussion typically when we are talking about the US falls into the usual divide to conservative-liberal or GOP/Democrat lines. Emphasizing that fathers do have a role and a responsibility about the upbringing of children as mothers do I think is important. Yet the parents having the ability to give a good childhood to a child is a question more about economic issues than about social norms.
I think that many refer also to the economic environment, or with minorities incarceration rates etc. Marriage and getting children is a financial issue also. Few if any refer just to fidelity, commitment or to having the "finish school, get a haircut and get a good job" mentality. The fact is simply that environment has this effect on people: what is common in their surroundings, people will feel is normal.
Rich people are more likely to be married and even if the divorce rates are higher with the more wealthy, it's not the more affluent divorced single parents that are the problem people observe.
Absolutely. But you're still thinking about it like a reasonable human being and not an ideologue. If you're on the right and supporting Trump and talking about the "threats to the nuclear family", are you going to think about social policy that removes stressors from (potential) households and provides resource access + stability, or are you condemning single mums for being horribly irresponsible welfare queens with one side of your mouth and railing on sexual degeneracy on the other? It's the latter.
Fdrake, for Americans their biggest threat is their antagonistic partisan ideologues dominating every sphere of policy discussion and hence crippling the ability to make any drastic changes.
The simple fact is that policy debate CAN BE REASONABLE between leftist and right wing politicians! If only they don't perceive the policies always to be surrender of their core cause, if they would go along what the other side purposes or would find acceptable.
Quoting fdrake
American politics goes with the latter as the objective is really to polarize and divide the people. And may I add that the portrayed image about the opposing side is painted using the worst kind of stereotypes imaginable. Just take the most eccentric and ideologically driven comments and depict them to be what the other side is all about.
Basically the whole thing is meant to divide the people, it is meant to be divisive. The objective is to turn you against each other, not to find the obvious common causes that people both on the left and the right would agree on, like that the political system is corrupt and geared for the extremely rich or that the health care system is hideously expensive. Or that excessive use of force by police is a problem and something ought to be done about it.
So let's not talk about those issues. Let's talk about if it's OK or not to topple a statue of George Washington because he was a slave owner. :roll:
The biggest problem in American politics is that there is no political neutral ground...
Quoting ssu
So let's talk about the neutral ground. Yes, there are political opportunities, but they are not discursive ones.
In other words; you acknowledge the pervasiveness of ideology and how powerful it is, but you simultaneously do not critique it and simply hope that people will be able to overcome it through sufficient talking. That "principle of sufficient talking" is ultimately just ideology too; who're we talking to and what will be done? Talk, just talk.
Well said, its nearly impossible for discussion because of the minefield of words, ideas and specific opinions that trigger attack mode in one side or the other. Its a disaster, because no ones really trying to move forward anymore. Its all either becoming entrenched and immovable or moving backwards (giving into the primitive, tribal “us vs them” trap.
Us, we who do not do the "us vs them", are so much better than them, those who do "us vs them".
Critique how? Which side should I criticize? If I do them both, Americans will be just confused just where I stand. (That's the basic problem, because the thinking starts from that either you are with us or against us)
And is it just talk talk? Nothing is overcome just by talking but by real actions. Centrist views are viewed as a losing argument that "cave in" to the wrong side. As if people wouldn't have strong opinions. Or as some in another thread one PF member viewed with disgust the idea of consensus. .
What people need is a mental rewind. If they either support the GOP or the Democrats, can they think of policies implemented by the other side that have been good and worked?
No, I prefaced my use of “us vs them” with other words that exclude such a simplistic point. Its not just “us vs them” i was speaking about, I tied that “us vs them” to moving backwards and primitive tribalism. Thats when its a problem, when the “us vs them” is born of the primitive tribalism evolution has equipped us with rather than for a good, rational reason. (Such as the case of “us vs nazis” to use an easy example).
So no, your point falls short of what im actually saying.
My point is actually shown well with your response. All I had to do was use a trigger phrase “us vs them” and you ignored whatever context I used in favour of this preconceived context of simplistic judgement to make a point about glass houses. No glass house here.
I think you underestimate people. Or mischaracterize them.
Quoting DingoJones
I did read the rest of your post. I just didn't understand that you were meaning literally a return to a mythical tribal mindset that allegedly facilitated inter-tribal war. I still suspect that you don't actually really believe we're returning to a warring tribal society fighting over exactly why Kanye is problematic, and that your meaning is mostly hyperbole by means of allusion.
Quoting DingoJones
So you're quite happy to characterize me based off of an alleged trigger response, when you could've asked what I actually thought. Instead of doing so, you have lumped me in with the people who follow the simplistic "us vs them" dynamic, and are making an example of me as one of those fools you're so much better than. Great! Now we're both on the same lowbrow page!
Quoting ssu
For both of you, "us vs them" is a caricature - it's one of those floating signifiers with a nebulously defined referent. The predominant use of "us vs them" is to do precisely what you both are doing, declaring yourselves as paragons of courtly reason and measured opinion over and above those plebs like me who only have knee jerk reactions.
The problem with this being that "both sides" agree with you that there is a "tribal mindset" and a disastrous "us vs them" dynamic, and the entire point of using the "us vs them" group membership signifier is a total subversion of its meaning. You're both reasoning from on high, lamenting the degeneration of discourse, and if only everyone else agreed with you on how to conduct debate in less than 120 characters the world would be a much better place. It's THEM that need to accommodate YOU. You're both actually internal to this process, rather than outside of it. Distancing yourself from the reactionary nature of discourse through superficial reaction is part of its movement.
I think you've got a choice; acknowledge the degeneration of discourse you condemn and work within it - both sides allegedly say "the other side is unreasonable and won't compromise", so that strategy is out of the window. Or alternatively acknowledge that you're both moments of superficial reactionary discourse, only the bemoaning the superficial reactionary discourse flavour. (Psst, it tastes like over boiled vegetables)
Its grounded in evolutionary psychology, its part of being human. It becomes a problem when people fail to recognise it for what it is, just like when we let primitive emotions like anger control us or a failure to recognise the irrational jealousy our monkey brains fill us with at times.
Quoting fdrake
Well Im not talking about that, its a biology thing not a sociological thing (although related of course, like the two fields I just mentioned).
Thats my mistake, I could have been more clear.
Quoting fdrake
It wasnt my intention to characterise you in general as a primitive “us vs them” person acting out biological tribalism, but rather to point out an instance of what I was talking about when I referenced the “minefield” of trigger words, ideas and opinions.
When it comes right down to it its not about fools so much as people bring foolish. Like I said, its a human thing, an inconvenient and sometimes dangerous part of our evolution.
A “mob mentality” is a good example of this. People get caught up in something and do things they wouldnt normally do. Thats the monkey brain, the part of us that responds to the energy of crowds and that same tribal instinct we all have.
Anyway, I hope that clarifies things a bit. Im not saying you are a fool but I do think you responded to the phrase “us vs them” rather than the substance of what I said. (Which I admit, I could have been more clear about).
Also, im a human, so Im not claiming some exalted status as you claim. There is no superiority to what Im saying, no high horse. Its about being aware of something that taunts discourse, thats all.
But what's the model of me in that? I'm quite happy to be seen as a stimulus->response machine of triggered by problematicness->woke signaling, you don't have to back down from the commitment because it's offensive. Maybe I really was functioning like that, maybe you are!
Quoting DingoJones
It's funny really, you expected me not to be responding to the substance of what you're saying, so you responded in kind. You were triggered by the expectation I was triggered! Whereas I believe I am responding to the substance of what you're saying, I just don't think you know how your speech functions in the context you're deriding. The mob mentality sub-discussion is a popular trope in the discourse you're deriding and really only makes sense in terms of it. As does the "both sides have good points, come together!" narrative @ssu favours. Both forms of a principle of sufficient talking which is symptomatic of the degeneration of discourse. I think you're underestimating how complicit and embedded in the discourse you're criticizing you are; to the extent you're making standard moves in it but still believe you're outside of it.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens if Biden wins, if he’ll try to make inroads with the opposition party or if it will be all Tea Party gone wild.
Well you had offered an example of what I was talking about so I pointed it out. Im not backing down, like I said I think you were functioning that way in that instance. Sure, it could be me tomorrow. We must be vigilant against our monkey brains.
I did respond to the substance of what you are saying excepting where the substance was based off of a misunderstanding or error. You are the one trying to force labels and tropes into what im saying and thereby further reinforcing my point, again.
I do not think im imbedded in poor method of discourse. Im the one pointing the problem out. I think you are over estimating how much I remove myself from the “other” here. Im human too, I make mistakes and have emotions and monkey brain shit like everyone else. My awareness of that is helpful to overcome it and sharing that awareness is intended to help discourse in general, or at least point out the problem others seem to fail to recognise.
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Speeches/Speech/Article/2292081/us-european-command-force-posture-policy-press-conference-secretary-espers-open/
Perhaps Germany isn’t paying their NATO dues, or, as Esper says, they are following the boundary east where the new allies are.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1288509572223651840?s=21[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/WashTimesOpEd/status/1286285701940682753[/tweet]
I'm not accusing you, an administrator here, of having knee jerk reactions or I'm not declaring myself to be a paragon of courtly reason. I think that the admins and the mods do abide by the site rules. And if I have knee jerk reactions, why not make the case that I have here or there a knee jerk response and perhaps I should think it over.
Quoting fdrake
That great, then. Such self-criticism is good, because typically people see them as being the reasonable people and others being tribal.
Quoting fdrake
?
I genuinely look forward to long thoughtful answers that I can learn something from. I've learnt much from people in this sight, so I do respect them. So I don't get your point.
Quoting fdrake
Well I don't believe that "the other side is unreasonable and won't compromise". As you yourself put me in the box of people saying " "both sides have good points, come together!". I genuinely think that a Philosophy Forum can indeed thwart the degeneration of the discourse and even if it's meaningless if just few people discuss things on this small forum, it's at least beneficial to me. I think it's healthy to hear opposing views and if those are well thought, fact based and informative, the better. Yet if that put's me in the paragons of courtly reason -category, well, sorry for not just going with ad hominems and simple answers with emojis that I don't care the shit what somebody says. Not much reason to be here if that is the function of the forum.
Quoting fdrake
Well, I'm on the other side of the Atlantic, so indeed I'm outside being just an annoying commentator.
Re-tweeted by Trump???
Had to check, yeah, it's true.
Quite confused old man, have to say.
Quoting NOS4A2
Or perhaps Germany simply is now surrounded by NATO countries, not on the front line as it was during the Cold War.
Apparently Trump isn't doing well with suburban housewives so we'll probably be seeing more of this sort of thing. Fuck the poor!
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1286372175117791236?s=20[/tweet]
I suspect that by removing federal regulation, communities can develop and exercise control over policies responsive to unique local needs.
I don’t Trump will win, so it’s probably too little too late.
It's funny you say that, given that your head seem so far up your ass it's coming out your mouth causing a paradox of implosion. You seem to be implying that you too argue like a "reasonable human being" - that's almost objectively laughable, by any standard. There aren't enough words in Latin and Ancient Greek combined to name the fallacies going on in this thread, let alone in your unintelligible rambles. Pointing out my own fallacious mishaps will add to this last point I’ll make in this filter bubble of a thread:
It should be obvious that rational dialog has broken down as a viable medium for solving political differences in the west, so it doesn’t take a genius to guess its replacement. I'll spell it out: v i o l e n c e. The US is vanguard in this respect, and I wonder how the outcome will shape the rest of the western world.
Venligste hilsner fra Danmark :kiss:
After witnessing the last three and a half years I have to say that I don’t share your faith in humanity.
I don't think anything to do with human nature is a good explanation of why (allegedly) people have forgotten how to have Deep And Meaningful Conversations About Politics. This is because human nature has been constant for, conservatively, about 20,000 years and The Grand Degradation Of Political Discussion has occurred within the last 30. Variations over time with don't correlate with constants.
So I'm surely justified in reading what you're saying regarding human "tribal nature" as tangential; if it concerns fundamental aspects human nature it's a poor explanation for a post-internet development. Or alternatively it's allusive hyperbole.
