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)
Congratulations for getting your news from a site that contains malware. I couldn't read it as a result.
Quoting raza
Ah. The protection racket that first lets Trump win only to then beschmirch him. Totally logical. How do you come up with this shit?
Quoting raza
My belief is at least statistically likely whereas yours... is well... tin foil nonsense.
I encountered no malware.
Quoting Benkei
They didn't take into account the voters. It was felt it was all sewn up.
Essentially the non-sophisticates were the DNC with characters such as John Podesta.
They were celebrating winning long before the election.
The non-sophistication is evidenced by Hillary's sloppy private unlawful server and evidenced by her dealings with Classified material ("I thought 'C' stood for an order in the alphabet", "Bleahcbit?" Is that when you wipe it with a cloth?'). I mean, Jesus! Only the moronic or those that treat the intel squads as the priesthood would by that crap defense.
Why so sloppy? Because she thought she was untouchable.
So who had to mop up their mess? The sophisticated ultra-resourced intel spy agencies.
So how believable are these statements?
You perhaps need better security software. And the free stuff, if you use it, doesn't work particularly well.
They're all part of a Shallow State conspiracy against America, being Russian and/or Big Business shills.
Or you have an infected computer now. In any case, disobedient media is more conspirational nonsense with stories invented by William Craddick so I'm not even going to waste my time on it.
EDIT: one of the stories Obedient Media invented: Merkel bullshit
Thank you Willow, I do understand that point in regards to ethics and to read my post you would think I don't have a good grasp on the concept, so I understand your response.
@Banno and I have been on this discussion of asylum seekers for years now (both on the forum and off) about how Australia handles it and how America handles it.
The temporary parallels are horrifying, I know it, he knows it and is somehow getting some satisfaction out of making sure I am aware of the comparison. I have tried to express this correlation in this thread without it coming across as Australia's system is worse than what is happening here in the USA but length of detainment and the duration of time this Zero Tolerance policy are VASTLY different and that is "A" factor.
Yep.
But you see, money talks and bullshit walks. If you become a whistleblower, there's a crowd for you in the Alex Jones Prison Planet realm, but not anywhere else. And you have get income.
I listened to an interview of William Binney once well before the Trump era. Came out as an intelligent person who truly avoided doing anything criminal. But then… Binney stated that Russia didn't invade Eastern Ukraine? Heck, I could see the GRU unit flags on the APCs. Yeah, obviously everything a forgery...all the various Russian armoured vehicle columns caught by smartphones.
It's actually sad that whistleblowers have to choose sides and become talking heads of the other sides agenda. The only exception is Valerie Plame, who was outed by Cheney, and was forced to become a "whistleblower".
Thank you for referring me to @Moliere s thread on Lying and in reading over Moliere's last two days posts on lying seems to support my theory Quoting Moliere
I was talking about knowing if thy self is telling a false hood, if we don't know it is a false hood, is that knowingly telling a lie?
No. But you know Trump owns a certain amount of deceit. He called it "truthful hyperbole" in his book.
"The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another...
"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side... The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas.These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula."
I'm going to be bold: I think such comparisons are more or less a version of the "hypocrisy argument." When someone uses such a comparison to try to claim a political side is "better" than another, they utterly disrespect people suffering the injustice and ignore the impact the supposedly "better policy" has on people.
Failing to torture people for give years, doesn't make torturing them for two months okay. It doesn't make the latter policy any " better." Any good only comes from the stopping of either policy ("No more torture"). Time doesn't make a difference to this consideration. Torturing people for only two months doesn't make people any better for taking that action.
Length of detainment is not a factor in judging either of these policies ought never gave happened. A shorter time is not an ethical success with which to score political points.
OK, we were talking about different things. I already presupposed that lying was when one knew that it is a falsehood being told, intentionally telling a falsehood as if it were the truth. You were talking about being true to one's own self, which I took to mean adhering to one's principles. In this case, one could be true to one's own self and still lie to others. Now I see that by "true to one's own self", you mean not intentionally telling a falsehood.
How do you relate this to speaking how one feels? Suppose that I feel something is the right thing to say, but I have no idea whether it's the truth or not, so I say it as if it is the truth, because I feel that it is correct to say it as the truth. Is this being dishonest, making a statement as if I know it to be true, when in reality I have no idea whether it's true or not? It's not knowing oneself to be telling a falsehood, because the person doesn't know whether it's true or false. However the person makes the statement in a way to indicate that the person believes it to be the truth. Isn't this still a form of deceit, perhaps even lying, to say that something is true when you do not know whether it's true or false?
Mr Craddick did not write that piece. Piece was written by Adam Carter. And it is Disobedient media not "Obedient" media.
You might have been thinking of your preferred news sites where you are happy to just obey your masters.
There are usually various contributors to sites. Often they differ on their angles within the same organization.
Quoting Benkei
Nup.
Not surprised you believe that.
A traitor to who? The intelligence officials who claim evidence of a dnc hack by Putin?
First of all: they are un-elected.
Secondly: they represent the military-industrial complex and not Americans.
Third: no Russia, no NATO.
Maintaining an enemy maintains military-industrial complex industry.........and it is huge.
A cold war is fantastic business.
Strzok will be arrested, that is my prediction. We'll see.
I suppose anything goes in the lounge but "Judge" Jeanine Pirro does entertainment and Trump PR not news. Will you be posting Hannity videos next? How low are you going to go, Agu?
Lying to congress, and abuse of public function.
So apart from some silly entertainment videos, where is your evidence he did either of those two things? Give a proper source.
Define "proper".
Define "define".
So it is "proper" for speculation. And sure, it is news/entertainment.......like practically every other video platform "news" site.
The text messages? Corroborating his testimony with that of Lisa Page?
How are the text messages evidence he lied under oath?
It maybe his refusal to answer questions that DO NOT actually compromise an investigation.
So non cooperation with a tribunal while under oath.
My speculation.
He's a nobody anyway. The best one could get from him maybe his ability to eventually sing.
According to republicans resulting from the Page hearing, right? Don't you think it's curious though that they are avoiding saying what the texts really mean according to Page. I suspect they are latching on an ambiguous statement, which is why the Democrats are denying it.
He was directed by the FBI not to answer those questions, which they determined compromised the investigation (your opinion on their import isn't relevant here) and consulted his lawyers when he was asked, as is his right, which was confirmed by members of the congress at the hearing.
I agree he's a nobody and this is a distraction, but my point is that speculation about him getting life in prison as the video title suggests (basically for not liking Donald Trump) is beyond the realms of rational consideration. And no, you can't draw an equivalency with all news agencies. The BBC does not equal Alex Jones, and CNN, for all its faults, is not the same as Jeanine Pirro, who is the media equivalent of WWE.
I see that as legally challenge-able.
The FBI are not above being legally challenged.
Quoting Baden
It is hyperbole. Personally I have never liked Fox news. They are opportunist. Alex Jones is opportunist and comedy at best, but too repetitive to watch (although I watch "real news with david knight" because he is sane and comes across as independent of his boss and he is not hyperbolic. I think Jones appears to at least respect independence of his senior crew. BUT, he also maintains a business model of hyperbole, which is not anything that attracts me).
What the BBC is equal with is the CBC. I don't trust tax funded media. They can be subject to government-speak, merely lends itself to another propaganda arm. They don't have to compete in the "market place of ideas".
You can't fully trust any media, and you need to do your own research if you're really interested in as objective a viewpoint as possible, but there has to be some nuance and recognition of degree when judging media outlets. The BBC are non-profit and held accountable by independent regulating bodies, which are required to rationally debate issues of bias and can impose punitive measures for any bias discovered. Not a perfect system, but it's one that tends to produce stories that are tied to fact and when they are not consequences ensue. Alex Jones, on the other hand, competes in the "market place of ideas" but as you more or less pointed out yourself can therefore say anything that helps sell his vitamin pills* as long as it doesn't contravene YouTube's terms of service. There is a huge market in the market place of ideas for fantastical ideas such as Pizza Gate, Birtherism etc. posing as truths partly just because they are more exciting than reality. Fox News and CNN fall somewhere in the middle. They exhibit obvious Pro and anti-Trump bias and package and sell that to Republicans and Democrats respectively. But they are still required to base their biased reporting to a large extent on the real world** as they are mainstream media and expected to show some degree of accuracy.
*(Just as an addendum, it's in Alex Jones' interest to maintain a gullible audience with regard to his content not just because the content is popularly fantastical but because a gullible audience are exactly the type of people who are likely to buy his fake pills. With his business model, he literally can't not run stupid stories without attracting people who won't buy his products and driving away those who will.)
**Hannity and Pirro are notable exceptions to this and not much of a step up from Jones.
--------
Mario’s openly jejune version of his late father’s take on the rise of O.N.A.N. and U.S. Experialism unfolds in little diffracted bits of real news and fake news and privately-conceived dialogue between the architects and hard-choice-makers of a new millennial era:
...
GENTLE: So we’re sympatico on the gradual and subtle but inexorable disarmament and dissolution of NATO as a system of mutual-defense agreements.
P.M. CAN. [Less muffled than last scene because his surgical mask gets to have a prandial hole]: We are side by side and behind you on this thing. Let the EEC [The EU] pay for their oown defendings henceforth I say. Let them foot some defensive budgets and then try to subsidize their farmers into undercutting NAFTA. Let them eat butter and guns for their oown for once in a change. Hey?
GENTLE: You said more than a mouthful right there, J.J. Now maybe we can all direct some cool-headed attention to our own infraternal affairs. Our own internal quality of life. Refocusing priorities back to this crazy continent we call home. Am I being dug?
P.M. CAN: John, I am kilometers ahead of you. I happen to have my Term-In-Office-At-A-Glance book right with me here. Now that the big frappeurs are being put doown, we are wondering what is the date I can be pencilling in for the removals of NATO ICBM frappeurs from Manitoba.
...
Nobody who wasn’t actually there at the 16 January meeting knows just what was said when or by whom, the Gentle administration being of the position that extant Oval Office recording equipment was a veritable petri dish of organisms.
-----
They also do hit pieces rather than interview the subjects and protected for many years their favourite pedophile, Jimmy Saville.
They are certainly not free of bias.
Very simply, no.
Your evidence he has been (or will you be obfuscating)?
Tim got wood for dog’s asses.
Even Rosenstein has had to come out and say no American has been implicated in the “Russsia attempts to influence election” assertion.
Share
Interview
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Moscow, Russia
March 19, 2010
QUESTION: Alexander (inaudible): “What in your view is America’s place in the modern world? Is it a force aimed at supporting the world’s equilibrium? Or is it a force aimed at changing the status quo?”
SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s both in this way, Vladimir. It is a force to sustain an equilibrium that permits countries and individuals to progress, to become more self-realizing. I mean, we want very much to have a strong Russia because a strong, competent, prosperous, stable Russia is, we think, in the interests of the world.
Yeah. 2010 sure wasn't 2018. :lol:
Gotta wonder why Clinton didn't use her future-crime-fighting superpowers to defeat Putin 4 years before he invaded Crimea. Would have solved soooo many problems. :ok:
Clinton is always concerned about other countries she has had a hand in destroying
Pffffft. No one else but the glorious Russian people can claim the honour of having destroyed their country.
That happened under Obama's watch, right?
No positive influence ever from either Obama or his witch.
In that they are two different words.
They are, however, similar in that neither really apply in then context of either Trump's or Clinton's meeting.
Said the guy who decried warmongering before.
But you are right, Obama failed on that one. War was the correct answer. Yall just too soft to ever have a hope to survive the nuclear post-apocalyptic wasteland.
Which war was the correct answer?
That often mean two different things and equate to two different actions.
Words DESCRIBE things, right?
" where is your evidence he did either of those two things? — Baden
The text messages? Corroborating his testimony with that of Lisa Page? "
Are you just assuming there must be a lie in there somewhere because of your negative opinion of the man, or did he say something that strikes you as an intentional falsehood, that is provably so? If the latter, then tell me specifically what these probable falsehoods are.
That by "we will stop it" he meant "we" as the "American people", instead of "we" as the FBI.
Correct. I don't construe him as having acted as a Russian agent.
It sounds like it is off to the gulag for me, according to your accusations of me.
Oh well. Good luck with that. I just feel grateful I do not live in your brain. It sounds like an awful place.
Quoting tim wood
Not particularly interested in gossip, no.
Trump was not a Washington insider. He was an outsider who needed to take advice from insiders, in terms of the best people to fill key positions. Insiders from both parties had problems with Trump and he was not always given good advice. It appears Trump was set up by the swamp. For example, he never would have hired Session if he told him he would recuse himself and give all the power to the second in charge. However, Trump adapted and is learning who he can trust.
Mueller is a Republican. The question I have is why does his team only include lawyers who are Democrat donors? If Mueller goal was to seek truth, a balanced team would work better. If the goal is to appease the swamp, then pick all Democrats. It was never intended to be fair.
Mueller was the head of the FBI under Obama, when he sold the uranium to the Russians and the Clintons got a large foundation donation from the Russians. Mueller did not tell congress of the charges of Russian bribery and racketeering, before the sale. This may have changed the sale. He was in good graces with the swamp.
Mueller was not fully righteous, which is why he put together a biased hit squad. If Trump decides to revisit that nuclear deal, Mueller career could be toast, unless he can get rid of Trump, first. However, Mueller is a career man and places his loyalty where the power is. Trump is maintaining his control so Mueller may well side with Trump in the end; kiss up defense for himself.
The Russian invasion of Georgia happened on the eighth of August, 2008.
???
"The Crimean peninsula was annexed from Ukraine by the Russian Federation in February–March 2014. Since then, it has been administered as two Russian federal subjects—the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol.[33] The annexation was accompanied by a military intervention by Russia in Crimea that took place in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and was part of wider unrest across southern and eastern Ukraine.[34][35]"
Doesn’t sound that bad until you consider the Cambridge Analytica data and the people involved with it.
You don't have to convince me that something should've been done earlier about Russian expansionism.
But, to be fair, the USA, Canada and the UK did attemp to bring in Georgia into NATO before 2008. On this one it is the French and Germans who did done goofed.
Have you read this? It’s going to be bigger than Nixon or Clinton when the tale is finally told.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-collusion.html
Don't bother introducing raza to any facts, that's rather pointless.
Well, yes, the way Trump keeps saying "There was no collusion" to the extent it's become almost a verbal tick is grounds enough for deep suspicion. Then there's that vague but growing sense of discomfort discernible behind Hannity's customized smirk that seems to extend beyond what must be a base-level understanding that to everyone beyond Trump's hard-core support he's no higher on the level of journalistic evolution than those North Korean TV presenters so drugged up on enforced dictator love they can recount with a straight face stories of Kims past and present almost literally flying over the enemy with bombs dropping out their asses. Or single handedly winning soccer world cups entirely of their imaginations. No, there's something eating Sean and the other Trump sycophants, a growing stink that can't be obscured even by the truckloads of bullshit they shovel over it on a daily basis. I suspect they all know what's coming and that not even their Herculean efforts at turning reality on its head can stop it.