Quoting DingoJones
If I understand you right, you are saying "BE MORE NUANCED FUCKERS, OVERCOME HUMAN NATURE".
Quoting ssu
Me too. That's why I use this forum so much and don't engage with social media much at all. But this forum effectively functions as a windbag's Youtube comment section in terms of the substantive content defended on political issues. It's a more academic form of the vampire castle, but add conservatives to the mix. I'm sure you agree that posters' politics as it manifests on the forum fits into the easy trope boxes for the most part, and we constantly play out that drama.
Quoting ssu
That's how we reasonable people think about it eh?
Quoting MadWorld1
So, why do you think the nuclear family is under threat?
What do you actually imagine is happening when you think about the degeneration of discourse?
What is that degeneration of discourse here on PF? That's a good question.
I give an example how I think of it.
From time to time someone asks something about math or logic without good math background about an issue that he or she is obviously interested, but doesn't have much knowledge about the subject. Many times, and I would say luckily, there is someone on the Forum who reads thoroughly the OP, shows what is wrong in the thinking if there is indeed something wrong. And again luckily, this response is better than just "You are wrong, learn math." Naturally as this is the internet, the person doesn't understand that he or she is talking to some assistant professor or masters degree student in math who knows the subject, and will likely get angry and not believe he or she has made any mistake and will strawman something to "win" the debate. But that hardly matters. The main point is that the person has gotten a well thought answer as this community would also point out if the counterargument has holes in the argumentation too. Hence if someone puts out an OP about math or logic and gets replies that don't refute it, I can gather then that person has made some valid point. (Of course if there are zero replies, that tells something...)
Now a topic like politics is surely totally different, yet if someone takes the effort to really show why he or she disagrees with something someone has written, explains just why he or she opposes the view or conclusion, it really isn't futile if the someone doesn't make the other to change their views. The importance is that a counterargument has been made and each member reading the thread can then come to their own conclusions. We won't likely change each others views, but we can show what the issue is about.
So if NOS4A2 believes that Trump doesn't have any links to Russia and that all is a hoax, for someone to give a long dedicated update why it so is in my view worth while. Even if NOS surely won't change his views. But if this site is up in 2030, the thread will surely be interesting to read.
But we don't do that if we just stop the discussion and declare someone a troll or if we stop reading if the person references person X. Not to give the reasoned answer is the way the discourse generates. Then the next stage is "Oh God, it's that fdrake again, nope, I won't even read what he says".
True degeneration of discourse is when there is none.
The deck is really stacked in mathematics+logics' favour when comparing it to politics. There's a background that fixes the meaning of terms, common associations of concepts and even the flow of argument in mathematics and logic. Even the common errors made are well understood (see @jorndoe's recent thread on 0.999...=1). That shared background which can be presumed given competence makes discussion regarding it more structured, and errors show up as errors upon that background. The discussion is (usually) about one topic with a definite character - the fixity of mathematical meaning (given competence) shows up in the talk about it as a common departure point (given competence).
Quoting ssu
Contrast politics. There's much less shared background like in the above talk. A shared background fixes the meaning of terms and common associations, but the really important contrast (I think) with maths chat above is that the shared background in mathematics talk fixes the distinctions between the terms and concepts, politics doesn't have that. Here's an example.
If you're one of the forum's hard leftists, you probably don't see much distinction between a conservative (Tory party or Republican) and a liberal (Labour party or Democract), to you the distinction doesn't make too much difference except maybe on cultural issues. They're both centrist ideologies, and get aggregated together as different species of liberal. This isn't a new pattern, Phil Ochs wrote a song about it some time in the 60's or 70's. If you're a centrist, you will see a massive difference between Republican or Tory style policies and Democrat or Labour style policies. Trump's a good contrast case - the hard left recognised his ur-fascist tendencies a long time ago, the liberal left has a similar narrative regarding him ("The extremists are the base now!" and moderate republicans keep supporting him out of party loyalty), but his supporters see him as an emblem that fights corruption ("drain the swamp!") and the deleterious effects of globalisation/immigration on Average Americans. They also believe he will remedy the encroachment of the state since the Obama years. Simultaneously, Make America Great again is a signifier of a return to threatened values (rugged individualism against state encroachment, cultural traditionalism against globalise+integrate).
Quoting ssu
So then I guess we've gotta talk about the polarisation of discourse. I don't actually see it as a "bad thing" (TM), I think social media has made people much more responsive and aware of the structure+function of political ideology. To save you from reading the entire linked paper, here are the key thrusts of it:
(1) Political ideology is omnipresent.
(2) Political ideology is correlational/associational rather than syllogistic.
(3) Political ideology is a population level structure of clusters of opinion havers rather than an individual level one of opinion havers within those clusters.
(4) Economic opinion and cultural opinion correlate - they are not useful categories to bin opinion into for explanatory purposes when considering ideology.
(4a) The nature of this correlation is that "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" is not actually a thing on the population level; the desire for an authoritarian state correlates well with the desire for a freer market, the desire for a non-authoritarian state correlates well with a desire for state intervention in markets. If you don't believe me, please read the paper, it's strongly data driven, so it's not a priori speculation. The study was of people in the US, but I do think it generalizes to the UK and even here to Norway (the religious right party is authoritarian and anti-immigrant and wants less tax in the usual ways people on the right want less tax)
My take on how this relates to engagement in social media (including the forum) is that individuals approximate the value judgements of the population they're in; so when you consume political discussion on these media you're taking a sample of individual values without sampling the reasoning from one point to another. On the population level, what reasons a person has for linking their beliefs+values is simply a force of association between them - another species of correlation between held values in the population. It's not that they don't matter, it's that they matter much less than the association of values that frame someone's worldview, and we both agree that you're not gonna change someone's values through any "intervention of reason", like a forum post. That'd be changing the background. So when you engage you're sampling from the correlation structure of values over people rather than reasons within people. What shows up as "a lack of reasoning" and "the inability to debate" are actually symptoms of ideological differences that our engagement style has adapted to, and what shows up as the alleged inability to attend to anothers' arguments is actually the difference of the individual's views from the population as sampling noise on the background of the structure of ideology which everyone is intimately familiar with. No one is as distinct from their ideological milieu as we believe we are. @Madworld1's values show up as my dogwhistles, my values probably show up as their emotional triggered snowflake virtue signalling (judging by how it usually goes!). That condition is the background we share.
Edit: I think the ludicrous excesses of cancelling are that feeding back into itself; the expected signal from the background ideology gets propagated with information loss, people see the propagations and propagate with information loss... When it badly misfires, it trends to a outputting statements of that ideology's concept of opposition [hide=*](eg people fearing stalinism in trans employment discrimination protection laws or transforming a bi guy who makes Youtube make up tutorials into a sexual predator on heteros)[/hide] without any signal regarding the target's views.
So it's not a lack of awareness or skill or willingness, it's a good adaptation to the discursive structure of ideology. That all said, I don't really buy that political discussion is more polarised than it used to be, I think rather that what people attribute to "the polarisation of discourse" is better explained by a greater practical knowledge of the discursive structure of ideology I gestured to above. It isn't about reasons, it's about associations. An individual's political opinions are mostly leaves drifting in ideological streams. "us vs them" and "the degeneration of discourse" are whistles that signal to me naivety regarding the discursive structure of ideology - conflict's never been about reasons, and reasoning has never been enough. Now "us vs them" looks like political correctness to some, jingoism to others.
We could talk about why it's so bloody angry, but this post is already extremely long. Mark Blyth does a much better job of it than I could.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1288818160389558273[/tweet]
Oh god.
I didn't! I get scared when racist demagogues who've recently sent federal troops to suppress protests start talking about postponing elections...
It’s a thing of beauty watching the cats follow the laser.
What do you mean?
His and Pence's ends on the 20th. In the House their terms all end on the 3rd. In the Senate 12 Democrats and 23 Republicans have their terms ending on the 3rd. That will give the Democrats a majority in the Senate so they'll elect a new president pro tempore who will take over after Trump until a new election.
Trump can rile up the media and his critics with a single tweet, in this case raising the question about delaying the election. Meanwhile news about the economy falls on deaf ears.
So you don't care that Trump is suggesting that the election be delayed?
I see nothing wrong with raising the question. Do you?
Yes. It could lead to a Constitutional crisis if delayed too long. The Twentieth Amendment defines the date that terms end for the President, the House, and the Senate. If an election isn't held and the results confirmed before the 3rd Jan then there will be an empty House and just 65 Senators, and if not held and the results confirmed before the 20th Jan then the next President will default to whoever the Senate (which will be a Democrat majority) elects as president pro tempore.
Imagine the shitstorm.
It would be a shitstorm. But the president cannot delay the election, so it’s an absurd idea. The events you describe might also occur with universal mail-in voting.
Absentee mail-in voting good, universal mail-in voting bad, supposedly because absentee follows a stricter process, but it doesn't.
Steven Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1288932940337090561?s=21[/tweet]
But it’s in a good way. With one tweet the president revealed the fear in delayed elections. As the New York primaries has shown, the system is not equipped for universal mail in ballots, which would result in delays the likes of which no national election has ever seen. It’s a hilarious move on his part.
I'm sure he doesn't.
Next he'll be saying that he can enact emergency powers to extend his rule, because if his term ends, who's going to run the country?
Yeah, he could also tweet out that he's thinking about a pre-emptive nuclear attack on North Korea.
I promise that would also push aside the bad economic news too.
So Bravo for that thinking! Great way to get media attention.
Anyway, you'll all love the shit show this is going to be in the end of the year.
I can’t wait.
Mass mail-in voting is ripe for voter fraud (ballot harvesting for instance), but given the delays of the NY primary with its own mail-in voting, one is forced to wonder what such a mess would look like on a national scale. I’m not sure what happens if a president isn’t decided by Jan 20th, but the thought of president Pelosi sends shivers down my spine.
The dem’s HEROES act, which is a coronavirus relief bill, has a lot to do with the elections For some reason.
Completely incompetent at leadership. Talking to his supporters he is good, but that simply isn't leadership.
The thing is, if you raise the anchor and start the motors of a ship, the ship will surely go somewhere even if nobody is at the helm. It will likely run aground somewhere (if nobody mans the rudder before it happens), but what that somewhere is, who knows.
That's your Trump presidency. The captain can stay at his quarters and tweet with his phone, you know.
He can whip up the hostile press while running the most powerful nation the world has ever seen. Pretty amazing. One cannot say that about anyone else. But that’s what we should expect of a man of enterprise, as opposed to a lifelong politician and lawyer.
Umm... let's be honest: any Republican President will whup up hostile press. Yet just what this criticism is really makes the difference.
With a more able republican president the criticism would be the usual: that the policies benefit the rich, that it's laissez faire free market oriented and the usual. Not that the president is totally inept at his job: it would be just presumed that US presidents have minimum requirements.
Reagan was laughed at and ridiculed to be just an actor only [i]at the start of his first term[/I].
[quote=DJT]AMERICAN CARNAGE[/quote]
:vomit:
You misspelt ruining.
The media industrial complex had a little more credibility back then, let’s be honest. Just look at the lies of that Der Speigel journo. The fakest of news informs us. So it’s no surprise the ludicrous beliefs.
You mean Der Spiegel? I lost your thought on this.
Yes. Disgraced journo Claas Relotius of one of Europe’s most influential magazines peddled lies to its readers about the president and his supporters. This is just one example of the misinformation that anti-Trumpers feast on.
Der Spiegel has one bad article and is untrustworthy. Trump lies everyday and he's a hero. NOS is the worst type of fool or paid.
The president is not a journalist and never has been, so holding him to the same standards as the people who are employed to inform us is stupid at best.
It wasn't just one article, a single instance, as Der Spiegel itself found Relotius to have fabricated around 14 articles. This is an egregious example, surely, but there is plenty of media mistakes that one can cite.
I can offer plenty of examples of these mistakes, while you offer exactly zero of Trump's "fascistic" thought crimes.
The President should be held to a lesser standard than a journalist? The President isn't supposed to inform the country? What planet are you from?
Who would you rather inform the public, journalists or politicians?
About things that concern government activity? The President, of course.
And you've already made it plainly clear that you don't like it when journalists use anonymous sources in their stories but believe everything that Trump and the White House say. Make up your mind.