How could such a reckless narcissist become so accepting of his captivity? What trick of his psychology are the intelligence agencies managing to exploit?
It is of course important that the suborning started back in 1987 when Trump was cultivated as a useful foreign idiot. Flattery and financial advantage, coupled to Trump's lack of any moral centre, would have made peddling the Russian worldview a costless psychological exercise. It wouldn't conflict with the narcissism as it would be just Trump agreeing with his new friendly pals.
But come the run for President, the entanglements had grown wide and deep. Presumably his case officers did play Trump skillfully - never threatening him with what they could expose, but keeping him focused on what he could gain. In particular, the attention and adulation he craved. Trump would accept anything - breaking up Nato, letting Russia reclaim its territories - for one more Trumpian rally before an adoring, affirming crowd. It is not as if he was emotionally connected to the geopolitical realities of the world in anyway. He lacks the capacity to feel anything about the importance of that.
And now the Russian project is to get Trump re-elected. That raises the stakes in so many ways. How far are they willing to push given the level of scrutiny that exists. Is the US body politic so decapitated that it can't react even as it is being gnawed away?
And if all this is actually true - the most spectacular of conspiracy theories - then what does that say about the usual conspiracy theories that would see Trump being taken out by an "unfortunate accident" - an in-house coup? Are the US intelligence chiefs trusting to due process - Mueller doing his job before real damage gets done?
This is going to be such a terrific story when the truth of it is finally told!
I don't think Russia entrapped Trump, he's a willing participant. He was handed the idea by the Russians, you could be president of the USA, he thought it sounded great, and went with it.
That is the point. The trap had to be so clever that Trump sees himself as its central willing player.
So it could be that Trump just consistently has adopted the Russian geopolitical agenda as his own. He had a nice time being wined and dined in Moscow. They seemed keen for him to build a Trump tower there. Gorbachev and Perestroika were still in play. It wouldn't have been so treasonous to see Russia as being a future democratic ally and lucrative business partner.
It could just be that Trump was a very impressionable person. He received warm hospitality. He was encouraged that he could be a larger political voice. Being Trump, that was all he needed to imagine a tilt at being president.
It was a co-incidence that his first policy statements reflected Russian wishes - quite reasonable wishes - for a breaking down of Nato and a united Europe as a precursor to a geopolitics which would give the new Russia some growing room. Also, if the US could wind back its international defence presence generally, that would be comradely too.
Trump was grasping for something interesting to say. So he parroted what he had heard conversationally over a few vodkas and strippers a few months earlier.
All very innocent really. But why now, when he is actually president and horrifying his own hawkish generals and intelligence chiefs, is he persisting with this anti-Nato line?
So yes. It all could have started in the most untreasonable fashion. Russia was on the way to becoming a friend in 1987. It was a valid question why US tax dollars would be needed to create a ring of Nato and US military bases around the now broken up and broken down USSR. Regan had won the Cold War. Time for the conciliation. One can see that the only thing truly of interest to Trump was a golden phallus powering into the Moscow skyline with his name written in giant capitals.
But now, there is a question of why he would continue to push the same line in a way that today has real geopolitical consequences in a time when it is clear that Russia under Putin is a very different animal?
What's in it for Trump? Does he still just want a Moscow Trump tower? Is he just loyal to old friends? Who can explain the psychology of taking a line that must offend his own US fan-base - assuming of course they see that collapsing Nato and fracturing Europe is not in the US self-interest on any count.
Trump’s Russian Laundromat (The New Republic)
https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/trumps-russian-laundromat-trump-tower-luxury-high-rises-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate
Everything We Know About Russia and President Trump (Committee to Investigate Russia)
https://investigaterussia.org/timelines/everything-we-know-about-russia-and-president-trump
Secret Money: How Trump Made Millions Selling Condos To Unknown Buyers (Buzzfeed News)
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/thomasfrank/secret-money-how-trump-made-millions-selling-condos-to
Trump’s Russian connections (Financial Times)
https://ig.ft.com/sites/trumps-russian-connections/
Dirty money: Trump and the Kazakh connection (Financial Times)
https://www.ft.com/content/33285dfa-9231-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923
Trump's oldest son said a decade ago that a lot of the family's assets came from Russia (Business Insider)
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-said-money-pouring-in-from-russia-2018-2
Sales of Trump properties suggestive of money-laundering - researcher (Reuters)
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-russia-fusion/sales-of-trump-properties-suggestive-of-money-laundering-researcher-idUKKBN1F8058
Tower of secrets: the Russian money behind a Donald Trump skyscraper (Financial Times)
https://www.ft.com/trumptoronto
Trump Tower Toronto Was 'Investment Scheme And Conspiracy': Lawsuit (Huffington Post)
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/11/07/trump-tower-toronto-lawsuit_n_12849150.html?guccounter=1
If Trump Is Laundering Russian Money, Here’s How It Works (Wired)
https://www.wired.com/story/if-trump-is-laundering-russian-money-heres-how-it-works/
Trump's casino was a money laundering concern shortly after it opened (CNN)
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/trump-taj-mahal/index.html
Donald Trump and the mansion that no one wanted. Then came a Russian fertilizer king (Miami Herald)
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article135187364.html
Everything you want to know about Donald Trump's bankruptcies (CNN)
https://money.cnn.com/2015/08/31/news/companies/donald-trump-bankruptcy/
Canada's highest court upholds ruling that Donald Trump did mislead investors (The Independent)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-lawsuit-canada-court-approves-legal-case-against-us-president-a7623566.html
Russian elite invested nearly $100 million in Trump buildings (Reuters)
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/
Why did a Russian pay $95M to buy Trump’s Palm Beach mansion? (The Seattle Times)
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/why-did-a-russian-pay-95m-to-buy-trumps-palm-beach-mansion/
The Russia investigation and Donald Trump: a timeline from on-the-record sources (updated) (Politifact)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/16/russia-investigation-donald-trump-timeline-updated/
Donald Trump’s Worst Deal: The President helped build a hotel in Azerbaijan that appears to be a corrupt operation engineered by oligarchs tied to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (The New Yorker)
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/donald-trumps-worst-deal
Trump’s Business of Corruption (The New Yorker)
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/trumps-business-of-corruption
Trump lawyer 'paid by Ukraine' to arrange White House talks (BBC)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44215656
After becoming President, Trump has sold millions in real estate in secret deals (Newsweek)
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-real-estate-secret-buyers-777276
Just What Were Donald Trump's Ties to the Mob? (Politico)
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910
Russian lawyer from infamous Trump Tower meeting admits to being an informant for the Kremlin: Report (CNBC)
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/27/emails-show-new-ties-between-trump-tower-russian-and-kremlin-nbc.html
Edit: Here
They bought a property of his that was worth $45 million for about $100 million likely for reasons of money laundering. He's in it deep. No wonder he didn't want to become president.
Re: edit. Seems to be a different story to the one I thought. So many of them.
Address what directly? You merely said “reports”. Nothing for me to side-slip from because “reports” says zero.
You offered no qualification.
As soon as I opened that article this was in large letters beneath it’s headline.
“A plausible theory of mind-boggling collusion“
Now if you can explain how a plausible theory is a fact go right ahead.
A plausible theory, in order that it is plausible, is of necessity built on facts. Notice I said "facts", and you ask how the theory could be a "fact". So the article goes through some facts, and builds a theory based on those facts.
But as I said, it seems rather pointless to bring any facts to your attention. You shrug them off, disregard them, and change the subject. Then the theory is completely implausible to you who is ignorant of the facts.
One can string facts (particular but separate events ) together to create a story which fits a chosen narrative. It goes on all of the time.
A court is supposed to look at such things in an objective manner so if there is an indictment and it goes to a court, where ‘discovery’ can come into play (which can bring to light HOW such events could have been creatively construed), then that would be that.
However, in the meantime objectivity is not necessarily, or automatically, the business of corporate news outlets who often tie themselves to various political lobby structures.
Right, now let's not ignore all those facts.
We’ll just all have to wait and see how it shakes down.
When the so-called "facts" are corroborated by many different sources, I tend to believe them as facts.
Perhaps do some math.
6 CORPORATIONS CONTROL 90% OF THE MEDIA IN AMERICA
https://www.morriscreative.com/6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america/
Six different corporations adds up to a lot of competition. Add on to that all the foreign sources, and where's the cause for doubt?
Spoken like a true religionist.
Just believe, eh? Belief is everything.
Please do not ever accept to do jury service for the sake of justice.
Trollololo.
:lol:
See why I said it's pointless to introduce you to any facts?
First, just as Trump's attempts to break up Nato are a puzzle, so was Trump's attack on the Iran nuclear deal. So who wins if Iran is constrained on its oil exports? Well Russia of course.
And then there is Putin's engineering of Brexit, another intelligence coup exploiting the gullible right.
As background on Putin, this is interesting. He was always much more the outsider than I realised. It may have taken Western intelligence some time to wake up to the extent of Putin as a threat.
And the American people are happy to have as an inept a deal-maker as Trump locked up in cosy one-on-ones with this guy?
Thanks, I hadn't realized the extent of the other angles. Credit where credit is due, Russia with Putin is punching well above its geopolitical weight. Time to wake up and smell the ????.
The wind of reform used to blow from the globalising international direction. Now it blows from the populist nationalist direction. Russia is set up to exploit the wind whichever way it blows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nato-uncovers-russian-plot-spark-12044455
https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-plot-against-the-west-vladimir-putin-donald-trump-europe/
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/07/12/how-the-bbc-lost-the-plot-on-brexit/
It seems to me that, by engaging Rouhani publicly and giving an opportunity for war, Trump is empowering Iran. It's not as though the US needs to throw more lives and resources down the Middle Eastern black hole. Any conflict would cost both Iran and the US dearly. Meanwhile China will forge ahead with its strategic goals without such distractions.
Then again, he might be figure that a war usually guarantees a win at the next election via patriotic fervour and a wish not to disrupt the war machine. A war wouldn't hurt his fossil fuel investments either.
Perhaps this should be its own thread; but I will put it here, so it gets seen.
You are on the back of a tandem, riding along comfortably. For a while, the bloke up front changes gears at the right time so that you both get a comfortable ride up hill and down. For a while, he talks to you and steers were you both agree is pleasing.
But over time, he starts to take his own path more often than the one you want; he sits back and lets you do the peddling up hill; he even pinches some of your water.
But you go on peddling, talking gently and trusting that it will turn out alright.
Eventually, your seat has fallen off, your water is gone, you have been steered to a place you do not want to go, and the brakes are only on the front handle bar, so you can't stop.
The only solution becomes to stick your foot in the wheel. You know it will hurt, you know that the guy up front will be pissed, but you know that things have to change.
This strikes me as a reasonable reason for voting for Trump. When the system is so fucked that you can't get any advantage, but won't fix itself, bring it to a stop.
I now suspect that this is what @ArguingWAristotleTiff was trying to tell me. Perhaps I now understand.
Probably. Some. Those that don't just hate immigrants and Muslims like he does. But a heart attack is probably not the best cure for cancer.
Trump is plainly incompetent for the job. The only reason he got elected is that there are sufficient numbers of people who are incapable of comprehending that basic fact, and they project all their fears and hopes onto him. That also explains why, no matter what he does, 'Trump's base' will stick with him - because in their world, facts don't matter. So they're not going to bring anything to a stop, they're going to follow him off the precipice, whereupon everyone will perish.
Trying to look at this objectively I see more irrationality coming from the left then I do the right; and that irrationality is driven by hate. Whenever you hate someone you're going to see everything they do through those eyes, everything will be filtered through that prism. It's dangerous.
Good analogy. I think it especially applies to the 10% of Bernie voters who apparently ended up voting for Trump.
Did it bring it to a stop though? Or did it just change out the bloke in front for a crazy idiot and end up making the ride even worse?
Unfortunately, it's much easier to blame Trump's racist, sexist, redneck supporters for our current predicament than to take that sort of accountability. By doing so, they conflate - and thereby invalidate - legitimate and illegitimate grievances (of the racist and sexist sort) alike. This demonization of those who'd challenge their performance creates a corresponding emotional longing among many "good" Americans for the alleged glory days of Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama. Extremely dishonest and psychologically manipulative imo.
And yet you give no evidence at all of this. And dangerous? Donald Trump could literally start a nuclear war at any moment. I would think his irrationality is the more important worry here.
e.g.?
Yes, there is that. It's a pity Trump and his cronies are even more swampy than those they replaced imo. But there is a definite "a pox on all your (political) houses" element to his rise.
Yeah, looks like we're up the proverbial creek without a paddle, unfortunately.
Ideally, the previous (or maybe even new) powers replace Trump in 2020, with the proviso that they become much more attuned to the needs of average, hardworking citizens. This is a definite wake up call and there's probably no going back to business as usual. Could end up even much worse than before, though, so we'll see...
I wish we could talk to one another about what is going on but this thread is not hospitable enough to even begin to "talk".
"Do the tapes suggest that Trump knew about efforts to buy the rights to women alleging extramarital affairs with him, and prevent those allegations from being revealed to the public? Sure. But how many of us were buying Trump’s denials on that?
How many of us were buying Trump’s denials of the affairs?"
Where was I, and when did it happen that we so easily accept and even expect such blatant lies from the President of the United Sates. To be clear, it is not the lie that has me as concerned as the apparent indifference to it from so many.
In the service there is an expression that goes " you get what you inspect" - If we have lost our outrage at getting so blatantly lied to, and it has morphed into some tacit acceptance, that is a sad state of affairs.
If you don't pick one of these sides, you're just uninformed?
Just because one of two piles of excrement stinks less than the other doesn't mean people cannot choose to support alternative piles altogether. The whole point of a third political party in America is to have more choice, and to force improvement via competition.
Of course everyone leans more in one direction than another, but this coming from a political scientist as means to define "independents" is incredibly vapid. I reckon he is trying to point out that since it's one of two parties to begin with that we must inevitably choose one of them? (the self-fulfilling prophecy)...
Do you support persecution based on ethnicity or persecution based on political belief?
And your example is a false equivalence.
Sure, people can definitely choose to throw their votes in the trash.
Even if a "3rd party" became popular it would be at the cost of one of the current parties and we'd still be in a two party system. People would simply shift to the current dominate two parties. The only thing that would really happen is musical chairs with party labels.
The rise of a third party could come at the cost of both the republicans and democrats, and it could result in the trisection of the various representative houses rather than the traditional bisection.
The mistaken belief that a deciding vote is more important than all other votes is one of the mistaken beliefs that has kept America so dogmatically locked in its two party system for so long.
Let me know when it happens. In the meantime, feel free to continue and throw your votes in the trash.