Good luck with that.
Cronyism and contempt for the law. Obstruction of justice, having Barr intervene with Flynn. Commuting Roger Stone's sentence. Appointing family members to governmental positions. Giving out government positions to wealthy donors.
Fascism. His suggestion to postpone the election, activating federal officers to kidnap us citizens, the Bible bullshit, his on the fence reaction to racist protests ending in violence, retweeting racist and xenophobic shit.
But yeah, head in the sand, nothing to see here.
I agree, presidents should not be expected to inform people. They should be expected to take photos with Goya products, play golf twice a day, and tweet at 3am. That's it.
Trump has 25 pardons, 11 commutations. Compare that to Obama's 212 pardons, and 1,715 commutations. So big deal. Barr said Trump has never asked him to intervene, so you're inventing things without evidence. And there is nothing inherently wrong with appointing family members to government positions—RFK for example—or to donors, especially if they are not benefiting from it. Speaking of grasping for straws.
You don't know what fascism is. The federal officers are doing their job, protecting federal property and citizens from violent rioters and insurrectionists. As for tweets and retweets, this is the sound of me playing the world's smallest violin. You need a thicker skin or you won't be able to survive in this world.
Quoting NOS4A2
So you finally admit that we can't trust what Trump and the White House say about what they get up to? Glad we got there in the end.
But we can't hold him to the same standard as journalists because it's not his job to keep us informed, so we can't assume he's telling the truth.
If you make a habit of trusting politicians you're going to have a tough go. The proof is in the pudding, not in the words.
You can't assume he's not, either, and for the same reason.
All you do is trust Trump and distrust anyone who says anything critical of him. It's all fake news and Democrat hoaxes and Trump Derangement Syndrome to you.
His actions have shown that his priority is to protect Trump from any accountability, so I have good reason to assume he's lying. And let's not forget that time he was caught lying when he announced that Geoffrey Berman had resigned. Or that time Judge Walton called Barr's summary of Mueller's report "distorted" and "misleading".
All of which was borne out by the results. He was right.
As Barr said in his most recent testimony, he used the language "stepping down" (not "resign", which is a lie) because this is the sort of language they use to offer flexibility after being removed, in this case Barr wanted to offer him another position the next day. Instead he got fired.
Michael and I already explained the rules that apply in Oregon and what the difference is between detainment, arrest and kidnapping. It's clearly kidnapping if it's neither an arrest or detainment. Clearly fascist. And you're happy to side with him and excuse the worst.
As to cronyism, that others did it is not an argument in favour of it and you seem to misunderstand what it is ; the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.
Kudlow, Kushner and his team of failures on corona is killing us citizens. Herman Caine and Stephen Moore to the federal reserve. Really? Various ambassadors.
As to Barr denying having been asked. That might even be true; a good dog fetches the paper before the master asks. Even so, when a criminal goes out of his way to deny the crime, we are to believe him? It was highly irregular and fits the pattern we are to expect of cronies. While circumstantial, it is evidence of wrongdoing.
Wrong. He wasn't right. He was protected by Republicans in Congress.
Mostly? Numbers are meaningless.
It's pretty annoying really that this specific fallacy keeps being repeated on a philosophy forum.
Just think of time when Donald Trump as President feels as a far better option than the then current president.
Yes, that can happen in the US. Better to have an inept populist authoritarian than a very capable populist authoritarian.
I actually have a conspiracy about this. Donald J. Trump, star of the show, The Apprentice was led into his position of power by the Central Intelligence Agency. Think about it. They know that almost the entire American populace, including most of the Right, though they tend not know as to just what it is that they have against them, aside from, perhaps, a few Neo-Conservatives, is likely not to agree with anything that they do, and, so, prop up an unlikable businessman to eat all of the flak. The news media swarms upon every controversy, while the CIA has attempted to orchestrate a Neo-Fascist coup d'état in Italy so as to secure control over the Mafia, and incite a global clandestine civil war to be given both the legal and extra-juridical rationalizations, justifications, and attempts at vindicating the establishment of a global crypto-Fascist totalitarian regime that was to bear only the semblance of Liberal democracy, being more or less the implicit goal of the organization since even before its official establishment. Luckily, for all of us, I put a stop to this.
The way I see it, though, Trump himself is not really a Fascist; he's a "useful idiot" to Fascists. They chose him for his sensational attitude towards the associated press and extraordinary capacity to proliferate thought-terminating clichés. To them, he's just there to get people used to what they plan next. There's no real reason to consider what they project into a future where Fascism is capable of securing power again, though.
I’m a little too cynical to believe any one group of people is capable of such a conspiracy. So I have to attribute the behavior to some form or other of mass hysteria or megalomania.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1289646330361470977?s=20[/tweet]
Why, though? The coordinated grassroots Democratic Socialists of America campaign in favor of Bernie Sanders was the last political campaign that I believed in. Seeing that I have now become a-political, I would never return upon the other side. What I actually suspect to be likely to happen is for the Anarchist movement to find itself in a fix and to beg me to bail them out of it à la "Gandalf the White", but I am hoping that my having left in protest will prevent that from ever needing to occur.
Trump moves to overhaul Tennessee Valley Authority leadership
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-to-overhaul-overhaul-tennessee-valley-authority-leadership/
Maybe he’ll sign an executive order disallowing talking about death as a proportion of population.
At today's news conference, while answering a journalist about precisely this issue, he essayed another metric. He said that if we exclude the deaths that occurred early on in blue states such as New York and New Jersey, then the U.S.A. death rate doesn't look so bad anymore compared with other countries. (Maybe he'll sign an executive order to expel those two states from the Union.)
A high death rate in blue states is win-win for Trump: fewer Democratic voters and he can blame Democrats.
What do you mean? He'd blame Democrats for having increased the death rate, by dying?
It's no wonder why so many that have had to try to explain Trump issues have said he is a moron.
But oh well, some Americans are OK with this.
After all, rich people cannot be morons, right? :smirk:
Best american philosopher i know is Donald Trump
- God bless america, and us all.
But there is an equivalent of thousand times more than 2,700 tonnes of high explosives targeted at the White House that can explode above in just 20 minutes or so.
The Spies who Hijacked America
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6coWUDWF5w8
:mask:
Israel and United Arab Emirates Strike Major Diplomatic Agreement
"Israel and the Emirates have long maintained a thinly veiled secret relationship over mutual interests, and the idea of formalizing it had come up several times over the past year."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/us/politics/trump-israel-united-arab-emirates-uae.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-probe-ex-fbi-lawyer-to-plead-guilty-in-first-criminal-case-arising-from-review-attorney-says
Not a good look for the Crossfire team.
Well, if so... thankfully there’s a contingency plan for mailing ballots. If no mailbox is available in the area, then voters are instructed to find the nearest person wearing a patriotic bright red MAGA hat, and shove the ballot up their butt. Go USPS! :up:
For the first part of his term, Chump seemed (except to his rabid fans) to be more “dick” than “dictator”. Now, McDonald seems to be trying very hard to make up for lost time. Kind of a “tinfoil hat” dictator.
For a man who has been spewing accusations of a “deep state” working against him to pull these obvious cheating ploys... it’s somewhat unnerving to see law, ethics, and the Constitution being pissed on. But not totally unexpected. He is now officially “The Swamp Thing” :scream: (coming soon to a socially distanced drive-in theatre near you!)
Looks like someone expedited the plan.
Nope. It’s just a conspiracy theory.
Thoughtful and in-depth argument. Mystery solved. ‘Kthxbye!
If Huff Post is too leftist, here is the latest from CNN. Appears that the mailbox removal will stop in some areas. One doesn’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to detect DT’s greasy little fingerprints all over this. Goes along with his general strategy lately, like trying to shut down TikTok. But whatever...
The USPS gives the reason why they’re removing the boxes, but these reasons are dismissed in favor of a trite conspiracy theory, Very thoughtful.
Well, according to this, the postmaster general met with Trump before "remov[ing] several top USPS officials, including two that oversaw day-to-day operations, and postal employees are now warning about the unexplained removal of vote-sorting machines," and according to this, some mailboxes have been removed.
Whether this is because Trump instructed him to, or related to him and his wife having large investments in USPS competitors, or legitimate reasons isn't known, but they have said that they will stop further removals until after the election.
Trump, though, has refused additional (much-needed) funding.
Trite conspiracy? More like circumstantial evidence. Not proof. But where there’s smirk, there’s often fire. USPS answers directly to you know who. If Chumpy happens to get lucky and win in November, we can probably expect a full investigation into election meddling. No Russians needed this time.
:up: Exactly. And many post offices are REDUCING their hours, and eliminating lunchtime services.
Subtle as a brick to the head...
They agreed to a 10 billion dollar loan just a couple weeks ago. Is that circumstantial evidence included in this theory?
https://www.njherald.com/news/20200630/its-mess-paterson-voter-fraud-just-taste-of-mail-in-ballot-issues-plaguing-new-jersey
Imagine it on a national scale.
:D
And you show your susceptibility to the basest of propaganda. The only ones seeking to alter the USPS and the election are the democrats, and this is proven by their push for mail-in voting and the massive provisions regarding elections and the USPS in the coronavirus relief packages. The only ones suppressing the vote are those saying it is dangerous to go to the voting booth. Mailboxes have been disappearing every year by the thousands for decades due to underuse. Of course only the most news-riddled could turn these facts into an anti-Trump conspiracy theory.
You got me all wrong, Tim. And yes, I can say Lejoy.
The populists in the UK suffer from the same paranoia. They repeatedly claim that there is a risk of mass voter fraud through postal voting. But there has never been any evidence of it. They can't even explain who would become involved in it, why they would do it.
Someone hasn't heard of the 22nd Amendment.
Someone hasn’t heard of a joke.
Also:
Senate made criminal referral of Trump Jr., Bannon, Kushner and two others to federal prosecutors
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53825403
"I don't know much about the [QAnon conspiracy] movement other than I understand they like me very much, which I appreciate." ~DJT, Putin's Running Mate
I think the only things Trump cares about is people liking him and making money.
Yet another Trump campaign official arrested. He sure likes to surround himself with criminals.
Oh, and also Judge throws out Trump challenge to Manhattan DA subpoena for tax records
That can’t be true. He could be the most ridiculed man that’s ever lived. I think he only cares about attention and money/power.
"PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S campaign, ordered by a federal court judge in Pennsylvania to back up its claims of fraud in the state’s vote-by-mail system, has documented only a handful of cases of election fraud in recent years — none of which involved mail-in ballots. The revelation, which came in the form of a partially redacted 524-page document produced by the Trump campaign last week, undermines the claim by Trump team operatives that mail-in ballot fraud is a grave risk to Pennsylvania voters."
https://theintercept.com/2020/08/20/trump-election-fraud-pennsylvania-court/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/20/politics/paterson-new-jersey-city-council-voter-fraud/index.html
https://www.defendingdemocracytogether.org/national-security/
10 points about Trump’s incompetence and malfeasance, demonstrably true and illustrated on a daily basis by Trump’s behaviour, statements and demeanour.
No kidding:
Trump Told Homeland Security To Take Its Orders From Lou Dobbs, Former Official Says
Gossip-mongers and their readers care, but that’s about it.
"The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people." ~MLK, Jr
Not even the Covid dead will be silent on election day. :brow:
Someone should tell her that effective fear mongering isn’t supposed to make an audience fear for the speaker.
I hate to generalize, but yes, pretty much. I have seen little that isn’t gossip, conspiracy theory, or political correctness, all of it compounded by simple election propaganda and celebrity endorsement.
That’s a lie, I have said plenty on all of the above topics. Unfortunately you’re blinded by your hatred, as are most, and you all will tear down this country to defeat the folk devils you yourself have invented. You can break free of this, Tim. It involves thinking for yourself.
Speaking of thinking for yourself, did you come up with the idea that “you all” will ruin everything just to win the election? Sounds rather Trump/Hannity/Carlson-like to me.
Right off the top of the dome. I got more where that came from.
I’m not on board with that. More taxpayer dollars wasted on frivolous conspiracy theories. Have you read Biden’s policies?
I'm looking for these now. Curious - where did you read them (or anyone else here)? Biden's site, a newsletter, Wikipedia, etc?
https://joebiden.com/
An “inquiry into truth”? Is that the euphemism we’re using these days?
So the first section says very little specifically until a little over halfway down - vague appeals to bailouts and/or stimulus packages - followed by a reference to a 15 dollar minimum wage, the PRO Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, reversing corporate tax cuts, making corporations pay their "fair share," and speeding up the "10 year investments" he has already announced. In the Muir interview he mentioned raising taxes on salaries on those making over 400k.
I didn't see a link for "Today, Biden is releasing details on the first part of his agenda, with a separate factsheet on his strategy for manufacturing and innovation to ensure the future is made in America, in all of America, by American workers," however.
Which do you have in mind that strike you as unappealing and/or damaging?
Wow. I did 1 minute 27 seconds on the first and 57 seconds on the 2nd. That blonde was particularly cringe inducing. No wonder I never watch those things.
I'm a mysogynist apparently but it made her speech a lot funnier.
The identity politics, the government bailouts, the tax-raising, the “diversity and inclusion” (racism), the free tuition, the “enforcement mechanism” to achieve net-zero emissions...mostly the overall inclination towards increasing political power at the expense of social power strike me as particularity disconcerting.
Do you not view racism as a factor in Trump's base?
I do not.
If you want to play that game, how about Richard Spencer?
[tweet]https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/1298482619668037632?s=20[/tweet]
It seems that even the lowest forms of life eventually turn on Trump. There may be hope for you yet, NOS.
He was the alt-right poster boy for the media in the previous election, and was used to great effect to convince pliant minds of guilt by association. I wager he finally figured out that Trump wasn’t the great racist white hope the media made him out to be.
Personally I don’t judge a candidate by who supports them.
So in your view, Spencer is a valid indicator of racism in Biden's base but Stephen Miller is not an indicator of racism in Trump's? Do you not view 'alt right' as racist or as Trump supporters or do you not think there are racists that support Trump?
No, I do not think one man’s views can be said to be shared by any majority of people. I do not follow or care much about alr-right figures, but I think Trump has largely lost their support according to some reports (example). Spenser supported Yang, now Biden. David Duke endorsed Gabbard. I’m sure some support Trump. I do think there are racists who support every candidate.
My understanding was that in the case of Miller, we have someone more than externally endorsing someone but present within Trump's circle.
So in this case, do you feel this is insignificant/not worth considering, a difference not worth considering, or otherwise find other parallels in Dem or left candidates?
You do not think there are reasons to suppose a higher support of Trump among alt right and racists or a significant difference of support?
Do you find the alt right element to be negligible now, negligible before any supposed "turn" or both?
The Atlantic
Miller is definitely a hardliner on immigration, but I’m not sure that makes him a racist. However, I am welcome to learning about any racist statements he has made or policies he has written.
I am not concerned with who racists support or what they think. Identity politics, however, seems to be something Biden wants to institutionalize at the highest levels of government. That is a clear path to racism.
I was never concerned about the alt-right. I was more concerned about the free press they and other such groups were given.
I would say I shared this concern, but have been under the understanding that there were indications Miller, and others, likely Bannon, had exacerbated/exploited identity politics as you appear concerned with.
In any case, what strikes me as odd is the concern with racism qua "the path of Biden's identity politics" but not a concern with any of the indications of racism we already have with varying circles of Trump supporters.
What does that mean? If it wasn't for the press pointing out some of dumper-trumper's misgivings (either lies about someone or something, or say's 'that's the first I heard of that, thank you for bringing it too my attention), not to mention his much needed advisers (if you want to phrase it as such) then
he'd be down even more so in the poles.
Remember, he's the guy who said ingest bleach, and then by April everything (COVID) will go away. If the press didn't hound him, who knows what he would try to tell folks. Dude, the guy's way underqualified to say the least... .
Have you checked the national debt lately? Hardly an old-school GOP ideology! Just like his casino's and fake university, I worry he's gonna run the country into the ground. Remember, it was dumper-trumper who said " I'm the king of debt'! And seemed to be proud of it. Go figure. What a fake. LOL
?
?
?
?
I would agree that the American identity has been exploited, but that identity is welcome to all races and creeds.
As for racism in varying circles of Trump supporters, I cannot find any connection, ideological or otherwise, to Trump’s agenda, and I think that’s the reason many of the racist activist types are disillusioned with Trump. In the end they’ve been duped by the Dems and their media wing.
The facilities with “cages” were set up during Obama’s term. Rather it’s the “zero tolerance” policy that led to family separation, because it sent illegals to jail while being prosecuted, thereby separating them from their children (we don’t send children to jail with their parents).
Quoting NOS4A2
Surely you're joking! I thought the guy was found guilty of discriminating against African-Americans in his rental properties? Any current efforts to disguise his racism won't last long, it's just a political smokescreen to get elected.
Oh, and by the way, just one of many problems with dumper-trumper; did Mexico ever directly pay for the wall and isn't he part of the swamp now? After all, he pardoned his buddy Rodger Stone didn't he... LOL
I’m trying to argue that it isn’t as nefarious as you make it out to be. Photos of Obama era “children in cages” were shown to great effect in order to malign the Trump administration’s reasoning, which apparently laid absent from your thought.
Trump hasn't done shit. So no need to hear the rest.
Then you missed the best part:
Somehow her adoring fans are able to overlook the fact that both left and right leaning media profits from divisiveness and controversy, and that her own father strategically uses division and controversy for personal gain and at the expense of the country at large.
Quoting NOS4A2
I believe they were shown to illustrate the results of enforcing a morally dubious policy.
I'm waiting but I don't foresee things getting better before they get worse.
The comparisons with Hitler and Mussolini have become tiresome. Besides, Mussolini actually read books, and even wrote a novel.
But has anyone noted the remarkable resemblance to Sinclair Lewis' Senator Windrip?
Or, even more striking, to Kaiser Bill, as described by Thomas Nipperdey?
"... hasty, restless, unable to relax, without any deeper level of seriousness, without any desire for hard work or drive to see things through to the end, without any sense of sobriety, for balance and boundaries, or even for reality and real problems, uncontrollable and scarcely capable of learning from experience, desperate for applause and success, romantic, sentimental and theatrical, unsure and arrogant, with an immeasurably exaggerated self-confidence and desire to show off..."
//ps// I'm sure the producers of the original Planet of the Apes had premonitions of both jnr Trumps.//
Correction: "America is the best, and nobody has done more to protect and advance it than President Trump."
:vomit:
Yep, definitely. I idly wonder if “Covid Never Happened” how their spin would have been different. Probably much more positive: “the Economy is great! I fixed NAFTA! I stopped all wars and drained the swamp!” (Balloons fall, flags wave, the Chump die-nasty poses for the royal photo.)
But Covid (and the BLM protests) happened, and cut through the administration like a hot knife through butter. Every weakness was exposed. The mask dropped. The totalitarian face is seen. Chump is sweating armor-piercing bullets.
Well... I heard on talk radio (the Lush Rimbaud show, so you know it MUST be true)... that there’s a giant 30 foot tall Black Chinese Commie living in Mexico right now! He is impervious to police brutality and is amassing followers to bring down the great USA out of pure spite, jealousy, and ignorance. Then they will rule over the smoking ashes. That’s why the wall must be built! At least 50 feet high so he can’t jump over it and terrorize the good people and patriots of Texas. A moat with Great White sharks (how’s that for symbolism?) on the Mexico side. A parade of gun and flag waving True Patriots on our side. (Canada- you’re next, ya pinko potheads!)
(Dang, it is difficult to parody the garbage spewing from the Righteous Wing. It’s like trying to go faster than the speed of light, or attempting to do the limbo underneath a brick wall. :grimace: )
The "greatest democracy" in the world has a two party system where one party isn't even capable of formulating policies anymore.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1299217637612847104?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/jordylancaster/status/1299161293845336070?s=20[/tweet]
This is persecution. Welcome to the United States of Portland.
A well known 'clean' American comedian. Think Hot-Pocket...
And I thought liberals were the ones who were supposed to be the "snowflakes"! Yikes that's pathetic. Crying because someone said something that hurt you in the fee-fees: boo-fucking-hoo.
It's notable because someone in Gaffigan's position doesn't lightly mess with their branding and potentially alienate a segment of their audience. On the other hand, maybe he's ready to go in another direction and is like fuckit.
Being threatened by a mob is a little different than feeling threatened by tweets and ideas.
Trump has really made America great.
Nice try, but the couple "harassed by unhinged protesters" weren't being threatened by any mob, they were being shouted at by a girl holding up a cell-phone.
So, total snowflakes, having their fee-fees hurt by naughty words. Yet another amusing instance of rightwing hypocrisy (see also: rightwingers- including/especially Little Donnie Dotard himself- "cancelling" companies, professors, etc for wearing anti-Trump shirts, criticizing Trump, criticizing Israeli settlement/apartheid policies, etc... while crying about "cancel culture" out the other side of their mouth- doh!).
Its always projection and hypocrisy with these clowns, they rarely even attempt to hide the double standard, just outright demand to play by different rules. And so it is here.
It’s called harassment and you blame the victims. I’m sure you do so without hypocrisy.
Did I "blame the victims"? Not at all. I didn't blame the couple in the video: I said nothing that even implied as much. I just pointed out the usual double-standard, the amusing and persistent hypocrisy of rightwingers delight at accusing other people (i.e. on the left) of being "snowflakes" who get "triggered" and need their "safe spaces"... but then turn around and throw a crybaby tantrum when someone says some naughty words to them. As with poor Dotard himself, you can dish it out, but not take it (not without melting down at any rate). And similarly with free speech and "cancel-culture" (and probably plenty of other things besides): for all your whining, you're as guilty as anyone else and in many cases quite a bit more so.
I mean, I understand that you don't put any stock in things like basic logical consistency, but it would help your credibility if you would at least attempt to disguise the double-standard.
Though there might be right-wing mobs out there swarming and harassing people, I am personally not aware of any who suggest or condone doing so, especially not Trump and certainly not myself. So your claims of hypocrisy are nonsense.
There was no mob in the video. Just a girl saying mean words. And you're here crying about "intimidation by a mob" and "harassment" and "my poor bum it hurts so much". You've proven my point: rightwingers can dish it out, but can't take it without throwing a tantrum and crying victim.
Exactly. Without fail, its always projection + hypocrisy with these rightwing crybabbies.
Counter-argument: fuck 'em
There are more videos. I’m not right wing either.
The police.
Exactly, anyhow...
Quoting StreetlightX
So who cares what he comes out with. He'll be gone after Trump loses in November.
And of course you're a rightwinger: your posts are publicly viewable: if you want to (credibly) claim to not be a duck you probably shouldn't be waddling + quacking where everyone can see.
You're more optimistic than I - I'll believe it when I see it.
And the pleasant atmosphere will continue... :mask:
I tend to disagree to the extent that "the house divided, will stay divided" for I went through one two many divorces as a child to know that if a house is divided too far, for too long, the house will fall.
Having said that: as I push through college to become a Social worker, I have had to table a program that works in tandem with the police department, because no one is going to have faith that peace on the street can be achieved by a group of social workers, without weapons, being able to deescalate the mood.
That is a division that might not heal. One that gives me heavy heart.
It would undoubtably be far less divided without the orange Divider-in-Chief continuously inflaming the situation. I’m sure he would still be vocal but like a canceled reality tv show, he’d no longer be in the spotlight.
The divide can be less inflammatory, but it still does continue: the whole political system depends on it.
Tiff, it's very sorry to hear that because I have found you to be a positive person on the forum.
I do notice also that even the Forum has become a bit hostile. It might be just me, of course...
No I agree with you. Forum has been a bit toxic of late.
I‘be been missIng your insight as of late, friend.
Oh, things like having to do some work has gotten away with spending time here arguing with people. :wink:
Quoting DingoJones
And that's too bad, because this forum is a bit of a mirror to our times. As usually it's the more informed people here.
Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots
https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-voter-fraud-with-mail-in-ballots/
Right, because that isn't important at all...
Oh no, wait, it is:
Senate report details security risk posed by 2016 Trump campaign’s Russia contacts
Also new today:
Trump offered FBI director job to John Kelly, asked for loyalty
Trump sure likes his corruption.