What Trump means to individuals is irrelevant beyond the fact that he represents base primitive instinctual imperative towards materialism, greed and self interest. In this sense there is a little bit of Trump in all men. He derives much of his support from many who believe they are not in fact Trump supporters.
What is important about Trump is that he shows us that democracy is in crisis. Britain has its Trump in the form of Brexit, and democracies around the world are contaminated by the Trump ideals of materialism and self interest.
If democracy can present America and the world with a Trump as its answer to national and international crisis, then it is time to recognise that democracy is in crisis, that it has failed.
Human beings are incapable of living up to the moral obligations of freedom. They must be disciplined and controlled. They must be educated into the understanding that happiness does not equate with materialism, and that materialism is its antithesis. Only then will we be worthy of democratic freedom.
The immanent collapse of global ecology will assert this reality in the same manner that external ill considered reality has collapsed all previous empires and civilizations.
Trump is not a pathology, he is merely a symptom.
Democracy and capitalism are the disease.
M
This is more or less the same argument made in the infamous Flight 93 Election editorial, from 2016, written by a former speechwriter for Bush and Giuliani, Michael Anton, under the pseudo-name Publius Decius Mus (who was a real Roman consul).
The airplane analogy Anton presents is more appropriate than a tandem bike, because the former includes others, as opposed to a simple two-person tandem bike, in which there is just you and, presumably, a representative leader. It ignores the fact that your decision (and singular perception that things are on a cataclysmic trajectory) will also harm others.
But the Flight 93 Election (and other myopic analogies) is full of fallacies and countless presumptions. It assumes that the reasonable conclusion of the "Flight", if there is no interference, is a catastrophic denouement. But how can it exclude the possibility that a large-scale political shake-up will do more harm than good? It also assumes that the current course we are on commensurately harms everyone, despite differing levels of socio-economic status, ethnic and religious identity, etc. It is presumptuous to assume that a current trajectory or an alternative overhaul will affect people similarly. It also assumes that what is required for a course-correction is a political outsider; that what is required is simply to shake up the system. But what is the best course-correction? What are our politico-societal objectives? Without content in political policy, alternatives can be ineffective, or actually do more damage.
One can argue that the system is indeed fucked, and that an alternative is necessary. On that basis alone, however, one could have argued in favor of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, who have two diametrically opposed political ideologies.
It was obvious during Trump's campaign in 2015/2016 that he was not what America's political system needed. He embellished and outright lied about US immigration and immigrants. He demeaned women. He lied about the state of the economy and trade. He was never an ally of the LGBT community, the working class, or minorities. Now, nearly a year-and-a-half into Trump's presidency, it is indisputable that he and his administration have done more harm than good to America and the global community. The system has certainly been shaken up, but as the dust quickly settles it is evident that it has been for the worse.
Incidentally, Anton has been in the news quite a bit lately with an article on citizenship and another related one on immigration. For anyone who's really interested in the topic (or just bored), here's his lengthy response to the many critics - on both sides of the political aisle - who bashed his original op-ed on citizenship for being pure sophistry.
Seems as though he's trying to assert himself as the primary (only?) intellectual force behind Trumpism, which sounds like a contradiction but is worth exploring in some detail. His background as a West Coast Straussian puts him at odds with East Coast Straussians like Bill Kristol and other allegedly "globalist" neoconservatives.
If he has no reasonable defence, so be it.
It seems the only way to get some semblance of transparency from these employees of American citizens.
You've got quite a color obsession going on there.
:lol:
It's just showboating and going nowhere. The more sensible wing of the Republican party knows you can't impeach someone just because you consider them a political enemy. Jim Jordan is likely also motivated by trying to distract from the recently exposed scandal involving him covering up sexual abuse. Pretty sad and will end in ignominy for those involved.
It is for not carrying out his duties. The duties American citizens pay him to do. He is an employee.
You don't have to legally defend yourself against every nonsense unsubstantiated claim made by those who consider you a political threat. You ignore all that and get on with your job, which is exactly what Rosenstein will do.
It's construct gulag time again. Stalin is proud.
Yawn. Cite the evidence he's not carrying out his duties. And statements by lying politicians greasing their own wheels don't count. Go ahead.
Unless..........it's substantiation becomes clear.
:yawn: Evidence. Go ahead. We're waiting.
It's not for me. It's for the impeachment process. It will falter or it will not, based on evidence presented to that particular forum and how it may be defended.
Certainly much butt-hurtness going on here though.
You are really slow. There will be no process because there is no basis for a process. Just like if you accuse someone of a crime they won't be charged when there is zero evidence they committed one. Do you understand yet? There will be no impeachment because there is no reason for one.
Now, I didn't say he wasn't carrying out his duties. I merely paraphrased as to why the impeachment.
I don't know what the evidence is.
So, you supported his impeachment on the basis of nothing but some vague wish for transparency. OK, so presumably you support impeaching Trump for the same reason. Let's do it.
A stage of "the process" has begun, has it not? Introduction of the resolution?
I "support" the accusation that he keeps failing to turn over requested documents.
Whatever process gets him to stop failing is sufficient.
There will be no further process involving the presenting of evidence. It ends here with this embarrassing self-serving move.
Quoting raza
On the basis of no evidence. On your own admission you didn't even bother looking into it. That makes you one of the sheeple you like to talk about who just blindly follow politicians without thinking for yourself. Try looking at the evidence and try thinking for yourself. Follow your own advice.
Both Ryan and Gowdy's statements on the record show they think it's as ridiculous and unsubstantiated as we do.
"The chairman of the powerful House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said Sunday he doesn't support a push by conservative lawmakers to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
“No. For what? Impeach him for what? No,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/17/trump-ryan-rosenstein-impeachment-republicans-726247
"Ryan — who has long sought to avoid...confrontations with the Justice Department — told reporters Tuesday morning that DOJ is “now coming into compliance” with congressional subpoenas as part of lawmakers’ scrutiny into alleged FBI bias against Trump."
In other words, there is no failure to hand over documents, just a delay, which, considering the amount of documents involved, is completely understandable, and no reason whatsoever for impeachment except in the rabid imaginings of the extreme right who are even beginning to annoy the regular right with their childish shenanigans.
I was pretty disgusted when I was told that you partake in cannibalistic orgies with actual family members. Doubly so when it came to light that some think you have been snatching local babies for that purpose. To my mind, it's starting to paint a picture of why you oppose abortion. Of course, it's not for me to judge. I'm not endorsing any of these claims. But given their serious nature I think it's crucial that Philosophy Forum open up a process that will falter or not based on the evidence presented. Don't worry, you'll have plenty of time to defend yourself against these heinous accusations in front of your friends, family and the media. Surely, you shouldn't be bothered by the fact that those acting as judges and prosecutors and offering political spin will be your political enemies. If you're innocent, like you say, the facts will surely clear you.
Quoting raza
Look, I'm just saying that we leftists here at PF have decided to withhold judgment on whether you're a child-snatching incest-crazed cannibal until everyone gets their say and all the evidence comes out over the course of a rigorous process. Incidentally, we'll be running the process. Of course, you shouldn't be bothered that we have a huge incentive to find you guilty. If you're innocent, like you say, the facts will surely clear you.
Quoting raza
Now, I've never said that you're a child-snatching incest-crazed cannibal. I am merely paraphrasing why the banning.
Let the (show) trial begin!
I guess I really dont get american politics and optics, but shouldnt this be the exact type of things the reps should avoid doing? Couldnt this very well be ingerence into Justice affairs?
Yes, but it plays well with their base. That's all they care about here.
Now it’s entered a totally surreal phase, where Trump can stand in front of the international media and thunder ‘there is no collusion with Russia’ while he’s colluding with the President of Russia. Or he will casually give a newspaper interview in which he grossly insults and undermines the PM of Great Britain, whilst a guest in that country, and then deny at another international media conference two days later that he did any such thing, never mind that the whole thing has been recorded.
Honestly, Trump’s mendacity has reached such a staggering level of brazenness that it’s become completely surreal. He doesn’t even have to pretend to be telling the truth, or to care about what it is. Yet apparently there are enough ‘supporters’ in the US electoral system to insulate him from the consequences. It would be funny, if it weren’t diabolical.
(FN: This is me pretty much paraphrasing Arendt.)
A little background, this goes back to January:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/01/03/jim-jordan-has-these-question-for-the-fbi-n2429649
"Last week the Justice Department and FBI blew threw a deadline to turn over documents to the House Intelligence Committee about the infamous Russian dossier. That dossier was compiled by Fusion GPS and paid for by the Clinton campaign. Officials have until the end of today to comply with subpoena requests from Chairman Devin Nunes, who has threatened them with contempt.
But as the stonewalling continues, the more questions arise about the dossier: its origination, how it was used, who else pitched in to pay for it, etc.
Republican Congressman Jim Jordan has a few things he wants answered:
All of these questions remain unanswered as the Special Counsel investigation continues, along with investigations on Capitol Hill."
And this to December 2017:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/12/29/doj-blows-past-deadline-to-turn-over-document-to-congress-on-dossier-n2427812
Creative writing skills on show here today.
I'm getting first hand information as to what is meant by "Trump Derangement Syndrome" on this thread.
Keep things up. Hollywood is calling.
Give us a break, about two seconds after talking about Stalin and Gulags, you were supporting the impeachment of Rosenstein on the basis of nothing, no evidence. Now you dredge up two conservative opinion pieces saying Rosenstein missed a deadline. Are you serious? So, what? Again, if this is all it takes for you to support impeachment just have a look at the twenty or thirty links I provided earlier in the discussion with regard to Trump's links to Russians and possible money laundering. So, you'd support impeachment proceedings against him for the sake of transparency, right?
Rosenstein himself has said Trump, or any other American, has not been shown to collude with the Russian government on the matter of supposed influence of the 2016 US election.
He, and the currently employed senior personal of the "intelligence communities", have also stated that election results were not shown to have been affected by some Russian person's facebook ads or any other media forms.
I understand this information is not necessarily an adequate cure for various forms and outbreaks of Trump Derangement Syndrome but it is usually always the case that the sick first has to realize their sickness.
I will be following everything that plays out.
Yes, I will support a process being attempted to impeach Trump and then see where it may lead.
I don't know if it can get off the ground and neither do I know if this Rosenstein thing will go any further......but I think Rosey is a fraud and I think Trump is many things that I would not be friends with, but I do not go along with the Russia, Russia BS narrative.
Good to hear. It is likely to eventually happen and it will be interesting to see where it does lead. But there is not enough evidence yet to justify it. And that applies even more so to Rosenstein.
Quoting raza
I have no idea why you think this.
"Fraud" is mild.
OK, on the basis of what? Where is your evidence he is a fraud? I presume you found some now and are not just making random unsubstantiated claims. So, let's see it.
He is tied in with the biggest financial frauds that have taken place in US history. He is "swampy" in the extreme.
Quoting raza
Quoting raza
Quoting raza
And it isnt like there is already a trial going. No ones defence is even affected by this.
It is as petty as it is stupid. The last weeks have shown Mueller and Rosenstein to be machines. They wouldnt be affected by these theatrics.
The argument is not that legal deadlines were not met but why they were not met.
Programmed machines.
Well, that is really for discovery to determine in a court, not Congress.
WTF ARE THEY DOING?
They have the whole thing wrapped up. They go to trial and humiliate the life out of the FBI. They close both the Stormy Daniels and the Russian connection story in one go.
Instead, they prefer to project to anyone and everyone listening that they are terrified of Rosenstein and Mueller actually going for prosecution.
I suppose it starts somewhere. Particular members of congress are the ones currently frustrated by what they are not getting to see. Maybe court is their next avenue. I don't know.
July 24, 2018, 12:05 am
George Neumayr
He (Mueller) inherited a hopelessly biased probe and has made it worse.
The civil libertarians of the press — those card-carrying ACLU members who toss and turn at night worrying about the diminution of “privacy” — all rushed to the defense of the FBI after the release of its disgracefully flimsy FISA warrant on Carter Page. The hypocrisy of it all takes one’s breath away, as reporters and commentators, normally so censorious of privacy violations, coldly cheered the government’s harassment of Page.
The evidentiary basis for the warrant was nil. It rested upon nothing more than Hillary’s opposition research and partisan articles in the press, some of which were fed to the reporters by Hillary’s opposition researcher. Were anyone other than a Trump campaign associate the target of such an outrageously unfounded and biased warrant, the media would be crying McCarthyism. Instead, anchors continue to shill for the smears, doubling and tripling down on surveillance that yielded no charges. Taking victim-shaming and nativist paranoia to new heights, they are saying to Page essentially: Well, it serves you right for talking to foreigners.
Did you know that “bragging” about talking to foreigners entitles the government to subject every inch of your life to surveillance? So say those citizens of the world in the press, who cited approvingly Marco Rubio’s idiotic comment about Page’s “bragging,” as if that constituted a form of evidence itself. “Little” Marco has never seemed so little.
That the FBI could ransack Page’s communications on the basis of such sophomoric dreck should scare everyone. The partisan hacks who assembled the FISA application — note that the liberal activist Sally Yates signed it — even made use of an opinion piece asserting falsely that the GOP had weakened its platform position on Russia. This is hackery on a staggering scale, and it is impossible to explain apart from the arrogance of the Obama administration, whose sense of entitlement grew in proportion to the media’s protection of it.
This farcical FISA warrant is one more withered branch on Mueller’s poisoned tree. He inherited a hopelessly biased investigation and has managed to make it worse. His “collusion” probe is looking at everything but collusion. The careerist weasel Rod Rosenstein, who is the Dr. Frankenstein in this political horror show, created a monster in Mueller and that monster is now rampaging through Manhattan, looking for the black books of madams and the filched phone calls of crooked lawyers.
Mueller’s supposedly impeccable reputation is a joke. He is just a garden-variety abusive prosecutor, whom Rosenstein hired to give official Washington what it wanted, an unfolding coup against a reviled outsider. As the ruling class’s battering ram against Trump, Mueller is working feverishly to magnify Trump’s political mistakes into quasi-impeachable offenses. But that tack won’t work. The tree that Mueller is plucking, weakened by too much poison in its roots, will collapse in the end on top of him.
His probe will peter out in a pathetic political food-fight. Does anybody really think that Trump would quit before Congress reached the incredibly high bar necessary for impeachment and conviction, if things even got to that? In the end, this is all just empty noise — a hobbling political problem for the Trump presidency, to be sure, but not its final chapter.
Trump, after all, is adept at driving the stake through monsters and has been poking Mueller with it for months. By treating his probe as an open-ended search for dirt of any kind on Trump, Mueller has conformed perfectly to Trump’s description of him as a partisan witch-hunter. That Mueller is giving immunity to John Podesta’s brother, while nailing Paul Manafort for identical offenses, sums up the shamelessly one-sided character of his probe. It is obvious that Mueller has picked up some very bad prosecutorial habits over the years, exhibiting the special arrogance and obtuseness of a canonized mandarin. Such figures in Washington could once count on a docile public. Not anymore. The rise of Trump has exposed Washington’s entitled frauds, whose hurled boomerangs now fly back at them.