What would a Trump presidency look like if he were compromised?
I'll play Devil's Advocate: it wouldn't look like missiles to the Ukranians and killing a top Iranian general.
Someone executed a “Blue lives matter” protester in Portland.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1300193398477946883?s=20[/tweet]
The MSM reports on both but they're so biased, right?
Disgusting.
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/08/man-under-investigation-in-fatal-shooting-after-pro-trump-rally-allegedly-took-loaded-gun-to-earlier-portland-protest.html
In my opinion the “Trump supporters” were stupid to go to Portland. Let them stew in their own pestilence for all to see.
Trump and his influencer supporters immediately manipulating this tragedy to launch a political attack on ANTIFA while tacitly supporting the Kenosha killer. These rats would happily see both sides slaughter each other to keep power. :vomit: :vomit:
Trump going to Kenosha is directly btw. from the NRA playbook.
Looked at Trump's RNC speech, which obviously someone had written as it wasn't the typical Trump
noise & banter. Some highlights from Donald's speech.
So first, when your country HAS THE MOST deaths from Covid-19, has most cases per capita of the OECD countries and 11th highest death toll per capita, what stats do you refer to?
Now I personally don't know where this stat comes from, but I guess it's about the cases (the US has the most) and the deaths of those who have caught the pandemic. In preventing a pandemic, this isn't the greatest measure of success.
And how do you describe your response and the opposition?
And then even more scaremongering, seems that Joe is eliminating America's borders:
Now there would have been a time when referring to Muslim majority nations to "Jihadist nations" would have lead to an outcry, now it's barely even noticed.
And then what will Biden do, according to Trump, about the riots?
And furthermore:
This above is the main point of Trump's re-election campaign. Trump did speak about trade and the threat of China etc. In a way, for Trump the George Floyd shooting and the consequences of that is an opportunity.
What happens to social cohesion in America, who cares the fuck about it.
Devil's avocado? I hope you're right anyway, and especially if America turns out to be kept great again for the next four years.
Of course Trump's argument is a non-sequitur, as Biden's stance is obvious and actually from the Obama years he has experience of breaking up widescale protest with the OWS protests. Then the Obama administration showed how this is done: crack down on the protest with a media blackout and the hold strategic silence. Never even admit that crack down was a coordinated effort and let the media focus on other issues.
What I fear is that some assholes start mimicking the US and try to provoke activist from the left and right to start riots, or that the media creates a similar juxtaposition. And if the mantra is that a non-violent demonstration isn't enough, that you have to break stuff and burn cars to get media attention, the future isn't going to be happy.
It's an interesting contrast how little focus is given to what is happening in Belarus. There Lukashenko (and Putin) are just waiting for some reason to crack down on the Belarussian protests, that have been peaceful.
The ugly way these things seem to be handled is that if the opposition is too peaceful, too responsible and especially too capable of getting support and understanding from abroad, create (either literally or just portray) an opposition group that is radical, violent, and which you can go after.
At least in June the FBI found no evidence of Antifa inducing riots (see here) and has been actually quite consistent in monitoring any kind of radical movements, even if Trump immediately wanted to label Antifa as a terrorist organization. Not so easy to do, because it isn't a foreign organization. Still, Trump needs a clear enemy to tag Biden with.
Nothing wrong with law and order. It's the combination with an imagined enemy and government propaganda to that effect. If it isn't Jews, it's antifa.
Or a very overblown threat estimate like with international terrorism, which is typical, as individual events always happen.
Yet the part of government propaganda isn't so well on with Trump (as it was during let's say the Bush years). Trump simply doesn't know how to lead institutions and organizations and now the only thing that he has managed is that his closest circle in the administration know how to parrot the Trump line (in order not to loose their job). Below that the US government is working just as it has done before.
Yet it's alarming when political discourse has gone to the level where the criticism against the other has nothing to do with what the other says or does. I guess it's the result of people living in their own echo chambers.
Fearsome words for a fearsome time and fearsome people, so easily made fearful when anyone has the means to invoke fear. If only the Sage of Baltimore was with us today, to witness the worst of what he predicted.
No, I label rioters as “rioters”. You call Americans “fascists” and, like a ghoul, cry foul when your incitement comes home to roost.
BLM Activists Celebrated as Trump supporter killed
Why the scare quotes? And is Trump stupid for planning to visit Kenosha tomorrow?
It’s like calling the shooter, the rioters, Bernie supporters. It may be true, but it’s malinformation. The groups involved have names.
No, I think it’s wise for the president to show support to the victims of riots, and I think it’s a good move politically.
You just cry “fascism” out of one side of the mouth and then pretend you’re not calling anyone a fascist out the other. So fake.
When your strategy is to be divisive, to increase the antipathy between the left and right, sure, Trump will do so. And the current environment will happily help him in this.
I think Trump hopes that those that have been alienated by his pandemic response fiasco among other issues, can be now lured to vote him because of the disgust that people have against the riots and looting. He has been trailing in the polls, so he is quite desperate.
Yet when you think about it, it's simply a stupid strategy. (But very typical, try to rally your side to vote by painting the other side the worse way.) The problem is that the division will remain. What I have noticed that this election fever, or "silly season", never goes away in US politics as it calmed down before. People will remain as divided as during the election, and now you are start having soon genuine election violence.
It will just get more ugly.
Blaming others for that which you are guilty. I’m not surprised.
What if he inspires more Kenosha "militia", like these guys...
The kid on the left shot and killed two people and wounded another last week. Violence from the 'law & order' side won't help Trump politically, but now that I think about it, maybe it would.
It will get more ugly. But to blame Trump for the division, when most if not all of the rioters inform themselves through a hostile media, seems to me to be short-sighted and to attribute omnipotent power to one man. These are democrat-run cities now burned to the ground and I think the voters are now realizing this.
The kid clearly defended himself when a convicted pedophile rushed him and tried to grab his gun. He disarmed another man, quite literally, who ran at him with a pistol, and then he slayed another who tried to hit him with a skateboard. It turns out if you attack a man with a gun you get shot.
I see the word "aim" but not "dim."
Everyone has a fantasy. In the case of these unfortunates, it's a fantasy of being law enforcement or soldiers, or perhaps just walking about with a gun excites them. Who knows what actually shooting people would do for them? A Christian fundraising site is raising money for this particular shooter's defense. It's what Jesus would want, you know.
Exactly. Just provide them with a high minded excuse and they've got the whole package. Boy could this get out of hand.
Turns out that if you try to put out a fire with gasoline you’re an idiot.
A hostile media by no means absolves Trump either. And while it being dubious to blame one man "for omnipotent power" is in a general way a fair point, in the case of the POTUS, I'm not so sure your remark holds as much weight as you appear to think it does. To suggest that Trump hasn't encouraged - perhaps even enjoyed - the hostile media seems to me to be a difficult view to hold. Bannon related Trump's view that "there is no such thing as bad media" or something to that effect.
Cities in a republican-run country with a republican president if you want to play that game. It's kind of hilarious to be honest to hear talks that this is "Biden's America" when Trump is literally the one in office right now with these crises happening under his watch.
Trump offered federal support, only to be denied. Days after Wheeler rebuked the president’s offer a protester is killed. Once they asked for federal support in Wisconsin, and received it, the riots subsided. Imagine that.
From my own vantage point, I have rarely come across people who listen to what the president says and coming to their own conclusions, instead preferring to be informed by certain media outlets, political PACS and even celebrities. This is how mass hysteria begins. So it’s disconcerting when people say the president divides while at the same time relying on yellow journalism to inform them what to think. We know that many journalists have eschewed the ethics of their craft in favor of activism, and I think we are viewing the result.
I know that if rioters burned my business to the ground I would be happy if the leader of our country came in support. I can’t think of any leader having the balls to do so.
Let's do one reality check here before we continue. First, there are whole states that have seen NO riots in the last 20 years in the US including this year:
So from the map we can see that basically this is about some cities in the US. Yet the vast majority of the 320+ million Americans have not have riots on their streets.
To respond your comment: First, the political division was already there, and on election years it has been implemented right from the start by the two political parties for them to stay in power, for people to come and vote because the other side is so despicable. Now with the pandemic and the economy in shambles, this just backfires in the way we have seen.
Yet you simply should be objective and compare, just for example, the acceptance speeches of Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Yes, Biden did mention Charlottesville and Trump saying about "very fine people on both sides", but Biden didn't attack Republicans and the RNC. (Perhaps that was done by some other in the convention). Trump, many times, portrayed the democrats and their inaction to be cause of the riots and looting. So when Trump says "If the Radical Left takes power, they will apply their disastrous policies to every city, town, and suburb in America. Just imagine if the so-called peaceful demonstrators in the streets were in charge of every lever of power in the U.S. Government." is Biden making same kind of outrageous claims? No.
You may shrug it off as Trump being Trump, but that's the problem, just as with the most eccentric and wokest protesters and leftist hotheads you find in the social media, they both basically don't think that their outrageous accusations made in tweets etc. would have a physical response.
Quoting NOS4A2
Oh yes, a skateboard. Such a deadly weapon.
But this just shows how easily things escalate if you bring firearms into a riot. The next step is that both sides bring them. How "mostly peaceful" will that be? With self-loading rifles the death toll can easily rise. And it's the likely outcome in the US if and when riots and looting is allowed to continue. So those that celebrate and think it's OK and understandable to loot and destroy private property, the next level of civil unrest is very close by especially if the police doesn't take control of the situation. This response is just a part of the American psyche, not my moral opinion.
The basic problem why I am so pessimistic is that I do not see any way or even any intension to de-escalate the divide and the polarization. Nobody is interested in trying to unify the country, nobody cares about social cohesion. And the winner of the election, whoever it might be, is full of shit if he thinks he can then unite and heal the country.
And it turns out if you attack BLM protesters with paintballs and pepper spray, you might get shot too. What's your point? That using deadly force against non-deadly force (skateboards, paintballs, pepper spray etc) is OK? Or what?
Also worth noting that the fact the first victim threw a balled up paper bag at Rittenhouse, or that the 2nd victim tried to hit him with a skateboard, does not constitute a valid self-defense claim under WI statute: in order to justify use of lethal force (shooting someone with a rifle, for instance), one's life needs to be in danger. Having a balled up plastic bag thrown at you or having someone chase you wielding a skateboard do not constitute threats to ones life, and so Rittenhouse has no valid self-defense claim in shooting them (i.e. lethal force).
But there will be those, and they will be heard by Foxnews etc. And the mudslinging and modern day tribalism will continue.
I share this view as far as the Republican-Democratic frontrunners go. Interestingly, I just recently came across an "Articles of Unity 2020" push for Gabbard, Yang, McCraven, Ventura, and others as potential last minute alternatives, though I don't see them getting much exposure to have any impact on November as of yet, nor do I know much about the organization behind the push other than it seems spearheaded by Brett and Eric Weinstein and looks like it may have some possible backing by Peter Thiel of Thiel Capital.
Indeed.
No, it's the fact that you're deluded in your partisanship, hence why the selective outrage.
I’m not sure Trump’s comments are so outrageous, especially given the unrest, violence and destruction of property occurring right now. No amount of hand waving can make that disappear. It is happening. It exists.
I think the Democrat’s deserve Trump’s shade. They’ve reviled him, obstructed him, and spread hatred about him at almost every step of his presidency. But my point isn’t that one politician or another causes division. My point is that a majority of people inform themselves through the bits and pieces offered to us by an unethical, activist media, and not from politicians. This is the source of your division.
As for the tragic shooting in Kenosha, I think it was self-defence. A man rushed him, went for his gun, but he protected himself. A mob chased him, tried to beat him, came at him with a gun, and they payed for it dearly. This is how easily things escalate when you are given free reign to destroy communities and the properties of innocent people.
The guy drove an hour to get into the action, carrying a military-style assault weapon. Nobody was trying to break into his home. He put himself in that situation. The people he shot dead were unarmed. He's been charged with felony murder and should be sentenced accordingly.
Reading just now that Trump is actually attacking the very idea of politics. Politics is about getting along, compromising with those you don't agree with, and working together for the common good. Trump has never believed in that, and will do everything in his power to undermine it, including egging on violence against those that he deems 'the enemy'.
An AR-15 is a civilian rifle.
Video and images show he was there to protect businesses, clean up the mess, and to offer medical attention. He worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha the day before. Only when the teenager was violently attacked by grown men, one of them holding a pistol, did he unleash fury.
Politics has always been about division in my books.
Only in America.
Just a straight-up criminal to begin the night (illegally open-carrying and violating curfew), and a murderer/mass-shooter/domestic terrorist by the end of the night. And the supposed party of "law and order" is bending over backwards to defend and glorify this scumbag. I sincerely hope his night of LARPing + murder was worth it, the price is going to be steep: with any luck, it'll have come at the cost of the rest of his life in prison.
The Weinstein brothers are a refreshing alternative to the ordinary hyper partisan approach. "Unity 2020" is a bit far off, but still, great insights. Nice to notice that others follow them too here.
Quoting NOS4A2
A divisive media I can agree with. Balls and wisdom - unappreciated but for those with eyes to see if not for the former - seems a bit of a reach.
But will the Democrats put the demonstrators in charge of every lever of power in the U.S. Government?
Will the Democrats defund Police Departments all across America?
Will they pass federal legislation to reduce law enforcement nationwide?
Will they make every city look like Democrat-run Portland, Oregon?
Do you genuinely think that a Biden administration will do all those things once in power?
Not even ballsy in the sense of it being a risky stunt, because no matter how it turns out he’ll be a hero in the eyes of his cult-like followers. If he ends up not going, for instance, it will show prudence rather than cowardice, right?
And Joe Biden doesn't get to decide what constitutes protest or not (any more than you do), especially given his utter lack of impartiality or credibility on this particular issue. Worse, clutching pearls over property damage (all commercial insurance policies cover damage from vandalism/arson/rioting/etc anyways- so any affected businesses will have a check in the mail to cover their losses) while dragging their feet on addressing the police violence (including literal murder) that the protests are about in any meaningful or substantive way, robs Biden and the Dems of any sort of moral authority here.
As they say, respect existence or expect resistance. If Joe Biden or any other of these neoliberal dipshits want the fires to stop burning, the solution is simple enough: start holding police accountable for breaking the laws they're paid to enforce and killing/harming those they're paid to be protecting. The protesters are pretty clear about what they want. And for all the finger-pointing at Republicans, there are plenty of cities that have few if any Republicans on the city council (and/or have state legislatures + governorships controlled by Dems), that could institute meaningful police reforms without having to so much as even look at a Republican, if they were motivated to do so. But clearly, that's asking for too much, and so we get purely performative/symbolic gestures (like Pelosi et al taking a knee for a photo op), and both the violence and the protests will continue.
:cheer:
Fair point. But surely you agree that this doesn't warrant Trump smearing the opposition by saying they're the ones fomenting violence.
Yeah to this point the liberal bandage on a centuries old wound has been primarily symbolic. Grotesque photo ops, renaming streets (which as recently as yesterday resolve nothing), even pulling down statues of Confederates are symbolic insofar as they aren't part of wider material substantive change for the black community and the police.
More like a vacuous assault on common sense and the political center from radicals from both sides, but in this case especially from the left.
As if people aren't against police using excessive force. As if there is some hidden racist undertone or disregard of police brutality in saying like Wayfarer that "rioting and looting is not civil protest". That's the vacuous part which is so strange.
But I guess these days you still can divide people if there would be common ground.
I just don't get how setting fire to cars and buildings is going to do anything other than play into Trump's scare campaign.
If Trump wins another term, how is that going to help anyone?
So how Wayfarer saying:
Quoting Wayfarer
Is equivalent to make the case for white supremacy? To go against BLM?
What is the sophistry in saying that?
And Biden pandering to the right on this issue (and most others for that matter) is not only craven and morally indefensible, its politically stupid: especially given the extreme partisan polarization in the US right now, any Dem is going to be too far left for the overwhelming majority of Republican voters, regardless of their actual views or positions or how much "tough on crime"/"law and order" rhetoric they spew... whereas being too far right on these issues may well be (and almost certainly is) a deal-breaker for a non-negligible amount of progressives and leftists.
And of course its incredibly frustrating when the morally right thing to do and the politically advisable thing to do coincide... and Biden/the Dems still refuse to do that thing.
He's brought in troops without their consent which made things worse in places like Portland. When he took them out there was a decrease in violence until Trump's caravan of supporters rolled in and started shooting teargas and paintballs at people. He didn't give a damn about what local governments thought before, so why blame them now?
I honestly do not see what his election message is on this. "Reelect me and I will stop the riots as president"? He's already president so either he is ineffective or he's just a liar. Of course he could also say that "If you elect Biden the riots will be worse", but that would seem to admit that the current situation is the best he can do which of course is gonna certainly persuade those who want the riots to quiet down.
How are violent protests working out so far?
I think everything he says ought to be dismissed out of hand, but that's not the point. The only point is, what if Trump wins another term? How is that going to help anyone? Trump, as pointed out above, is literally trying to destroy political discourse, literally undermining the very idea of politics altogether. If he had his way, he would declare himself President for Life. He's a clear and present danger to the US and the world. There's only one thing that matters - Trump loosing. If he wins, everyone will suffer.
Nor do I see the point of fighting a battle if you need to become what you're fighting against in order to win: seems to me that defeats the entire purpose.
It illustrates how salonfähig US liberalism works. "Sure you can protest but don't break anything. And I agree with your points and things should change. But really, we should just vote for Biden and not change anything because Trump is so much worse and you wouldn't want that would you?"
So US liberals won't vote for the politicians needed to actually make the situation better, most of them won't go out there to peacefully protest change (that's left for the "socialists, communists and activists", those evil forces that actually care about human beings) even in the face of gross injustices perpetrated against their fellow countrymen, they won't petition their representative with a request for the policy reforms needed because "bruh, I'm busy" with posting a black image on Instagram, taking a knee, arguing about when a protester is a rioter (as if a rioter still doesn't have a valid point to make) and sharing videotaped killings of black people reducing those crimes to a fucking meme.
US liberals are mostly cowards that talk the talk but never walk the walk.
Why on earth should protester take their delicate sensibilities into account and protest peacefully if they are never going to help them any way?
EDIT: In all fairness, it's not just US liberals, I'd estimate about 80% of people are too cowardly to stand up for their beliefs and actually take action when they see injustice.
And that's the objective here?
Quoting Benkei
Which politicians are listening?
Quoting Benkei
So not only are the Republicans the problem, but also the liberals too?
I've been hearing this type of argument from progressives, but I feel like it misses the point of the moderate's position (BTW, I'm a progressive too). Of course the republicans are gonna call the democrat candidate a "socialist", they would say, but there's a difference between nominating someone who's pretty much a right wing politician in Biden, and someone who's known to be a "radical" like Bernie. Having the latter run in the general gives some credibility to the right's accusations making their attacks more effective where they would otherwise fall flat on their face. Of course one could argue that Bernie isn't really the radical communist that everybody paints him to be (and I would agree that he isn't like that), but the fact that that needs to be a conversation instead of something that is rejected out of hand as obviously ridiculous would be problematic.
This is sort of analogous to saying that our political opponents would paint us as "rapists" anyways no matter who we nominate to run against them, so why not pick the guy who's an accused sex offender? The problem here is less about what the other side would say, but rather how people would react to it.
Quoting ssu
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/defund-police-protests-democrats.html
Just so.
I try not to make a habit of predicting the future, but no, I do not believe that. Then again Biden’s political triangulation, his wind-sock approach to politics, hints that he’ll only do what keeps him in power, even if that means satiating the desires of the radical wing of his party.
There you go.
It's usually that similar over the top accusations against Republican candidates were made by the media, not actually by the Democrat Presidential candidates. But Trump makes all the time such accusations, starting from the nasty attacks against his "fellow Republicans" (as let's remember, this guy was a Democrat before).
And from the way how Bernie was pushed aside, twice, it should be obvious also that the Democratic Party doesn't let it's "radical" democratic socialist wing to take power.
The other week Nancy Pelosi said
“ We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, sadly, the domestic enemies to our voting system and honoring our Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their allies in the Congress of the United States”.
She continued: “ They’re doing everything they can [to] suppress the vote with their actions, scare people, intimidate by saying law enforcement will be there, diminish the role of the postal system in all of this. It’s really actually shameful. Enemies of the state.”
She’s the speaker of house and she called the Trump administration “domestic enemies” and “enemies of the state”.
Biden called Trump an existential threat to America.
Kamala Harris said the “protests” won’t stop.
This is, according to popular opinion, an incitement to violence. So in the spirit of politics I am glad Trump has decided to flip it on them.
As I said before, during Biden's vice presidency the Obama administration did stop nation wide protests very well: until today, I haven't seen any footage of how OWS was torn down. You think the media will criticize a Biden administration cracking down on violent protests? Think again.
What is not going to stop is the polarization of the Americans. Which actually benefits the two headed monster in power in the US with Americans focusing the hatred against each other and not the duopoly of the Democrat and Republican parties.
I remember the feds made Ferguson a no-fly zone during the riots because they didn’t want media to film the violence. Out of sight out of mind.
I take the view of Popper that the two-party system is the superior one. I don’t see it as a monster. I see it as a boon.
And I believe polarization is an important aspect of a country’s progression and politics. The polarization surrounding civil rights, slavery, war has amounted to a better future for all.
Some call it strategic silence.
Quoting NOS4A2
Let's see how well the centrist / right-wing duopoly can answer to Americans in the future.
Quoting NOS4A2
Oh yes:
Abolishing slavery in the UK: 0 deaths.
Abolishing slavery in the US: perhaps 600 000 - 1 000 000 dead.
Enjoy Canada for all what it gives you, NOS4A2. :up:
So you're a progressive now?
The more divided a government is the more ineffectual it can be, and who benefits from an ineffectual US government? Some must, perhaps your employer, for one.
Besides nature, it’s given me a bloated government, institutional identity politics and high taxes.
Far better than a minority government who has to wheel and deal with losing parties who have somehow achieved power.
Right, I’m sure there was zero polarization on the issue in the UK.
No I’m not a progressive.
Politics isn’t about creating some sort of uni-party, or else you might prefer the politics of North Korea, which is about as unified as can be. Politics is about division.
Funny, coming from someone who so fervently supports a man who has a habit of circumventing Congress whenever they become inconvenient.
Lamenting a divided government from a man who fervently hates his own president. Funny.
Since their Civil War, the English have been able to solve the problems in their society without large scale violence. Ok, there's Ireland and some colonies that were problematic, but otherwise...
The leader of the Republican Commonwealth still got a statue in the monarchy:
I don’t understand polarization to mean violence. Maybe there is something lost in translation here.
Hate is a strong word, even directed towards the Divider-in-Chief. I don't care for the notion that a citizen should love or respect their leader merely because of their position. For most adults, respect needs to be earned.
Certainly there's a difference, but I would suggest that in the present environment its not a difference that makes much of a difference (in terms of changing anyone's mind or vote): i.e. given the partisan polarization and the fact that people's attitudes towards both parties/candidates are pretty strongly locked in at this point. So the question is: giving credibility to the rights accusations for whom? Those on the right? They were always going to regard those accusations as credible, regardless of the facts. So, maybe for those on the left? They were always going to regard those accusations as falling flat on their face. And the number + impact of independents is always overstated: most people who self-identify as independents are functionally committed partisans in terms of their voting habits (identifying as independent seems to be mostly just a kind of self-flattery): their votes aren't actually up for grabs, any more than the votes of committed partisans of either party are up for grabs.
And so like I said I don't think there's any practical benefit to trying to anticipate or counter the (mostly disingenuous) arguments from the right: this isn't going to move the needle in any tangible way, in terms of the election and voting. Whereas pandering to the right on issues the left/progressives hold dear (like police violence/reform) may well come at the cost of depressed turnout there- so there's no upside here, only downside, making Biden's position especially frustrating since its not only cowardly and morally indefensible, but politically stupid as well (at least so far as I can tell).
In politics, polarization (or polarisation) refers to the divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes. Think of it as views and attitudes going to the opposite polar extremes without no middle ground.