What Trump once said to the media now applies to all of official Washington: “No one believes you anymore.” From Strzok to Brennan, from Yates to Comey, from Rosenstein to Mueller, they all assume that the day of reckoning approaches. What they don’t realize is that the wrath will befall them. A public fed up with phony FISA warrants and partisanship that masquerades as “professionalism” will not see Trump as the villain in this sorry tale but its victim.
False and misleading. Misleading in that “Hillary’s opposition research” is actually the professional findings of a credible ex-MI6 operative who specialised in matters involving Russia and who has a history of providing reliable information to the FBI. False in that, according to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, “there was a lot of reasons unrelated to the dossier for why they wanted to look at Carter Page.”
The SIC chairman, Richard Burr (R-NC), has also said that there were “sound reasons” for the judges (all Republican appointees, FYI) to approve the warrant.
And that former employess come whistleblowers were all the actual dirty ones.
Excuse me while watch some other forms , but with better cinematic values, of fictional stories.
It was what the warrant WAS not what it HAD. A FISA warrant. The process by which it was obtained.
That is what is under particular scrutiny.
And yes, Hillary funded to Steele's operation.
I said "misleading", not "false". It may have been Hillary's opposition research, but it was also the professional findings of a credible ex-MI6 operative who specialised in matters involving Russia and who has a history of providing reliable information to the FBI. Describing it just as the former and not also as the latter is disingenuous.
That fact makes all this deep state bullshit just that... bullshit. Senate hears the case and decides on it. So if the "ruling class" really wanted to oust Trump, they would've done so almost immediately on something flimsy like lying. There isn't an "incredibly" high bar, the bar is enough Senators wanting to get rid of him.
Yeah, I already responded to this opinion of yours that somehow Steele is automatically scrupulous merely because of his job title.
Nowhere have I expressed the opinion that Steele is automatically scrupulous. I have only stated the fact that Steele is an ex-MI6 operative who specialised in matters involving Russia and who has a history of providing reliable information to the FBI and is thus credible.
There you go again. A "fact" he is "credible". Try looking up definitions of "credible" and "scrupulous".
You accused me of saying that Steele is automatically scrupulous because of his job title. And I didn't. The facts are that a) he is an expert, and b) he has a history of providing reliable information.
a) + b) = c)redible.
What Trump once said to the media now applies to all of official Washington: “No one believes you anymore.” From Strzok to Brennan, from Yates to Comey, from Rosenstein to Mueller, they all assume that the day of reckoning approaches. What they don’t realize is that the wrath will befall them. A public fed up with phony FISA warrants and partisanship that masquerades as “professionalism” will not see Trump as the villain in this sorry tale but its victim.
As I said it is your opinion coupled with your report of other opinion. So we will see how Steele goes over time. It is very early yet. It may take until after the 2020 election when things really get done on this (if and once Trump gets a firmer grip on staff or has made appropriate staff changes. He would certainly deserve to make wholesale changes if he secured a 2nd term).
They all lie. It just depends on what.
However, the "Russia" conspiracy theory will not be proved or disproved merely on what Trump says.
Which part is my opinion? That he is an expert? That he has a history of providing reliable information? Or that to be credible just is to be an expert with a history of providing reliable information?
This is all according to who he has done bossiness for and with. Their opinion. Your opinion is to automatically believe their opinion.
So, all this Steele Dossier stuff looks as though it will be tested. We shall see, maybe, what that test may reveal.
In an ideal world it should be fairly obvious to everyone that criticizing one's work colleagues publicly is generally employment suicide,
and I know we do not live in an ideal world, such as that which would accommodate the factor above, as evidenced by your opinion being posed as absolute fact.
Well said.
Don't most, at least in terms of what they perceive as going on?
I agree that he dramatizes.
The feminization of the left has made them vulnerable to the soap opera fantasy that the main stream media is putting out as news. In this daily soap opera, Trump is the evil villain. Like any TV villain there is no good side to the TV villain, since he has to epitomize all that is taboo and evil. The villain cannot be portrayed in any good fashion, such as a renewed economy, since that would spoil the over the top TV villain character. Fake news is soap opera news.
This social drama is useful, in terms of psychology, because it shows how a large section of the population, mostly from the left, can easily be detoured from reality, by a good ole fashion soap opera. The main problem with Trump, is he is not totally playing his villain role as expected. Rather he is spoiling the games of the left by doing things that are not expected of the villain.
More and more people are relating to the soap opera villain, as a victim, since the majority of the negativity and games come from the characters portrayed as the good guys and gals. The left way outpaces Trump in terms of the negativity and shady games played. What type of good guy attacks family members who have not done anything?
Trump has experience with reality TV and has learned to how to turn it around, in time for the midterms. For example, Trump said he is being harder on the Russians than any another president, so Putin is now expected to help the Democrats in the midterms, so they can destabilize the US. This means Trump will ask for more controls in the election process, making it harder for the left to cheat. States, like California, that refuse to show voter rolls and cooperate can now be accused of Russian collusion and can be investigated and audited using the Democrat led template. This adds a twist to the soap opera drama that hurts the left.
What I also heard is Trump is going to release many of the classified documents that have been requested, but have been stalled by the FBI and Justice Departments. The release is expected just after the left picks their nominees for the midterms elections. Those nominees, who run and win, based on the momentum of the left wing soap opera template, will be devastated by the truth. They will look either like morons, or the true villains in the plot, who betrayed the trust of the audience. Season 2 of the soap opera will be upside down.
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2557
Did you just suggest that women are more gullible than men?
Nothing unexpected. After all, it has been the dominant narrative of the mainstream media business cartels.
I'm more surprised at the resistance to dominant narrative.
Censorship of conservative opinion on some sites, such as facebook, could become a factor. The EU and UN seem to want it.
The point at which you're vindicated to read no further.
:lol:
Do you mind if I ask what your main source of news is? What's your go-to news website?
Facebook.
In nearly every public opinion poll Trump's support stems almost exclusively from the Republicans, and the number of Americans voters who identity as Republicans or leaning towards is shown to be lower than those who identify with the Democrats in the most recent polls that I cared to look at. If you can find a more current and legitimate poll I am all for it.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/223124/democratic-party-maintains-edge-party-affiliation.aspx
This is USA history repeating itself, Raza. The sitting president always motivates opposition to his party. If you think the majority is going to ride in on a white horse to save Trump then you are fooling yourself, as at the very least, half of America thinks Trump is a shithead. You don't need polls to figure that out, it is just common sense.
Don't forget @Hanover. He knows that Trump's a shithead, probably doesn't admire his shitheadedness, but prefers shithead Republican policies to sensible Democratic ones.
If, or as, a resistance develops to a narrative because the narrative shows itself to be faulty under more intense scrutiny then it is easily conceivable that the previously undecided or growing doubtful previous democrat voters change to Republican.
So as a republican base grows as a consequence then the poll you submitted becomes somewhat mute in terms of anything to do with loyalty to party.
It could become just about a loyalty to who's message is most reasonable.
For example: A new poll in two years time shows larger proportion of Republicans thought "RussiaGate" was a scam. The same poll shows that the listed democrats at the time were 100% in their feelings Trump and Russia collude together at elections.
However, because of facts appearing showing great cracks in RussiaGate theory, democrat voter levels had slipped to 30%. This would only show the Democrat party backed the wrong horse with regard to world event narrative.
So all this could merely mean is that a party which dominates does so, not because of habitual loyalty, but because they become winners over a scam that became obvious as a scam.
Perfect example. A platform very interested in censorship of conservative views.
And what if angels decent from the sky and crown Trump ruler for all time?
I don't care about your fantasies, Raza.
I wasn't caring whether you cared.
You assume much. Mere sign of degree of narcissism.
Yes, the poor oppressed conservatives . . . . :roll:
All you do is assume, Raza. This entire thread is just you spitting out baseless assumptions and wild fantasies. Always in favor if Trump, but surely you can't think the man is perfect, right? There must be some flaws.
Somehow I will live with the loss. It will be hard, but I will push on.
Whether Russiagate turns out to amount to anything or not is unlikely to move overall numbers much. Dems have a demographic advantage, growing numbers of minority voters and a significant edge amongst upcoming generations, which is a much more salient clue to future voting intentions than the results of this probe.
Trump's flaws is that he is probably a fairly complete narcissist.
However. Where does his form of narcissism lead him? Maybe he wants to be known ultimately as America's hero President JUST for the image. And maybe to be that he has to reveal what has been wrong in America's governmental past.
I think one would be quite a narcissist to ever want to be president.
You think? Nah. Couldn't be,
Did Bengazhi harm Dems chances? That was huge. For the right anyway. But...
"According to The Hill, the hearings provided a positive momentum for Clinton's 2016 campaign, with her performance generating headlines such as "Marathon Benghazi hearing leaves Hillary Clinton largely unscathed" (CNN), and "GOP lands no solid punches while sparring with Clinton over Benghazi" (The Washington Post). Her campaign received a windfall of donations, mostly coming from new donors."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Benghazi
However, a flaw for who? It becomes relative.
You make it that way, Raza.
Quoting raza
That is dodge.
Give a specific error he has made.
Quoting JeremiahNot a political error given he is still in the job with consideration to that fact so much is thrown at him.
I'm torn. On the one hand, the author keeps referring to the Russians as Soviets and has filed it under "What a Fool Believes", which questions the entire thing (also, it contradicts the FBI, SIC, etc.). On the other hand, he points specifically to Georgia as being likely to have had its votes changed and then this being covered up, and I'd love to be able to shove it in Hanover's face that Trump's win here was illegitimate (although alas it's only 16 electoral votes and so not enough to swing the election).
The failed Muslim ban? The steel and aluminium tariffs? Moving the US embassy? Appearing weak and manipulated by Putin? These are not political errors? I would love to hear your apologetics on how these are in fact heroic acts worthy of the greatest admiration.
On its own the source looks too left-wing biased to be trusted. Worth some research though.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jul/26/cnn-reporter-banned-trump-white-house-event-kaitlan-collins
Yes, but high factual reporting.
This one reads more as an opinion piece though.
Well, if it's true there should be corroborating evidence out there. Worth a look for sure.
That's a problem that the article addresses:
Just yesterday at a the VFW convention Trump said. "Just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening." - I find that an amazing quote. almost equal to just 3 weeks into the administration when he tweeted "any negative polls are fake news"
The continual barrage of lies are now routinely excused along the lines that Americans shouldn't worry about what Trump says but instead watch what he does. This requires buying into the moral relativism at the heart of Trump's deny, distract, deflect and divide rhetorical strategy.
The last and laziest defense is the whatabout-ism, Or an argument that says a fact-based debate itself is divisive.
In other words, the test of loyalty is not only to lie for the regime but to convince oneself to believe the lies, or at least to dismiss any meaningful difference between truth and lies. And that's where the real danger with the hyper-partisan defense of Trump is emerging. It ends up endorsing the idea that truth doesn't matter and that a president's litany of lies should not be over-indexed or seen as destructive to our democracy. In sum, "get over it -- our guy won." In this world view, power and nationalism provide their own imperatives.
When will his supporters awake to the fact that truth does matter, it is not relative. Democracy depends on facts made available to citizens in a self-governing society.
His supporters are the only ones who can stop this slide into an Orwellian acceptance of the party. It will be up to the core of the republican party to begin holding Trump accountable for his lies and actions. Cries from the opposition or MSM will just continue to be discounted and dismissed until the core Republicans awake to the idea they are making a deal with the devil - that can endanger the very core of our american democracy.
Maybe it is too much to ask for, but we need a moral leader to emerge in the GOP, someone who has a deep concern for our democratic process, and will take on the task of holding Trump accountable.
Ah hem... @Hanover. :smirk:
You mean an actual Conservative that holds truth, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in high regard? Not a chance.
It's tribalism. Kind of like looking at a meeting between Afghan warlords.
Condoleezza Rice ??
Great pianist. Uncritically supported the Iraqi war?
What counts as obstruction? Has he been interviewed by the Mueller team?
I can believe it.
If Elizabeth Warren runs, every exchange is likely to be "Trump: Pocahontas! Warren: Idiot!" and nobody will hear anything else.
Thanks for the link - the analysis is very plausible. It is also disheartening because it has the corrollary "lies don't matter" to the public, and probably also that the public is short-sighted. There are consequences to unsustainable budget deficits, protectionism, and ambiguous relations with other countries where the distinction between ally and enemy are blurred.
IMO, the Democrats best hope is to nominate a moderate. Left-wingers certainly feel energized, but their favorite candidates (Sanders and Warren) have lower chances of getting elected than does a real moderate. They can only win if something pretty bad happens during the next 2 years. The best counter to an a-hole like Trump is an even tempered, well-spoken person. e.g. if Mitt Romney became a Democrat, I think he could be Trump.
Quoting Relativist
The Dems nominated Clinton, a moderate, who lost. The Dems need to push the overton window towards the left, because the right-ward shift is leading this country down a dark path.
Also, Brett assumes in this piece that Trump will win every state he won in 2016. However, recent polling in three key states that Trump narrowly won in 2016 (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan) currently, by a wide-margin, do not think he deserves reelection.
Agreed. For comparison, Labour might not be doing great or as well as people might think they should be doing right now, under Jeremy Corbyn, but they're doing much better than they were under the more moderate Ed Milibland, despite all the naysayers. And the Blairites on the right of the party are even more unpopular - some of them having an effect like kryptonite. Just ask Liz Kendall about her 4%.
The same kind of thing was said about Jeremy Corbyn. And Donald Trump. The former started out with odds of 200/1.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed, establishing a conservative court. That will remove the main issue from the religious right to support Trump. The right candidate could attract this group playing to Trumps lack of morals. If you can combine that with losing some conservative women for the same reason. Could be a base there to build on if you can make enough Trump supporters believe you can get some or the same results without the lack of character.
Right now Trump is selling hope and fear. I think it is possible for another Republican to challenge him effectively on the hope, and just leave him with the fear.
:lol: Trump has you deranged, buddy. All I'm doing is demonstrating your own bad judgment by posting a couple times in this thread and living my life, you're posting dozens of times a day about your obsession with Trump, so it's not surprising you project your derangement onto others. Also, way to skip straight to ad hominem in order to skip any meaningful reflection on how thoroughly whipped your logic is. :lol:
The only people that I can imagine that were put of by her being a moderate were Bernie supporters. I doubt many of them voted for Trump, although I'm sure some of them just stayed home (I know some who did this). I bet the vast majority of them now regret their decision, so I don't see this as a factor in the next election.
Elections are usually won by getting the votes of those in the middle. Trump is certainly an anomoly, but it would be good to consider why so many found him appealing. Fewer will find him appealing this time, and I'm confident that his opposition will be extremely energized.
BTW, there's one progressive that I think could beat Trump in a landslide, but there's zero chance she will run: Michelle Obama. Nevertheless, she's my dream candidate.
That's an interesting observation. There was definitely been a realignment of the parties in the 60s. There used to be "liberal Republicans" (remember Rockefeller? for that matter, Nixon was a liberal in many respects). And consider what happened to the segregationist Democrats- they left because of the Civil Rights legislation under LBJ. I will forever remember my red-neck cousins, former Democrats, saying they would no longer vote Democrat because they said the "Democrats did too much for the ni___rs".
While I really like her, as a European I'm baffled at these political family dynasties. The Kennedys, clintons, bushes, Obamas (if Michelle would run) and then possibly the Trumps. Smells too much like aristocracy.
Clinton lost for many reasons, one of which was that she was a moderate in a time when being a moderate, run-of-the-mill politician has become a liability when it comes to presidential aspirations. A lot of people are looking for alternatives to our current system. That's in part how Obama was able to beat out Clinton and eventually win the presidency. He was, at the time, somewhat of an outsider and a novel voice within the political landscape.
That is an interesting observation, but it not quite the same thing. To get elected, one needs to be well known. It can be very expensive to become well known. Michelle (as well as Bushes, Kennedy's, and Clintons) get notoriety for free. Trump also got it for free. There's been controversy about Hillary since Bill's presidency (I remember Rush Limbaugh accuse her of orchestrating Vince Fosters killing). There's no controversy about Michelle, and - given her impressive speech about "going high" - she would be the perfect person to go against him.
Right, but I'm inclined to go with more of a sure thing than to hope for another anomaly.
I greatly admire Barrack Obama as a person, and for what he tried to do. But his progressive agenda resulted in the conservative backlash that led to Trump getting elected. A moderate Democrat has a better chance of having a lasting, positive, and beneficial legacy.
Quoting Benkei
I remember an interview from a Law School teacher of both Michelle and Barrack, who basically said he couldn't believe it wasn't Michelle on the ticket. From the impression I got, she was the one who had political ambitions from the start.
I think this is crap, to be honest. As long as a politician is of the Democratic Party, conservatives have demonstrated that they will label them a socialist, anti-American, etc., regardless of their actual policies. The GOP have made it clear that they will not work with the Democrats, who should, for the sake of the nation, embrace more radical leftist positions, including a livable wage, public healthcare, affordable/free education, and a more equitable economy. The rising Democratic star, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated in an interview that there is "nothing radical about moral clarity", and I think that's a vital stance the Dems need to take, in particular, to contrast themselves with Trumpist Republicans and their enablers.
A sure thing? Not an anomaly? In [i]these[/I] times? Your inclination means little. Maw's analysis is spot on. The current political climate doesn't favour moderate, run-of-the-mill candidates. Look at Obama, Trump, Sanders, Macron, Le Pen, Corbyn, and the AfD. Look at what happened to Clinton. Look at what has happened to moderates in Labour since Blair. Sure, Macron is a centrist, but he is also of an entirely new political party that has never been in power until his election last year - so hardly run-of-the-mill. Putting forward another moderate establishment-type figure would be political suicide.
1. "would normally be considered as political errors?"
What are "normal" political errors? Do you have a list for comparison?
2."he remain in his position in spite of the backlash"
"Backlash", to me, simply means there are those that disagree but with an emotional emphasis. Being emotional is itself a very used tool in politics and political debate (feigned or exaggerated for effect is common).
3. The failed Muslim ban?
Failed? It was eventually changed to Executive Order 13769. Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen.
4. The steel and aluminium tariffs?
Time may tell how this will pan out.
5. Moving the US embassy?
Many previous presidents have said they would do this, including Obama, and then did not. Obama voiced his opinion that he recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capitol but back his opinion in actuality. Weak, maybe?
6. Appearing weak and manipulated by Putin?
"Appearances". Yours and others opinion. You forget or did not know of H. Clinton special moments with Putin or Obama caught on a hot mic leaning toward Russian ambassador saying he will be able to discuss things with Putin after the (2012) election? How did that "appear"? Or is it that mainstream media tried hard to not make it "appear"?
7. "I would love to hear your apologetics on how these are in fact heroic acts worthy of the greatest admiration."
I never said I perceived Trump as a hero or that I greatly admired him. Was that question sophism, perhaps, or did you just interpret something wrongly - an honest mistake?
"The feminization of the left has made them vulnerable"
Aaaaaand unsubbed.
Oh shit this isnt youtube. :angry:
Do you have any "faults"? Everyone will find something they will disagree with with anyone else. We would likely refer to them as being wrong vs being right on any particular point (placing ourselves as right).
Is that what you mean by a "fault"?
Has he made errors as a President? I think any leader or any person will fail at trying to achieve something, but the point is they had a go.
Are we not all triers? Do we not all falter when trying?
You seem to attempt to dehumanize with such questions as that.
If I post a dozen times a day it is because I respond many times to who responds to me. I'm doing it now with you.
I can't help being popular, and people respond expecting a response back. So it is respectful I do so.
It is completely nuts that you can't bring yourself to criticize one fault. If you are not able to see his errors, then clearly you are not able to view the man objectively. Even the most die hard Trump fan should be able to see that man makes mistakes. Maybe your employer doesn't allow you to post criticisms of Trump.
Plus it is what you are being paid to do.
Mistakes in what sense? I am saying it is too early to assess his legacy as president because what he seems to want to achieve is still open to being achieved. It's obviously a battle, but hey! That appears to be the nature of the job.
I am thinking that you are not allowed to criticize Trump. The idea that he is perfect and has not made any mistakes at all, is just too far out there, even for you.
The money is good, sure. Rubles are pretty steady at the moment. Maybe a better option than US fiat currency.
Either way, you have made it your job to troll for Trump. You won't criticize President Trump at all, you have admitted to that.
I think your understanding is somewhat limited.
I don't know about you but when I have an idea and then try to make it something, and the first attempt failed, then I will often try a different method.
The first attempt had mistakes in it which may have been impossible to identify until attempt was tried.
So a "mistake" is usually just part of the normal process as human beings.
Maybe you would like an AI leader.
What specifically are these mistakes you are talking which Trump has made as President.
He will make mistakes out of not knowing what his opposition may do to thwart him. We can't always predict what others will do.
It is just how it is for everyone.
Give me a specific mistake that Trump HAS made.
He should have fired far more people right from the start.
He should have fired Jeff Sessions when he recused himself.
So you are faulting his lack of action. Can you find fault in any of his actions?
I think it's more likely that he's just a pigeon walking on a keyboard.
It was an action to hire Sessions. This turned out to be a mistake, in my opinion.
To continue trying to work with Sessions as the DOJ is most certainly an ongoing action....and it is a mistake.
You had no issue with the way he performed at the news conference in Helsinki?
No issue that the Congress and Senate of the US have no clue what Trump said in private to Putin? And from appearances, neither does his own Secretary of State ?
So of course he should keep his cards close to his chest.
I suspect Putin had private business arrangements with Hillary Clinton.
Good.
Wait a bit, Breitbart is a shitty site to dig through.
And here is an good article showing how, contrary to the national conversation between Republicans and moderate Democrats, the sudden and recent political ascendance of the radical left has not hindered the Democrats, but (and the correlation here is admittedly more debatable) has helped the Democrats in the last month since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won the primary.
Maybe, perhaps, perchance, after last election's trainwreck, it's time to put the pedal to the floor, so to speak?
I’m not going to play your game of you putting me to work trawling through Trump’s entire history.
He is doing a reasonable job so far given what he is up against.
It is up to you to be specific for me to comment on each specific.
I’m not going to write a book for you.
This is basic principle.
If you have nothing, so be it.
You want me to comment on every mistake you conceive him to have made without specifying each mistake.
If you cannot list then maybe it is difficult for you to find. I am sure I have disagreed with you on many things about Trump going back over weeks so many things may have already been covered.
I shall paraphrase this conversation for you.
1. You suggested I think Trump never makes a mistake.
2. I said it is likely he does.
3. You want me to list them.
4. It isn’t my job to compose a list FOR YOU and then for me to comment on them.
4. I say it is reasonable that you identify a mistake you perceive so that I can comment.
5. I am open to comment upon a mistake YOU identify.
I think I am being fair and reasonable.
“I expected something like this from Cohen, he’s been lying all week. He’s been lying for years,”
Why did our beloved, law-abiding president have a pathological liar working for him? What is the positive spin on it?
I don't think Rudy's going rogue here- Trump wants Cohen painted as a liar. Team Trump considers this the lesser of two evils. The greater evil is that Trump lied about having knowledge of the infamous meeting. It remains to be seen if Cohen's allegation will be corraborated, but this reality show is getting interesting.
E.g., Trump's team are tools.
I don't need to provide a list, and I shouldn't have to explain to you the kind of things which are normally considered to be political errors during a presidential term. Use your head. A failure to meet a goal, a strategy that backfires, an action which lowers your approval rating, or harms your chances of reelection, or damages your reputation or the reputation of your party, or damages key international relations, or harms the economy, or loses you public support, or results in widespread condemnation, and so on, and so forth.
Quoting raza
Instead of reading into that term a personal meaning which is convenient for your apologetics, try using a dictionary: [I]"a strong negative reaction by a large number of people to a social or political development"[/I]. That's all I meant.
Quoting raza
Yes, failed. He has failed to implement a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”, as he said during the 2016 presidential campaign. He also had failures along the road which lead to the Supreme Court's narrow ruling (5 - 4) on the final version of his executive order, which is not the Muslim ban he spoke of during his campaign. His first executive order failed and was reversed and he then had to revoke and replace the original.
And I don't care about your Obama red herring. This isn't about him, it's about Trump.
Quoting raza
Ha! That's the best you can come up with? I refer you, for example, to what [i]The Economist[/I] has said about it. I quoted [url=https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/163410]an article[/URL] earlier on in this discussion.
Quoting raza
Human lives, peace, and stability are much more important than whether or not a president will appear weak for not sticking to his word or following opinion with action. Trump knowingly endangered lives and the stability of the region effected. He cost lives by going ahead with it. It is better that Obama exercised restraint, even if it made him look weak.
Quoting raza
It is the understanable and widespread opinion of many, many, people, and for obvious reasons. He has a track record of this kind of behaviour like no one who has come before him.
And please stop with the red herrings. They are not a valid argument. This isn't about Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama. Whether or not they have similarly appeared weak is irrelevant to whether or not Trump has appeared weak. This is about Donald Trump.
Quoting raza
It was sarcasm.
So, a description of apparently normal “errors”. Sounds like every presidency.
Normal, however, that every president attempts to impose an election edict and processes work against them.
If one doesn’t ever try then that same one never does anything. Might as well stay in bed.
Sounds like you expect Superman to come along.
Everyone speculates.
Better to appear weak and be weak? Ok, got that. A contrast to Superman now. This is getting to be about schizophrenia.
Trump should not be weak towards those who make up all the Russia BS.
Check how the Browder inspired Magnitsky Act was a fraud.
https://youtu.be/njzZcdoLP6c
I didn’t want to immediately assume you were being a knob.
Yeah, but it ain't trickling down? Why?
That's been debunked by just about every economist as a temporary blip initiated by Trump’s failing trade war, which is already requiring billion dollar bailouts. Anyone who thinks the US will have grown by 4.1% by the end of the year, in other words that this is "very sustainable" in Trump's words, needs to be provided with a very tight jacket and locked in a room with bouncy walls.
There's not much to trickle down, it's a misleading figure. Listen, we had a GDP blip in Ireland that showed a 26% growth rate in 2015! Beat that Trump! Our politicians were a bit more restrained in their celebrations though as no-one was buying it.
Aww, shucks...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-gdp-growth-touted-as-historic-by-trump-is-totally-standard/
But trickle down!!!
:fear:
Don't overlook the possibility of higher GDP growth this year, even if it's not 4.1%. Lower taxes have historically been stimulative. The problem is that this growth is paid for by running up more debt, and this debt will be unsustainable because deficits have grown (increasing the debt) and interest on the national debt rises with interest rates. Interest on the debt will eventually overwhelm the budget at this rate. This is a booby trap for the next (Democratic) president, who will unavoidably have to raise taxes, which will be a drag on the economy.
Yes, agree with all that. That's the strategy here. Slash taxes for the wealthy to improve GDP figures in the short to medium term (though still won't be anywhere near four per cent) while creating a huge unsustainable debt problem for whoever comes later, who will have to take hard decisions about how to deal with it. Absolutely cynical, self-serving and destructive economics.
Why should it trickle down? The point is to have an economy that offers the possibility for economic opportunities, not to have as wide as possible a distribution of capital. A world with a thriving economy is a world of opportunity - a world where people dare to start business, take risks, etc. because they know there are opportunities out there which are worth the risks. Whereas the convoluted, socialist world that the Democrats aimed for is a world where few people take risks, where everyone wants a cozy place because life is too scary, etc.
Quoting Baden
You are wrong. The moves Trump made, including slashing taxes, setting up trade barriers and promoting local industry/investments are pure gold. Investments are the key to GDP growth, investments drive confidence & production which drives consumption. Improving the trade balance also positively affects the GDP.
Although to be fair - economic crisis doesn't come from lack of GDP growth, but rather from the failure of (a few) important and big players. Economic crisis originates with BANKS for the most part. If we got rid of banks, we would have no more crisis. Banks are the virus in the economic system. It is the greed of bankers which takes us from crisis to crisis. Banking is usury, and should be outlawed.
Banks need crisis. They loan to the entrepreneur, and the crisis is the opportunity to appropriate the value that the entrepreneur produced. And when banks are in bed with the state, as they always are, then they don't even have to worry about themselves - the state will finance them, if needed, so that they can hoard all the wealth. Banking IS the redistribution of wealth from the poor (the taxpayers) and the wealth creators (entrepreneurs) to the capitalists. Capitalism is the economic system where bankers (indeed, owners of capital) always come out on top.
Trump's trade war will boost GDP in the long term? According to what economic model? According to what evidence? Fantastical statements like this just make you sound uninformed. But OK, if you really believe this I'll bite: if by the end of the year overall growth is four per cent or more I'll post a picture of myself here in this discussion wearing a MAGA hat. If it falls more than half a per cent short of that, you post a picture of yourself with an "I Love Hillary" speech bubble coming out of your mouth. OK? Or is this just hot air?
We need banks. They just need to be properly regulated. Where are the funds for entrepreneurship going to come from if not banks?
Thank you for being a voice of reason Agustino. If we can get employers to believe in hiring people for more than 30 hours a week, without government penalty, those going from part time to full time would sky rocket. The results are amazing when something is suggested as norm and followed for decades, as opposed to an arbitrary number being assigned to companies whose structure might not be the traditional model, so therefore a blanket force to buy a government product fails, miserably.
But not without first doing irreversible damage to the American medical community before ceasing to exist. :shade:
What a cluster fuck of "no one knows what anyone else is doing anymore". They just know it is not their responsibility.