So what's the problem?
So NOS4A2, you think that political views becoming more extreme, more apart, will help the representative democracy to function better?
The problem is polarization doesn’t necessarily beget, nor is it a one-to-one ratio with, violence. As you tried to show, a polarizing issue such as slavery can lead to a relatively bloodless repudiation of unjust treatment of other human beings (though we know that’s not the full story). But whether there is violence or not, we are so much the better for polarization in the cases of slavery, civil rights, because one side lost that argument. MLK, the abolitionists, were labelled extremist. They were right. Their opponents and the compromisers were wrong.
No, ssu, I’m saying polarization is a natural feature of democracy, and can address injustices. There is no compromise when it comes to issues such as slavery and civil rights.
What the hell are you implying? You think that it's better that something like slavery is abolished ONLY AFTER A VICIOUS BLOODY CIVIL WAR?
I think it's far better when reforms can be done WITHOUT violence, without people getting killed, without extremist delusional and vitriolic opposite views taking over political discourse... and oh wait, that has been possible in many countries.
Quoting NOS4A2
Wrong. It's not.
What is normal the extremist views are exactly what they imply: extreme views only supported by a fringe of the voters. What is normal for democracies is for the TO WORK. People getting in to decide on the issues and if there isn't a consensus what to do or a majority that can win the argument, then a negotiated compromise is found. That's how representative democracies and republics ought to work. Extremists don't go for that, they don't compromise. For them it's win or die as the opposition is the enemy.
That photo above works better than that famous "holding the bible" scene at Lafayette Park.
That's the issue. It's a great photo op.
No, that’s not what I’m “implying”. No need to reach for things I never said.
Wrong, it is. Opposition and exclusion occur in politics all the time. Only an open conflict of ideas and principles can produce any clarity, especially in a two-party system. Again, compromise cannot exist on some issues, and that’s why people like MLK reviled the moderate.
It can also be used strategically as in populism to acquire power, or to ‘divide and conquer’ at a level above that.
What connects them is that they don't want any competition besides them. They can share the system very well.
Just to give one example, the US electoral system is a single-member district plurality system, a winner takes it all -system that gives the two major parties an advantage. The two parties wouldn't be in favour of a proportional representation system (like for example my country has with the D'Hondt method). And then there are obstacles like the following in Arizona, just to give an example:
Getting 6,000 signatures than 37,000 is more easy, wouldn't you say?
Ah yes, the President who complains about voter fraud suggests that voters try to commit voter fraud. Great idea. :roll:
Maybe I should try robbing a bank to test their security while I'm at it.
The Attorney General doesn't know (or more likely, is pretending not to know) if it's illegal to try to vote twice.
Yet again Barr is showing that his primary purpose is to protect Trump, not to do his job properly.
Democrat derangement syndrome.
In some states you can vote numerous times, for instance if one wants to change his vote. Of course, they only count as one vote.
Trump goaded them into adopting a desperate dumpster fire of a narrative.
Unfortunately, suggesting to check the tabulation by breaking the law is still incitement. Your invented reasons are totally irrelevant.
I'll be sure to use that kind of excuse next time I try to rob a bank. "I'm not trying to steal money, I'm just testing the security system to make sure it works! I also told a bunch of my buddies to do the same but there's certainly nothing wrong with that right?"
Quoting NOS4A2
Wait I thought the whole issue of fraud had to do with mail in voting exclusively? Also wasn't in person voting supposed to be secure? Why is Trump asking his supporters to vote multiple times and commit the fraud they are afraid of in order to "make sure their vote is counted" if in person voting is supposed to be "safe" (you know, apart from the pandemic and all that)?
How could anyone claim that there's no potential for it?
Rather, once again he's proved that he's the "Law & Order" president who's above the law and order.
As a matter of federal law the US offers provisional ballots. Depending on the state, if an absentee or mail-in vote does not arrive and is thus not counted, a voter can request a provisional ballot instead. None of this is illegal.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/lb-provisional-ballots.aspx
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/15/politics/what-matters-august-14/index.html
“B-b-but muh banana republic”
But in this administration, that is his job, to protect the President of the US from legal charges, indictments and from impeachment etc.
Quoting BenkeiBut Benkei, who could have known that? Nobody knew that.
The problem is Barr was right, Blitzer was wrong, the Twitter user was wrong, as were those who drank that Koop-aid.
How could anyone claim that there's no potential for it?
The media have been saying for weeks that mass mail voting is completely safe and fraud free. Twitter and Facebook have censoring diverging opinions. Now suddenly, the narrative is that people can go and double-vote. Never say opinions dont change.
No it hasn't. It has correctly reported that voter fraud of all kinds, let alone only mail-in fraud, is exceedingly rare. The Heritage Foundation has found 1,296 proven cases of voter fraud (of all kinds, not just mail-in fraud) going back to 1982. That's out of tens of billions of votes. And as explained by the executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, "the State Board conducts audits after each election that check voter history against ballots cast and would detect if someone tries to vote more than once in an election. Because absentee ballots and early voting ballots are retrievable, if someone tries to get around the system, their ballot can be retrieved and not counted, so it will not affect the outcome of an election."
This claim that a mass availability of mail-in voting is going to lead to mass voter fraud and undermine the integrity of the election is propaganda, plain and simple.
Quoting Derukugi
Everyone can try to double-vote, just as everyone can try to rob a bank or steal a car, but the overwhelming majority of people aren't criminals and/or that stupid, let alone able to succeed, and the President doesn't usually suggest that people try to rob a bank or steal a car to test their security.
The real problem is shutting down polling stations, wrongly purging voter rolls, and removing mail sorting machines.
I prefer toetags all around to monogrammed orange jumpsuits.
:mask:
Yes, for many, organized voter suppression has become a serious election strategy.
Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers
Nodding...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/M-20-34.pdf
High level of discussion here. Love the topical arguments.
Washington Post:
But of course this must be a lie, right? Except:
Framed as "divisive, anti-American propaganda".
It boggles the mind to think of what this guy's concept of "American" might be.
Notice that instead of referring to the actual program, and what is being carried out by the program, (the president would have clear access to this information); he refers to press reports about the program.
He should have thrown in “pseudoscientific nonsense”, as well.
That is exactly what "critical race theory" is. You might want to read up on its roots, its current dogma (DiAngelos White Fragility is a good start), and on the context of the programs pushed by these groups. Benjamin Boyce had a running documentation of the events at Evergreen College, which was a precursor of what is now playing out on a larger scale.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/JenGriffinFNC/status/1301975321495973889?s=20[/tweet]
So how is educating people in critical race theory supposed to be anti-American.
One can frame all the social sciences as "pseudoscientifc", but that doesn't mean social sciences shouldn't be taught.
That doesn’t mean it should be taught, either. But I was speaking of critical race theory in particular, which largely rejects the idea that scholarship should be or could be “neutral” and “objective”.
What's wrong with teaching that? It seems pretty obvious to me that scholarship can't be neutral or "objective". That's an idealist fantasy.
But Trump said the right things according to a gold star husband whose wife was killed by a suicide bomber in Syria.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-came-dover-after-my-wife-was-killed-fighting-isis-ncna1239425
Credit to NBC for even allowing the op-ed, but it shows a man brave enough to stand by his story while the military industrial complex feeds cowardly gossip from the shadows.
I noticed this too. Also - the addition of "evil" was odd...
Our little Trump prostitute NOS still pretending that there's any possible way to think that Trump is not a soulless wasteland of a human being hey?
Yeah, arguments like that will convince people who are not TDS sufferers. Got to love the high level of discussion here.
https://duckduckgo.com/antifa%20mugshots?iax=images&ia=images
Notice some similarity in the deranged facial expression? I think a gallery of TDS sufferers would look similar (albeit with better personal hygiene, I assume)
"Trump's disdain for Obama was so extreme that he took his fixation a step further, according to Cohen: Trump hired a "Faux-Bama" to participate in a video in which Trump "ritualistically belittled the first black president and then fired him." Cohen's book, "Disloyal: A Memoir," doesn't name the man who was allegedly hired to play Obama or provide a specific date for the incident, but it does include a photograph of Trump sitting behind a desk, facing a Black man wearing a suit with an American flag pin affixed to the lapel. On Trump's desk are two books, one displaying Obama's name in large letters."
:rofl:
Yep, things look positively peachy for poor little Donnie right about now, good call... :lol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvAnQqVJ3XQ
Why I pick the example of North Ireland is that the conflict between the unionists and the Irish nationalists happened also separately from the government and basically at the start of the conflict the British Army was introduced to calm things down (and only later found itself fighting a low intensity conflict). The conflict wasn't a classic insurgency and not a straight-forward continuation of the Irish war of Independence.
The basic problem is that I don't really see how to de-escalate or calm the situation. The opposing sides start to be formed between vigilante militias & Trump supporters in pickup trucks and the black clad Antifa / BLM crowd. Police now in the middle. Election results simply will not ease the tension and this is the basic problem. Would a Trump victory ease the tensions? Or would a Biden victory ease the Q-anon crowd? The cases of Kyle Rittenhouse and Michael Reinhoel show there's enough people with guns on both sides to take this to the next level. In a country filled with guns and with gun sales going through the roof, it's easy to anticipate what the next level will be. Also, the lack of any way to de-escalate the tensions will assure that the "next" generation, will "the fight" to defend their "cause and values" more literally. And that this isn't going to go away can be seen from how many will get extremely upset if I refer to both sides with the Rittenhouse / Reinhoel comparison.
And one problem is that the political establishment assumes this is just a normal election, that this is the way to get people eagerly to vote either democrats or republicans...when people aren't so excited about the candidates. Some other time a collective threat like a pandemic can unify the population, but not this time.
In other news 190K people now died from COVID, Trump still politicizing masks for some reason.
In other news 190K people now died from COVID, Trump still politicizing masks for some reason.
190K people adjusted for population is mid-range internationally, plus there is huge variance in deaths between the states in America, just like between countries in Europe. A US average figure makes as much (or little) sense as a European average figure.
Masks have been a political issue from the moment governments started mandating them instead of recommending them, Just to put things in perspective.
The basic problem is that I don't really see how to de-escalate or calm the situation.
There is no will for that. The media have been whipping up anti-Trump hatred for years and will continue to do so.
Now, the neocon/neolib think tanks are talking about the "red mirage" scenario. I.e. Trump wins decisively on election day, and then all these mass mail Biden votes will keep arriving by snail mail... until the numbers are as desired. Of course that will look dubious to say the least, so expect media hysteria and street violents to continue past election, until eventually the courts will decide.
They also mandate seatbelts. That's not political. So why is it with masks?
Whistleblower alleges top Trump appointees abused authority by telling officials to alter intelligence to match Trump claims
I suppose that it's about whether the government even has the right to force us to wear masks. I'm not opposed to wearing masks in public. I'm opposed to the prevalent mentality that the government needs to treat us like babies who don't know what to do without them. I want to live in a society where we have more confidence in ourselves and take on more responsibility as opposed to usually looking to those in power for answers and solutions.
https://youtu.be/5Z8nV10dFcw
191,000 dead people.
But it's OK, it's Trump. He's allowed be a racist, piss on the troops, and kill Americans. At least he's not Ant!Fa :monkey: :death:
... but Hillary's e-mails! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oShTJ90fC34
:lol:
... Anyway, whatever, two more months of this crap then it's over.
You're more optimistic than I am.
I already put money on it.
I just like free money. And Trump is way overpriced due to his supporters thinking he has magical powers.
It's a few thousand votes in the swing states that will decide the election, not popular support.
I remember reading this four years ago: How To Win The Presidency With 23 Percent Of The Popular Vote
A friend of mine who was a hardcore Bernie Bro and spent hours on end campaigning exclusively against Hillary (mostly in Florida - where he lives - and Michigan - his home state) directed at his democrat friends. Not once did he have anything to say against Trump, but anyway...
He claimed it didn't matter as Hillary was gonna win and he was 100% certain. I wasn't certain at all, so we made a bet.
If Hillary won I'd send him $500 (I kind knew what was gonna happen, but anyway...) and if Trump won he was to donate $500 to Donald Trump's Make America Great Again campaign in his name and post it with all the mailings he received thanking him for his contribution in all social media.