(medical rant over for now)
Six replies? A single reply would've sufficed. So, do you acknowledge any of the political errors I raised [i]as[/I] political errors, or are you still in denial? I don't expect Superman. That's just silly. Like others, I was just curious about the length you're willing to go to in order to avoid admitting to error.
I need a bank that hands out samples. :pray:
Do you remember when you used to call yourself a socialist?
May I ask what your working definition of a "socialist" is?
Even right wing capitalists at least pay lip service to the idea that economic growth should benefit the majority as the majority play a part in producing that growth at every level. @Agustino unfortunately seems to be stuck in the fantasy that it is only businessmen like him that matter and should get all the benefits from society while everyone else simply bows down and thanks them for their brilliance. Of course the rub is that when inflation outpaces wages growth for long enough due to this randonomics type approach, Agu's wage slaves won't be able to buy his stuff any more.
The deeper problem Agu is that your philosophy is morally warped. Entrepreneurs are not better in some objective way than other people such that they deserve to hog the spoils of economic growth. They are simply players in a system that can either distribute its benefits rationally for the greater good, as democratic socialists would like, or that can feed the avarice that you and those of your political ilk would espouse. The fact is that those who like doing business should be thankful society is set up in such a way that they can follow their passion and that and enough material wealth to satisfy a rational serving of needs should be enough. So, basta! Insisting that you not only get enough to meet your needs but so much that you deprive others of enough to meet their needs in order to serve you is not only morally reprehensible but economically illiterate.
I won't speak for Sapientia, but I think the essence of socialism is summed up most succinctly in the words of JC.
"He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise."
Luke 3:11
I personally think Jesus goes a bit far on this one if you're to take it literally, but I think the spirit of it at least should be integrated into government policy. And that is "Do not distribute an excess that would cause a deficiency on the other end. That's neither good for those who are forced into deficiency (suffering) or those who are given the excess (greed)". And that's diametrically opposed to the Randian approach of the likes of Agu and Trump whose policies if brought to their logical conclusion would eventually result in an irreversible polarization of society into a majority with less than they need (the deficient) and a tiny minority with much more than they need (the greedy). Result=a state of social disintegration and unrest that would likely result in the breakdown of democracy.
Ohhhhhhh, Jer-em-eeey Corrrrr-byn.
Quoting Baden
Oh, the [I]other[/I] JC.
:lol: Aren't they the basically the same person/god? :halo:
I've been thinking lately that this may deserve its own thread.
Why is the primary "point" of the economy to offer opportunities for entrepreneurs? Instead of, say, to ensure that people have affordable access to basic needs and wants. Why do you assume that economic inequality and financial uncertainty provide greater opportunity to start a business despite greater risks? When you say you want to create a society in which people takes chances that are "worth the risk", what would the alternative be to not taking a risk? This seems like veiled socio-economic Darwinism.
I have defined what an “error” is more than once. It is expected when one tries to do something. Greater wins over smaller losses are obviously a reasonable measure of success. Wins on things of greater importance over losses on things of lesser importance also is a reasonable measure of success.
There is also the common strategy of pushing for something greater than you were prepared to accept in order for there to be a possibility of gaining more than you would have taken. Same strategy is used on the floor of an auction.
Even to a media audience one has to be prepared to be mocked while keeping one’s victories private - a victory such as that achieved as demonstrated by the “auction floor” analogy.
Not seeing these factors is being simplistic.
Full Time is an arbitrary concept. It used to be 60 hours. Thanks to progress that went down. As far as I am concerned 2 hours per day would be perfect.
I know. That's how our discussion started, remember? I took issue with the definition that you presented at the time.
Quoting raza
I don't see an answer to my question in all of that. Errors? Yes, no, or don't know?
OK guys, so Trump wasn't at this meeting that never happened. Only Jr. and Kushner and Manafort and others were at this meeting that never happened. Got it?
Giuliani is now admitting to collusion because they know they've been caught. There are presumably witnesses who can corroborate Cohen's story. So, the new line is not "There was no collusion" which we always suspected was a lie but that "Collusion isn't a crime". The next line will presumably be, OK, collusion is a crime, but the President can pardon himself or can't be subpoenaed, and so on etc. As an aside has anyone anywhere being pursued on such a serious issue been represented by such a bumbling defense? It's very...odd.
Yeah, it'll be "Presidents can't be indicted" followed by the Republicans in Congress with "we're not going to impeach him because it looks bad on us" and then Republican voters with "I don't give a shit because he's on my team".
Here's some Adam Smith to hopefully cure the misconception that tariffs are a good idea :
And
In Smith's time his work led to the gradual repeal of tariffs. But I'm sure it has its populist appeal, the idea that you're punishing those evil foreigners.
If you think GDP is going to hit 4% in the US for this year by year's end, I'll happily make the bet with you too before you get committed to the economic insane asylum. What shall we put in your speech bubble?
I mean, it doesn't seem like he's provided much help in the legal sense to Trump. In the public domain, maybe so, but public opinion will not be what decides Trump's guilt or innocence.
:cool: Shave all your hair off and glue on a blonde wig in deference to the Trump-in-chief? Could be anything really because those numbers ain't gonna happen.
Because tariffs have been used as an argument on the right and left (more often right if you ask me) to support local and domestic industries. People who buy into that argument, then, support tariffs and protectionist policies.
My two cents.
Understanding how economics works. Trade barriers will cause the local economy to start up once again, which means both increased investment and increased consumption (more wages paid in the economy). Trade barriers will make products more expensive, but that isn't a concern when it comes to GDP growth.
For what reasons do you claim that protectionism cannot be effective at growing GDP long-term?
Quoting Baden
Well, no, I'm not ready to make quantitative claims about the growth rate. I think it will be very good, but even a 3.5% growth would be very good for the US.
Quoting Baden
Bootstrapping, savings, private investors, government subsidies/funding programs. Like that.
No banks are needed. Sure, growth may be slower, so what? It will be more stable.
Quoting Baden
Well, I only sell to other businessmen, so...
Quoting Baden
I disagree that democracy can distribute resources and benefits rationally and fairly for the greater good. The way I see it, central authority is needed to set the economic AND social agenda of society in order to have stability. Democracy is, by its very nature, unstable, and always falls victim to mediocrity, and the fickle nature of "the public". Resources are to be used for the public good, but they must be managed by those who are capable of managing them to deliver the best results.
You've conceded the point then. Trump's policies won't lead to a sustainable level of four per cent growth as he claimed, so I was right to say that his claim was false. It's either an exaggeration or another deliberate lie.
And his brand of protectionism will not lead to more growth in the long term compared to free trade because, for a start, it makes the US less competitive. Trump has already had to pencil in twelve billion dollars to pay farmers who have lost their markets because of retaliatory moves by other countries, notably China. Protectionism may be necessary in limited circumstances but Trump's trade war tarriffs won't work now because other countries won't let them work (I'll try to find the source but the figure I saw was they would in a best case scenario lead to a moderate reduction in GDP of a quarter of a per cent per year or so). The other obvious point is Trump is not even using them for economic reasons. If there were solid economic reasons behind them, at least his own party would support them. But, it's more like, as Benkei pointed out, an ill-thought-out exercise in foreigner bashing to appeal to his base.
A country can bar products outright as well of course, such as guns or certain drugs. To reach full free trade you'll also need very far reaching standardisation on product quality as well and harmonisation of trade law and tort.
No, I haven't conceded the point. Trump didn't say that they will be 4% for certain. If you listen to the speech you will see that he also claimed the results will be very strong, could be over 4% even. That's also my claim.
Quoting Baden
What does "less competitive" mean? How do you quantify that? If companies which buy steel, say auto manufacturers, end up paying 30% more for steel, and they raise their prices by 15% let's say, who is to say that they become less competitive? That depends on whether the demand for cars is elastic or inelastic.
Quoting Baden
Yes, until investments kick in, the economy does need some support.
Quoting Baden
And so they will suffer as well. They will need to negotiate.
Trump has been promising 4% growth since the beginning:
His words on the campaign:
"I guarantee... get a Donald J. Trump presidency and we'll have FOUR percent growth for FIVE years."
Can't be much clearer than that.
So, the big promise now is 3% down from 4% growth. Well whoop-de-doo. Clinton's average was 3.9%. :yawn:
Evidence? The predictors I've seen say 2.7%-2.9% for this year.
Anyway. after all this hoopla, all this MAGA hype, Trump's big thing is a revised promise of growth of about a percentage point less than Clinton, which is the best he'll do. And you think that's an achievement. Why?
"GDP should increase 2.9% for the year, after 2017's 2.2% pace" (giving Trump about a 2.5% average. An average that's been beaten by every president in the last 80 years except the Bush's and Obama. Again, it's all hype. Even after the massive tax breaks to the rich and massive additions to the debt and all the interventions, there is nothing here.)
Also explains the blip:
"Exports advanced strongly as purveyors of soybeans and other goods shipped to China drew down stockpiles to get in ahead of Beijing’s tariffs. The accelerated schedule should diminish third-quarter export growth a good deal."
Fair criticism cannot be expected on 2 counts: firstly, 75% percent disapproved of him (not his policies, him) before his presidency began. You cannot get more prejudiced than that. Then, the press is biased against him as the Havard study has found.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-19/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-anti-trump-media-bias
So let's establish as a fact the prejudice: against his stand on issues, but this cannot be attacked directly, so attack his tweets, his language, his methods etc. I understand the strategy. One thing I can tell you America's enemies will be so happy that the country is so divided. 4% growth rate and that is attacked.
Some statistics to attack:
Worker pay rate hits highest level since 2008
By: Jeff Cox
43 Mins Ago
(CNBC)
https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-approval-rating-gallup-highest-level-poll-2018-6
Earlier, the fact that Trump equalled Obama's rating was a big concern for CNN( April 2018)
"The big problem with that Gallup poll that shows Donald Trump's re-election numbers equal to Barack Obama's"
Presumably Trump has passed that mark now?
Also, there is the party divide that shows here:
"Republicans' support for Trump remains high at 87% even after the family separation controversy, but is lower than their 90% approval during the prior two weeks. Republican approval of Trump is now back to the average for his second year in office.
Democrats' 5% job approval -- down from 10% the prior week -- ties the lowest he has had among that group, which also occurred in four other weeks, including one in December and three in January."
https://news.gallup.com/poll/235955/trump-job-approval-slips-back.aspx
More attacks on the economy: New York Times this time:
https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/united-states-economy
There may be fake news but attacks - in - print cannot be faked.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-spy-agencies-north-korea-is-working-on-new-missiles/2018/07/30/b3542696-940d-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html?utm_term=.defbcc4171dc
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45015343
https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-korea-expands-key-missile-manufacturing-plant-1530486907
But even if Trump does manage to hit 3% for this year and others (a number he vacillates on from time to time), it means very little for the average American if the benefits mostly end up in the pockets of a very small class.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1024263146008207361[/tweet]
It will be spun as a "good thing" that Trump colluded with Russia, because the alternative would have been a Hillary Clinton presidency.
There's only a 13% difference between Trump's all time high and low among republicans (low of 77% approval among Republicans (Dec 2017), and a high of 90% ( January, June, and July, 2018)). Among independents there's an 11% variation between high and low, and only 8% among democrats. His total approval high is 45% and his total approval low is 35% (10% difference). Every other president accounted for with polling data (since Roosevelt) has had more than twice that amount of variation between their all time high and low. (Obama had a difference of 27% between his all time high and low, and most other presidents have had huge swings in total approval).
So what the fuck is going on?
Looking at the specific poll question they use "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Joe Everyman is handling his job as president?", is it possible that the way people interpret this question, on average, has shifted? (given the widespread opposition to Trump, the connotations of "handling" may cause people to take into account the obstacles they feel he is facing. While some may think the outcomes of Trump's presidency are failures, they might also think that he handled himself well if the odds were stacked against him.)...
Maybe this is just what you get with this level of political and ideological division/animosity. Resentment of opponents causes us to entrench ourselves in opposition, while the middle ground becomes an impassable no-man's-land of explosive flak and friendly fire. When we feel sufficiently afraid or personally threatened, we will fight for our side even if we think it's not a just cause.
I reckon this is a bad thing for democracy. If instead of voting our minds and hearts we're voting our team colors because we've all been emotionally hijacked by flashing lights on the T.V, then it's done.
If our loyalty and approval toward our party leaders is cannot waver, regardless of how they behave, how can we ever expect to exert democratic influence over them once they're in office?
Is it really all or nothing in that our side has to win at all costs, regardless of how poorly things are going, because fuck the other side?
NYBooks Daily
Why? I think that case is quite strong due to political identity being a rather strong part of Americans' overall identity. I've got 20 political parties to choose from. Sidling a bit to the left of right to the next party isn't a thing that impinges on my personality. It's different in the states.
Poll: Some Republicans find Russian help in midterms 'appropriate'
Called it.
You point out the error and I will analyse.
Other than that, errors are what is to be expected when one encounters hurdles and opposition.
Analysis? More like apologetics and whataboutery.
That’s usually how a discussion works. You contribute an analysis of something, which you apparently define as an error, and I offer my analysis on the something you have defined as such.
"There isnt much of a connection between Trump and crazy evangelicals as there was with Bush 43."
There IS a connection, and it is not pretty.
Lot's of Evangelicals voted for Trump because of his promises to appoint anti-abortion rights justices ( a promise he is fufilling). That is somewhat understandable, but what is not understandable is the continued defense of Trump by many Evangelicals. F or example, consider Frankin Graham's defense of Trump.
The Economist explains... Why tariffs are bad taxes
Who are we to believe? That's a toughie.
On the one hand, we have Agustino, a fervant Trump supporter who believes in God, that gay marriage is morally wrong, that adulterers should be locked up and that Jesus would be okay with stoning them to death, and who doesn't see why any wealth should trickle down to the lower classes.
And on the other hand, we have [i]The Economist[/I].
So trickle down theory works then? I agree.
You agree with your own misinterpretation? Okay. Have fun with that.
Oh mysterious 8-Baden, do you think Trump will be impeached/resign after all?
*Shakes Baden violently*
:scream:
Hope springs infernal!
:rofl:
I demand a re-shake!
"The globalist Koch Brothers, who have become a total joke in real Republican circles, are against Strong Borders and Powerful Trade. I never sought their support because I don’t need their money or bad ideas. They love my Tax & Regulation Cuts, Judicial picks & more. I made."
We have an active investigation on a sitting President, with the potential charge of Conspiracy to defraud the United States brought up against him and/or members of his family.
And you did not expect the movies?
It's a documentary not fiction. And unless you want to make the absurd claim that every documentary is invalid and can't be in any way true because it's a "movie", your comment makes zero sense.
It already is. I can't figure out if is "beyond hope" or "composed of inherently different or distinct parts".
It didn’t take long for him to drop off the radar after he exposed his fraud in that Australian tv interview.
Movie will go the same way, particular after th Mueller thing dries up. It’s merely designed for the midterms and then it will be a zero.
Let us not forget the liar he beat in order to be where he is. Testimony under oath:
https://youtu.be/dax8KvfPXPI
The Russian mob angle really has you triggered. I wonder why... :chin: Anyway too late. It's not just the documentary. I posted about thirty articles on it previously. The cat is out of the bag. You putting your hands over your ears and shouting no, no, no doesn't change anything.
https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/donald-trump-russia-money-laundering-mueller-investigation-us-politics-news-91721/
I am sure Trump has dealt with a mafia boss here and there from time to time. Those gangs have always and will always get their tentacles into everything.
Those same gangs interplay and do deals with the CIA, FBI, and the rest.
Where I specifically nail my colours to the mast is election collusion fantasies up against US voter preferences.
Perhaps most disturbing (not really) about Trump to me is that he apparently has no idea how capitalization in the English language works. Why in the name of all that's holy would one capitalize, for instance, "Strong Borders"? I understand the point of doing all caps for those items you want to emphasize (as annoying and childish such a thing is, I at least understand the point of it). But "Judicial picks"? WTF is that? POTUS has a grasp of capitalization on par with that of a second grader.
Speaking of "documentaries," you like this one, Raza?
I wish that were the only gap in his knowledge.
No rational discourse comes out of him. Don't play his game- respond by being rational.
???
Scary how hard it is to tell the difference though...
You scared me there for a moment. I didn't think things would be that terrible.
:fear:
Again, frightening that my attempt at satirical ridicule and mockery is so hard to distinguish from the real thing...
Oh, I'm just gullible. Haha.
It was a close one. I was like "Hang on a sec...?" :lol:
Here's 3 quotes from Adolf Hitler:
[i]All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.
Hate is more lasting than dislike.
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
[/i]
It seems that great minds think alike. So do not-so-great minds.
Of course. What won't his supporters explain away or ignore? How many of his supporters on this forum, for instance, have criticized anything he's done?
None. Even Tiffany, who came closest from what I can see, during the height of the family separation crisis (which, no one should forget, is not over yet), ended up going back as far as possible as soon as the optics were shifted to potential child trafficking rings.
Even when we confronted her claims that "At least, Trump is always honest, even when he is saying stuff you don't like" with the tonne of lies that spread from his mouth, she would not acknowledge how clearly counterfactual her beliefs are.
At the very least, we have no visible QAnon on this forum.
Someone actually claimed that Trump is always honest? Wow: we are truly through the looking glass now. (For what it's worth, I do think that the "child separation" issue is perhaps a bit more nuanced than has been presented in most media stories about it, but that's for another time. I'm no expert on immigration policy or enforcement, in any event.)
I only recently learned about the QAnon conspiracy subculture when it was reported that someone was at a Trump rally holding a "We are Q" sign. The conspiracy theory apparently posits something about Mueller and Trump actually secretly being in league together, and the world being controlled by an Illuminati-like cabal (always coming back to George Soros, of course, that focus of right-wing obsessive hostility from here to Hungary)? Is there any bullshit too insane for the American right to swallow? How much longer before the country is simply rent asunder by its own insanity?
Zillions of untruths come out of his mouth, but I wonder how many of them are actually cases where he knows the truth but chooses to tell something else.
The other day, my wife got into an argument with a Trump supporter about his lies. The Trumpist said, "all politicians lie... look at that lie Obama told that we could keep our doctors." I tend to doubt Obama knew better and was intentionally trying to mislead. I expect a lot of Trump's untruths are of this nature. We see more of them because he's stupid and deludes himself.
Are Trump's untruths lies, or are they the product of stupidity?
It's hard to quantify, but quite a lot, probably. It's at the point where he is clearly shown on video saying something unambiguous, then backpedals when faced with criticism to say what he "actually" meant.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/24-hours-later-trump-claims-he-misspoke-helsinki-meant-say-n892166
And yes, there are things he simply pulls out of his arse, such as that US pays for 90% of NATO. Most likely, in such instances, he simply has some sense that the US is getting fleeced by NATO allies (and there are legitimate concerns about certain allies not spending the target percentage of GDP), and just makes something up to put a number on it.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/12/donald-trump/donald-trump-misleads-us-defense-spending-nato-bud/
How many? The point relates to American college campuses. You don't live in the U.S. You don't work in the U.S. Have you been on holiday there? And if you were, how many college campuses did you visit while you were there?
If so, that would make even his anecdotal sample size zero and his 'argument' exactly the type of baseless hot air we've come to expect from Trump supporters. They believe because they want to believe. Reality is irrelevant.
Not only fulminate. You can draw any conclusion you want as long as you look at something. So, for example, if you want to find out crime rates in Sydney Australia, you don't need no stats, you just use your eyes to look at a city anywhere and that will tell you the answer. #noneedstats #doeasyway #MakeScienceGreatAgain!
A (supposedly) Frenchman bitching that America is (allegedly) getting more than him?
:smirk:
I still want to know if @Agustino was being sarcastic or not.
So first it's "no collusion" and then it's "yes collusion, but collusion isn't a crime". What's next? "Collusion is a crime but it was necessary to MAGA"?
So he admitted that his campaign were colluding with the Russians.
What this means is the meeting itself was orchestrated by the DNC operatives who hired Fusion GPS who in turn hired the Russian.
That adds up to the DNC colluding with Russians.
If that were true it doesn't mean that Trump's campaign didn't collude with Russia. It just means that the DNC also did.
Regarding this, the best I can find is here:
Is this what you're referring to? If so, how do you get from that to saying that Veselnitskaya was hired by Fusion GPS and that the Trump Tower meeting was orchestrated by the DNC? That's quite the leap.
Clinton Campaign and Democratic Party Helped Pay for Russia Dossier
By KENNETH P. VOGELOCT. 24, 2017
WASHINGTON — The presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid for research that was included in a dossier made public in January that contained salacious claims about connections between Donald J. Trump, his associates and Russia.
A spokesperson for a law firm said on Tuesday that it had hired Washington-based researchers last year to gather damaging information about Mr. Trump on numerous subjects — including possible ties to Russia — on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C.
The revelation, which emerged from a letter filed in court on Tuesday, is likely to fuel new partisan attacks over federal and congressional investigations into Russia’s attempts to disrupt last year’s election and whether any of Mr. Trump’s associates assisted in the effort.
The letter that was filed in court said that Fusion GPS began working for the law firm, Perkins Coie, in April 2016. Written by the firm’s managing partner Matthew J. Gehringer, the letter said that Fusion GPS had already been conducting the research “for one or more other clients during the Republican primary contest.”
Law firm, Perkins Coie, was paid $12.4 million to represent the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. during the 2016 campaign, accoring to filings. The role of the Clinton campaign and the national party in funding the research for the dossier was first reported on Tuesday by The Washington Post.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4116755-PerkinsCoie-Fusion-PrivelegeLetter-102417.html
Although it was the other way around, according to Bill Browder, with regard to who hired who:
“ Veselnitskaya, through Baker Hostetler, hired Glenn Simpson of the firm Fusion GPS to conduct a smear campaign against me and Sergei Magnitsky in advance of congressional hearings on the Global Magnitsky Act. -Bill Browder, Testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee, 7/26/17.”
Law firm Baker Hostelter paid Fusion $523,651 between March and October 2016 on behalf of a company owned by Russian businessman and money launderer Denis Katsyv to research Bill Browder, a London banker who helped push through the Magnitsky Act - named after deceased Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who Browder hired to investigate Russian corruption.
What's strange is that Katsyv's attorney, Natalia Veselnitskaya - a John McCain fan who hates Trump and uses Democrat lobbyists, was initially denied entry into the United States, only to be allowed in under "extraordinary circumstances" by Obama's Homeland Security Department and approved by former AG Loretta Lynch so she could represent Fusion GPS client Denis Katsyv's company, Prevezon Holdings - and attend the meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. - arranged by Fusion GPS associate Rob Goldstone.
This “extraordinary” approval by the Obama administration ALLOWED for Veselnitskaya to engage in all the meetings outlined in the above posts.
So it is all “quite a leap”, you say?
She was granted entry to represent her client. There's nothing to suggest that she was granted entry so that she could entrap members of Trump's campaign at the request of the DNC.
Quoting raza
Yes.
Yes, a leap. You're passing along the distortion of events invented by Trump.
See this.
That was regarding the case they were both involved in, with that first "meeting" in a Manhattan federal courtroom. And it's far more believable that the second meeting was also regarding that legal case, and not down to some conspiracy against Trump. You're making it up.
For someone who so often proclaims to not believe anything unless he's seen the evidence himself, you're sure willing to buy into any crap that you can use to defend Trump.
I think there is plenty of suggestion otherwise.
I think that it is quite suggestive, for instance, that the Obama administration (AG Lynch) colluded with the Clinton campaign given that Clinton would be the Democrat’s choice over that of Trump.
Everything neatly, not at a leap, follows from that, with regard to her meetings.
It is a leap to not see connections.
In a timeframe within which the Trump Tower meeting was held.
How convenient.
No “leap” there. Quite the intimate opposite.
Rosenstien has addressed that there is no conclusion regarding the accusation.
Stzrok: “insurance policy”.
Most discussions focus on just one problem. Trump creates a new problem every week.
In the literal sense, yes. The lawyer arrived in the city on the 9th to attend court, and so arranged to meet Trump's campaign that day.
There's no conspiracy there.
In what way did they collude, and how does that way suggest that the Trump Tower meeting was set up by the DNC?
And your DNC/Russia Trump-entrapment collusion conspiracy theory is just a theory. Except it's a nonsense theory with nothing even approaching circumstantial evidence to support it, whereas Trump just yesterday admitted that members of his campaign met with a Russian to get dirt on Clinton (and who was known to be representing the Russian government).
What aspect, exactly, of the collusion "theory" do you think isn't true or doesn't have sufficient evidence?
I'm OK with drawing a connection and investigating to see where it leads, but you've a long way to go to connecting Strzok's comment to this meeting. This sounds along the lines of O.J.'s defense, which consisted of connecting one racist detective to a pervasive conspiracy to frame him.
The problems are political, and every news organization in existence is already obsessed with the man. Trump doesn't have much to do with philosophy, other than asking why humans elect bad leaders and fall prey to populism, and wondering about the failings of democracy in general.
Yeah, well, philosophy is overrated. Politics is where it's at. The real deal.
It's part of his technique. He sows confusion, chaos and arguments to keep everyone busy and off-balance and to continually change the subject. Works brilliantly, although it ought not to be interpreted to mean that Trump actually knows what he's doing, or has any kind of master plan. The whole thing is simply impulse and ego, always.
Is anything more unseemly than the President of the United States engaging in a slanging match with a professional athlete via Twitter? If the world was sane, he would be immediately impeached for 'demeaning the office of the President'.
[quote=BBC News]With the threat of new sanctions being imposed by the US, Mr. Rouhani is in danger of appearing to have failed and is likely to be blamed by the hardliners for any renewed hardships suffered by the Iranian people.
Meanwhile Iran's hardliners, who were against entering any sort of agreement with the US, have been celebrating.
They have long accused Mr. Rouhani and his government of surrendering too many of Iran's rights to the West as part of the nuclear deal.
Some of his detractors are influential. They include the powerful Revolutionary Guards as well as conservative members of the clergy and the ruling elite.
These hardliners may now use Mr. Trump's decision to push for a tougher stance from Mr. Rouhani or seek to have him replaced by someone who will pursue one.
The move by the US president is likely to have a detrimental effect on bringing Iran back to the negotiating table with the US.
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said of the decision: "I said from the first day: don't trust America."
Some Iranian citizens have also taken to social media to accuse the US of being deceptive and dishonest.[/quote]
Well. All the facts may eventually be revealed. Be sure to hang around to see. You can be sure I will be commenting if or when they do.
Yep. If she wasn’t the plant she appears to have been, or if it was someone else other than her, her or their information could have been well worth every American hearing.
Much in the same vein as Lynch meeting Bill Clinton on a runway prior to her decision to recuse herself from the investigation of Bill’s wife.
Just typical incestuousness behaviour, to be expected given the history of the Clintons.
What? You're saying that because Lynch met with Bill Clinton on a runway then the DNC colluded with Fusion GPS and a Russian lawyer to entrap members of Trump's campaign?
What are you smoking?
So now you accept that there was collusion between Trump's campaign and representatives of the Russian government.
I’m not. But, first of all, collusion isn’t a crime. Secondly, oppo research is common, has always been common, and “opposition research” was a term the Clinton campaign also used for their spying-like excuses.
It’s a pattern.
I’m smoking because I’m on fire. The opposite temperature to the snowflake you represent.
It is if the manner of the collusion is a crime, e.g. soliciting or accepting a thing of value from a foreign national in connection to an election or conspiring to commit an offense or to defraud the United States/aiding and abetting a crime (e.g. hacking).
Quoting raza
Purchasing the services of a commercial research and strategic intelligence firm based in the United States (e.g. Fusion GPS) is not the same thing as accepting information from the representative of a foreign government who are hoping for a foreign policy that favours them.
Here's a timely article that explains the difference.
Quoting raza
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Quoting raza
What's a pattern? How does Lynch meeting Bill on the runway of an airport show a "pattern" that indicates that the Trump Tower meeting was DNC-coordinated entrapment? You're just talking nonsense and, again, being a huge hypocrite. You'll buy into this ridiculous conspiracy but then demand personal access to irrefutable proof before you will accept that the various investigations into Trump's campaign are warranted or that Russia hacked the DNC and tried to hack the election.
At least this is an admission from you that no irrefutable proof exists of your accusation.
As for the Wapo article you submitted, it is wapo. Wapo is owned by the oligarch Jeff Bezos. Bezos has a $600,000,000 contract with the CIA. Bezos owns Amazon packaging sweatshops where workers do not get proper breaks. He is quite the dubious character.
I’m not surprised because it is original and not like the baaaa baaa sheep-like calls such as “what you smoking?”
No, it's an admission that there's no public irrefutable proof. And it's still the case that you're a hypocrite, so don't think that you can deflect away.
And what accusation have I made?
Quoting raza
So because the owner has a contract with the CIA and owns a business that abuses workers then the article that quotes the former chief counsel for the Federal Election Commission saying that there's a legal difference between the Steele Dossier and the Trump Tower meeting is wrong?
You seriously have issues with critical thinking. But then you've been making that abundantly clear for a while.
Fixed it.
And you come under the definition of “public”. Therefore you cannot present irrefutable proof. For you, someone just has to say “irrefutable proof” exists and that is evidence for you.
Please do not ever accept to do jury duty for the sake of justice.
Emphasis should be on “former” chief counsel. This means he has no horse in the race which futher means he can say whatever he likes without threat to a position he no longer holds within which he would be forced to take care with his words.
Presumably he was in that role under Obama.