Funny thing is this time around he seems to be a ghost in social media. I wonder why? ;)
If you don't have really bad scandals, then make something out of a minor issue. It all goes along with the normal way how campaigns are done in the US. And anyway, with Q-anons and Pizzagates, no reason to stick to reality, there is a crowd for that too.
In the end people will just reject politics in general even more. And which party would care about the people who don't vote?
At the risk of being accused of TDS... I think that this is a not good thing.
"The government" is just a group of people. They don't have the physical ability to force everyone to wear masks even if they wanted to. This is why I believe more emphasis needs to be placed on taking on personal responsibility as opposed to just having faith that those in power will do the right thing.
Only in a very specific situation, and they don,t muzzle your face.
And at the risk of being called a Trumpet, I would like to point out that he added he does not want to create a panic. The toilet paper runs were bad enough as they were.
Which is absolutely reasonable. If had created a panic, the media would bash hin for that. Orangemanband if you do, orangemanbad if you don´t.
In the stock market.
Trump has no problem scaring people about imaginary caravans carrying strong men who are up to no good and diseases like he did in 2018. Oddly enough we have them now in 2020 but they're not coming from Mexico and alot of them are carrying MAGA flags .
Quoting Derukugi
Oh well that justifies the 200K now dead then.
Quoting Derukugi
Nice to know that Mr. Macho Alpha Male is so scared of what people may say about him that he'd let 200K people die like that. Real sign of a good leader.
https://apnews.com/e21e371f1b406b209f93df5973d1fa46
Bahrain is another country that wasn't in conflict with Israel. I don't know who you expect to swallow the idea that this means anything whatsoever. You don't secure peace when there's already peace. It's just pure wallpaper for the uninformed.
Arent those pretty much symbolic?
Isreal had formal diplomatic relations with only two Arab states, neighboring Egypt and Jordan, established in 1979 and 1994 respectively. Now we can include UAE and Bahrain.
Don't worry about it. It's some bullshit move so Trump can say "Peace in the Middle East" and be believed by idiots who know nothing about the Middle East or the countries and people's Israel is in direct military conflict with.
Just crawl back under your rock. Nobody here is stupid enough to fall for this shit.
(I must admit though, I will slightly miss you when Trump gets annihilated and you slink off. There's a certain entertainment in watching you slither around).
Barr continuing his work as lapdog, politicizing an investigation, most likely in an attempt to damage Biden's campaign and help Trump's. Doing the very thing that Durham is investigating. What hypocrisy.
That in no way addresses my question. Was Israel at war with either of those nations, or at least military conflict of some kind? If not, it can hardly be considered making peace.
It seems like a symbolic gesture, which isnt a bad thing but its not really due the framing of making peace you have given it. (But I may be ignorant of certain facts that make this a more significant move towards a peaceful middle east, hence my question).
Well a symbolic gesture is better than nothing isnt it?
Also, you seem mighty certain Trump will lose, i remember that kind of certainty the first time round. Aside from feelings and the notion only an idiot would vote for Trump this time around, what makes you so sure?
I watch the news and read the polls. Now something could change between now and November. Not impossible. But as things stand, everything points to a yuuuge loss. He's in a statistical tie in Georgia and Texas ffs.
Ok, but again I heard similar things the first time. Trump defies polls, are you saying that this time the polls are more accurate? Or is it that this time the polls are showing such a huge disparity that whatever black magic Trump wins with won’t be enough?
The polls were accurate the first time. Trump lost the popular vote within the margin of error of the aggregate polls. Hillary was up about three or four on election day in the polls and won by one or two, Biden is currently up 7.5. Electoral college deviation combined with margin of error can't make up for that difference.
You never asked if Israel was at war with Bahrain. You asked if the move was symbolic. It isn’t. It’s official.
Have you heard of the Arab-Israeli conflict? It’s a long and bloody one.
Quoting NOS4A2
If I recall that Bahrain or UAE never submitted forces to fight Israel. Saudi-Arabia contributed troops only during the Israeli war of Independence, if I remember correctly. Those who have fought Israel apart of it's neighbors have been Iraq, Libya, Saudi-Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, that I know.
It can be official and symbolic. If they arent at war, or some sort of military conflict then I dont see how its significant peace being made. Also, i WAS asking whether Israel was at war. Im not sure what else you think i would have been revering to except the two countries we were talking about.
I know there is conflict with certain nations in the Arab world but not those two. So it seems more like a symbolic gesture, a way of showing other Arab nations peace can be achieved. Thats not unimportant but its not very groundbreaking, your making it sound like that history of conflict is being addressed and that peace with those two nations means peace/potential peace with the current conflicts. I dont think they have anything significant To do with the current conflicts.
My mistake, i was under the impression the polls ended up being wrong but I realise now I was going by a general sentiment that he couldnt/wouldnt win. So many people were so tragically wrong about Trumps chances of winning, but if you say they weren’t thinking that because of polls but for other reasons ill take your word for it.
I dont think it matters who wins at this point, either result will have mobs of the losing side who have lost touch with reality in the streets doing who knows what. I seldom engage in apocalyptic predictions (they are always wrong) but I think its going to be blood in the streets the likes of which the US hasnt seen in modern times. You couldnt ask for a better recipe for armed and open conflict in the streets on a mass scale.
Unfortunately, the polarisation is extreme, so yes, trouble coming. This was a specific aim of the Russians BTW and one they pursued with vigour on social media (obviously, they're not responsible for it all, but they're rubbing their hands with glee right now).
And China. For some reason Russia gets all the attention but China isnt fucking around. They are a much bigger threat, with much more influence and resources, only they didnt experience the same level of setback as Russia did. They’ve been chugging along towards whatever plans they have, enjoying the less attention being paid to them.
Don’t get me wrong, Russia has been able to get alot done too but China seems to have a better long term plan and are just as ruthless.
Sadly, the US population has made themselves an easier and easier target. Wheres the American, country first unity theyre supposed to have? I know its kind of a chicken or the egg thing, but I cant help but wonder how effective flaming tensions would have been if the US politicians weren’t already using that as a campaign strategy.
How many Israelis have been killed by Bahraini or UAE forces? And vice versa? Zero. Now please piss off.
Bahrain is a member of the Arab League, which in 1967 issued the Khartoum Resolution: “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it”.
In 2002, the Arab League declared the Arab Peace Initiative, which Prince Abdullah said was based on two issues: “ normal relations and security for Israel in exchange for full withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories, recognition of an independent Palestinian state with al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital, and the return of refugees.”
I’m not saying the end of some imaginary war is over, but that progress is being made in a voluntary, diplomatic process between the Arab League and Israel, the likes of which could offer economic and diplomatic stability to the entire region, and in my opinion throw water on an ancient sectarian and racial feud.
America's response to 9/11 was far worse than 9/11 itself - more than twice the amount of Americans died in Afghanistan and Iraq, over half a million citizens of those countries have died in the resulting wars, and at least 37 million people have been displaced as a result of the 'War on Terror'. The world, would have been far better if this country did literally nothing in response to 9/11.
For now.
Yet if it really goes away and the World (as is likely) will come back to normal, the pandemic will be seen as a huge event in a few decades from now... assuming a worse pandemic won't hit us in the near future.
With historical events we always give them their importance from the perspective of hindsight and as a stepping stone to the present.
Well Blade Runner was set in California so it's apt... maybe...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/afghanistan-and-taliban-begin-first-ever-direct-peace-talks-11599892222
The reconciliation is tenuous at best, but progress is being made. So much for the world’s police. America is quickly becoming the world’s peace-keepers.
Trump asking people to try to commit voter fraud again.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/15/politics/what-matters-august-14/index.html
Crazy fascists love Trump. And Trump loves crazy fascists.
Yes, for some countries holding elections is a very difficult thing.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-records-mueller-team-wiped-phones
The Mueller team was either stupid or corrupt or both, but either way, by applying Clintonian destruction of records, they’re going to get away with it.
Anti-trump texts are illegal? If so, I’m in big trouble. :grimace:
Right, forgetting your passcode is "stupid". But I don't think I know anyone who hasn't forgotten a passcode now and then. I guess we're all stupid. How about you NOS, ever forget a passcode?
Anyway, why is wiping your phone clear, before it was requested for examination, an example of corruption? I can see how wiping it after it was requested is corruption, but I think many people commonly wipe their phones.
I’ve never forgotten the passcode to my phone, and I’ve never typed a wrong passcode numerous times (a process that would take over an hour given the timeouts on an iPhone).
The fact that numerous people on the same team “accidentally” wiped their phones in such a fashion is a sign of a prevailing stupidity or of corruption in my opinion. At the very least it is worthy of investigation.
Supposing the wiping was intentional. Is it a crime, or sign of corruption to wipe your phone? Imagine yourself in the position of a member on that team. Your phone contains a lot of personal information. Yet because of your line of business you realize that this information will likely be made public some day. Would you not strive to keep the amount of personal information on your phone to a minimum, and wipe it periodically if necessary? Is this a wrongful act in your mind, you of all people, the great defender of president Trump, and the right to personal freedom?
You would be, if your job would be, oh, like counter-intelligence, something to do with the military or with the court system and anything remotely linked to Trump or some person linked to Trump would come up. Then praxis, you would part of the conspiracy against Trump!!! :scream:
I’m not sure whether it is a crime or not, but it seems to me that phones and data payed for by the taxpayer should be a matter of public record and transparency, for the same reason we have the Freedom of Information act.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/09/03/massachusetts-4th-congressional-district-thousands-of-ballots-found-in-franklin-jesse-mermells-campaign-solicits-recount-signatures/
3000 uncounted mail-in ballots.
Probably not a good idea to say something like this so openly.
As for the what, he is a man. As for the who, his life is a matter of public record, and is probably the most scrutinized and famous figure of the 21st century.
People such as yourself and the foreign meddlers are concerned with his breath, his combinations of words, whatever shape his pixels take on Twitter. In the absence of the Hitler you were promised but never arrived, this is all that you really have to work with.
I’m concerned with what he can do, and so far so good.
The administration’s foreign and domestic policy has had such an affect that only a once-in-a-century global pandemic could injure it. With a few exceptions I agree with nearly every executive order.
My family lives where Democrats have reigned for decades—currently under lockdown, on fire, and always under threat of mob violence. They aren’t looking to the president to furnish them with stately behaviors and lullabies. They see him as the last bulwark between America and its ruin.
It will be interesting to see if the new “payment model” will lead to higher drug prices abroad, lower drug prices in terms US. If such is the case, we might come to realize that the American taxpayer has been subsidizing the health care of foreign governments all along, without a single thank you.
Executive Order on Lowering Drug Prices by Putting America First
Pro Trump:
1) America is going back to its core values. (i'm not sure what this means :) .. i just want to say it )
2) America is tougher on international stage.
3) American's are becoming more patriotic.
4) Lowest unemployment rate since '60s. (before Covid-19).
5) Stock market is extremely strong (before Covid-19).
6) Tough on illegal immigrants, resulting in less crime (or aiming for this)
Anti Trump:
1) Appears to be supported by or in collusion with Kremlin.
2) Appears to be extremely racist. ("good people on both sides" regarding Charlottesville)
3) Dismisses many reporters as "fake news"
4) Desires to be unquestionable. Or is attempting to project fear on people if they dare to question him about something.
5) America is extremely racially divided, on a brink of a cultural civil war (since Trump took office)
6) Appears to be a womanizer ("grab her by the p*ss*") (very likely cheated on his wife ... idk if that's still important to anyone)
7) Trump supporters are considered racist.
Idk whether I like trump like that or not, but I do want a strong economy in United States. What do you guys think? Is money and job security more important than a person's view on race?
Under obama, we had good racial solidarity, but a poor economy. Under Trump we have a strong economy (minus Covid-19), but poor racial solidarity.
Of course this whole argument fails if Trump is in collusion with Kremlin, because then it means he is somehow compromising American national security. However, if Kremlin is just supporting Trump without Trump being involved, then it can't be said he is supporting the Russians in "that" sense.
Trump is like a pandora's box to me, I literally am not sure what is inside.