Maybe Wapo should endeavor get some information from the currently employed chief counsel.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Perhaps you have trouble understanding my words, so I'll try to be clearer. You have repeatedly said that you haven't personally seen evidence of collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russian government, and so you don't support the accusation that he did, and yet you accuse the DNC of colluding with Fusion GPS and a Russian lawyer to entrap members of the Trump campaign despite the fact that you haven't personally seen such evidence. You're a hypocrite.
Quoting raza
Lawrence Noble, served as Deputy General Counsel from 1983 to 1987 and General Counsel from 1987 to 2000. FYI, both appointments under Reagan.
Quoting raza
So because he can say whatever he likes he's either lying or mistaken? Or, perhaps, he's knowledgable and telling the truth.
It is what I am going with. As I have said countless times about this case, we shall just have to wait and see.
You have a narrative and opinion you are going with, without seeing irrefutable evidence, and I have my opinion based on what I have come across.
So, I am no less a hypocrite than you. .
Ok. So what? As I said, maybe Wapo should seek the opinion of the current occupier of that position.
Do you think I am some loyal republican or something?
Time may tell.
I was correcting your false presumption that he served under Obama.
I'm reporting what the various intelligence agencies and investigations have officially confirmed (that Russia hacked the DNC and influenced the election to help Trump) and what Trump himself has confirmed (that members of his campaign met with a representative of the Russian government to get dirt on Clinton).
Whereas you're fabricating conspiracy theories from the wildest of leaps.
Our positions aren't anything alike.
there were many many chances along the way from late 2016 to just tell the truth. Does it not bother you that the President, his son, and his staff, continually and badly lied about this meeting?
I could have looked him up but I just couldn’t be bothered due to it’s, in my opinion, irrelevancy.
Without any presentation of evidence.
There is plenty of dirt to be found. Once it is all gathered, or that obstruction to it is conquered, then it will become apparent.
I think mistakes were made along the way. The mistakes maybe just that some of these guys did not realize they would have been safe from the outset to lay it all out.
IMO there is a difference between a married man lying about an affair, and the President of the US lying about members of his staff meeting with a foreign national. I can understand the motivation for the former, and the relatively little it has to do with governing the nation, not the same thing on the latter.
At some point, I hope, we as a nation get back to the point where character matters. I have a deep concern that this continual willingness to accept the lack of character in the POTUS, is sending a very poor message to the young people of this country.
Consequently he cannot really focus on all of it AND do the job he is supposed to be doing.
And now it’s campaign mode again,
I think in his 2nd term things will have reached beyond all these attempts to relitigate the 2016 election.
Maybe actual court cases will have been begun or processed by then, rather than these media wars.
Do you mean Michael did not present any evidence in his post, or that the intelligence agencies didn't present any evidence to support their claims that it was Russia who hacked and then leaked the DNC's e-mails?
Because the claim that intelligence agencies didn't put forth any evidence to back up their assertion would be a flat-out false claim.
From the Feds themselves: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
Tin-foiled shill, you need to read accurately. You were discussing whether the Russians hacked the DNC emails. They did and Audax replied to your claim there was no evidence for this.
The FBI were denied access to the DNC server.
Here, from that document, is all that is said with regard to an analysis that the server was hacked rather than extracted by means of a device then leaked to Wikileaks.
“We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self- proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.”
So much for “evidence”.
A theory is not factual evidence whether confident about or otherwise.
In fact it is quite pathetic that this tiny paragraph is supposed to be convincing. What it really shows is a complete lack of confidence because no detail is supplied.
Why no detail?
Because they have no detail. No server + no detail = no confidence. So we’ll just say we are confident.
That’s all the dumb public will need.
Look at this line, “most likely”.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that intelligence agencies might be inclined to keep their sources private.
Like how intelligence agents leak to the press?
The only “source” is the supposedly “hacked” server. The server the FBI were denied access to.
So what could be alternative sources to keep private?
Guccifer 2.0?
If they knew who that is he would be locked up.
Anyway, they know who guc 2 is. It’s themselves trying to set up others to steer eyes away from the Clinton cabal network of thieves and murderers.
We went over this before Mr Shill. They had an image of the server. You do know how that works right? Here's a link in case you don't. disk imaging software
Second, it's common practice not to provide access to the systems themselves because doing so would alter the records of the system. You want the image, not the access.
Third, the Dutch, UK and German intelligence agencies warned the US about the hacks. That's why they know they hacked the DNC systems already back in 2015 because the Dutch had hacked the Russian hackers and could see what they were doing in real-time. Since US-based tin-foil conspirators are so obsessed with the US only, there's not yet a story out there you can link to how all those Western agencies conspired against Trump. Go and write something about that and make some friends in the right-wing corners of the internet instead of bothering us with your Trump obsession, faulty reasoning, hypocrisy and inability to accept facts that contradict your worldview.
You are the intended audience of this nonsense.
I just told you. Are you unable to read comprehensively? Do you suffer from dyslexia? Have a serious case of cognitive dissonance that doesn't allow you to process facts contrary to your pre-conceived ideas of reality?
Access to the server changes the records if you go scrummaging around in it. It's like having people trample all over a crime scene. An image is better as it becomes "static" data, like having a professional forensic scientist take photographs and collect evidence at a crime scene.
“Third, the Dutch, UK and German intelligence agencies warned the US about the hacks. That's why they know they hacked the DNC systems already back in 2015 because the Dutch had hacked the Russian hackers and could see what they were doing in real-time“
“We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self- proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries“
With all the supposed resources outlined at the top, the pathetic assessment follows.
Now that is stupid. Access to the server does not automatically equate with “scrummaging around in it”.
It means the FBI use the tools necessary rather than analyse the analysis of private company Crowdstrike.
“We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self- proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries“
Trump’s ‘Missing DNC Server’ Is Neither Missing Nor a Server
And the "evidence" that you have seen of a DNC conspiracy against Trump's campaign? Lynch met with Bill on an airport runway and both the DNC and a Russian lawyer hired the services of the same intelligence firm. It's nonsense.
And there's actually more than just that paragraph you quoted. There's Mueller's 29 page indictment. There's the SSCI assessment. There's the FBI and DHS Joint Analysis Report.
But, yes, it's far more believable that every single person on the planet other than Trump is part of a Deep State DNC-led conspiracy with secret control over domestic and foreign intelligence agencies and Congressional investigations but who somehow couldn't ensure that a woman who won the popular vote also won the Presidency. Is this underground Illuminati simultaneously some masterful shadow government and also incredibly incompetent?
I wonder if you also believe this QAnon rubbish too? I just read about it yesterday. What is wrong with people?
False presumption. A presumption that is false. You presumed something, ignorant of whether it's true or false. It's false, as Michael's reply indicates. I'm pretty sure that that's all he meant, making your above response quite amusing.
Really? Is this the level you're stooping to? Fine. False presumption:
But Trump is like a fat, clumsy oaf who boasts about his tremendous stability. If he were to fall flat on his face, he would've had it coming to him, and it would be hard not to relish.
No, what's stupid is that you comment on IT issues without having any knowledge how it works. Access to the server with the purpose to investigate means scrummaging around in it, otherwise you don't need access. You wouldn't ask access for the sake of access but to use that access for another purpose. It's like asking permission to enter the building and then not ever entering it. Silly.
Again, you cannot access files without changing their records. Hence, forensic research of computer systems is done on the basis of an image, which the FBI received.
What is indisputable is that the Russians meddled in the US election.
Now you are sliding from what you were arguing about. Now you’re back to Facebook ads.
It's an indisputable fact the Russians have spend millions on building up an apparatus to influence US public opinion and undermine US democracy. Quite succesfully as you exemplify everytime you write anything.
They received Crowdstrike’s analysis.
So let’s breakdown the only “evidence” YOU have seen.
“We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks.”
Ok, yeah? Please, master, do tell us more.
“Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self- proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries”
Ah master. Thine sight is hitherto restorith.
Your intellect on this matter is outstanding.......for you.
I’m happy that you are amused.
No, not interested in this “Q” deal.
I would say it is merely something they have been doing with the US for decades just as the US have been doing to them for decades.
You really think this stuff is new? No memory of hearing about the Cold War?
This crap relies on short memories and zero insight of sheeples.
True AND they received an image from the DNC for their own investigative purposes. So what's your point?
Your non-sensical focus on two sentences doesn't prove a thing. It is an indisputable fact the Russians meddled in the elections as corroborated by various intelligence agencies independently of each other. You don't have proof all of them are lying, there is no ground to assume that they are, so you have nothing. Here's some facts:
The Mueller indictment shows a larger conspiracy. You should read it.
Quoting raza
That the Americans did it, is further proof that the Russians now did it as well. Either as retaliation or because every country that means something does it nowadays. I vote the latter. So we're in agreement then the Russians did meddle?
You had, and I remember replying with an article such as this one (or it was this one).
By EMILY SCHULTHEIS CBS NEWS January 10, 2017, 2:36 PM
FBI Director Comey: Agency requested access to DNC servers.
“The FBI requested access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) servers and servers for other Democratic entities that were hacked during the 2016 election, FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday, but its request was not met.
In a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon outlining the intelligence agencies’ findings on Russian election interference, Comey said there were “multiple requests at different levels” for access to the Democratic servers, but that ultimately a “highly respected private company” was granted access and shared its findings with the FBI.
“Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw,” he said. The company to which Comey was referring is CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity company doing the internal defense and investigation for the DNC”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-director-comey-agency-requested-access-to-dnc-servers/
So. Were they, Comey included, lying back then about an actual server?
The government military industrial complex lies ad finitum. Always have.
How is your wardrobe of brown shirts?
What you decide to believe is true is a belief nonetheless.
Quoting raza
No you tin-foiled shill. That's not how it works. Your opinion and theories are decidedly not as worthy as mine because you spout conspirational bullshit. Neither I nor you has seen evidence of the maximum speed of light in vacuum, quantum entanglement or surface temperature of the sun. Yet there are theories supported by available evidence why we accept that it's 299 792 458 m/s, entanglement is real and the surface temperature of the sun is 5,778 K.
That Russians meddled in the elections is supported by the available evidence which you ignore for the transparant reason that you have an agenda. Unless you provide proof directly discrediting that, you have nothing. That you construct an alternative narrative by ignoring available evidence because you haven't seen it with your own eyes but at the same constructing your narrative based on evidence you haven't seen with your own eyes is hypocrisy. All you have is a fucking runway meeting that you weren't present to where it concerns collusion, a miserable understanding of computer forensic research with no understanding how meta-data is changed through regular copy-move actions and a host of websites with right-wing conspiracy material.
They want you to merely believe, and that is what you are doing.
Insert “hacked by Putin” DNC servers here
>.......................................................<
or go home.
Your crying is utterly boring.
Said the Russian shill.
Everything you wrote.
EDIT: sorry, there's a second option and that's you're just batshit insane.
There were servers, plural, as Comey said, which is exactly what the article I provided explains:
They certainly don’t miss a trick to find an excuse to destroy evidence of what would have been contrary to the narrative.
Clinton: “Like, with a cloth? *chuckle, chuckle*”
Well, we should all know what the “business” is by now.
Insert evidence of DNC servers being hacked by Putin here >……………………<
Or go home.
Insert evidence of DNC conspiring to entrap Tump's campaign at a meeting in Trump Tower and the DNC and FBI and DHS and SIC lying about Russia hacking the DNC here >...<
Or go peddle your ridiculous conspiracy theories elsewhere.
A fuller history, perhaps:
http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/agents-at-ap-hudson-institute-collaborate-with-impeach-trump-effort/
https://youtu.be/fWkfpGCAAuw
What's RINF?
Let's check Media Bias/Fact Check
Hello 1984.
A Scandal of The West’s News-Suppression, to ‘Justify’ U.S.-v.-Russia War
Posted on February 1, 2018 by Eric Zuesse.
Eric Zuesse
An accountant, Sergei Magnitsky, was employed by a wealthy American investor, William Browder, and died in a Russian prison on 16 November 2006. How did it happen; who was to blame for it? The Russian Government was blamed for it, and this blame produced in 2012 the first set of economic sanctions to squeeze Vladimir Putin out of power.
Magnitsky’s death in prison thus provided the factual basis for the first of the economic-sanctions regimens that were imposed by The West against the Russian Government, the 2012 Magnitsky Act — sanctions that preceded the 2014 sanctions which were imposed on account of Russia’s response to America’s February 2014 coup in Ukraine. However, that account of the Magnitsky incident is full of lies, according to a 2016 documentary investigation into the matter. But publication of this video investigation — at youtube or anywhere — is effectively banned in The West.
Here’s how Gilbert Doctorow, who is one of the extremely few people in The West who managed to see this totally-suppressed-in-The-West investigative news-documentary that was done (and which he said proved to him that the basis of the Magnitsky Act is lies) expressed his shock, at what he saw and learned from it
https://youtu.be/OBjO0TIb7pw
I didn't. I first checked up on the source to assess its credibility. It's what rational people do when reading something on the internet.
But I have just read it now. I have no idea what relevance it has to our discussion. The only thing remotely related is the final paragraph:
So explain to me how this defends your conspiracy claims regarding the DNC not being hacked by the Russians (and the FBI, DHS, and SIC lying about it) and the Trump Tower meeting being a DNC-led entrapment campaign.
What does Bill Browder have to do with anything we're discussing? Are you just losing your mind and spouting out random nonsense?
Bill Browder had called John Kerry “Putin’s lapdog”.
Browder renounced his US citizenship to avoid new tax laws in the US, and eventually, years later, constructs a hero-of-the-US narrative to hide his theft of Russia.
He lied that Magnitsky was a his lawyer. He was his accomplice, as accountant, in the theft.
Browder was sued successfully in London by the Russian investigator he accused of killing Magnitsky.
It is in the history within the article I have linked which you have not read. The story is entwined with the current twists of US, Russia relations.
Links to those relations and Browder are within article. So the article itself links to other sources.
Why rely on another’s narrative of a source?
Might as well stick to buzzfeed if you do that.
I did.
Quoting raza
Again with the nonsense leaps. Are you actually saying that because the Russian lawyer wanted the repeal of the Magnitsky Act which was enacted in response to the testimony of Bill Browder, who you claim is lying (where's your evidence?), then the Trump Tower meeting was entrapment led by the DNC who the Russians didn't actually hack, with the FBI, DHS, and SIC lying to cover it all up?
It would really help if you actually set out your reasoning in nice logical steps rather than spout out conspiracy after conspiracy. You're looking like a crazy person.
It’s always the entire geopolitics. The Trump/Russia conspiracy theory is not in isolation. It involves Crimea, Ukraine, and all those US neocon politicians along with the corrupt financiers such as Browder.
Obama became intimate with Browder’s story. The Magnitsky Act followed.
Trump-Russia-DNC is not in it’s own vacuum. It is a cover piece.
Evidence supplied. Browder testimony in link provided.
So that is “where” my evidence is. Right in this thread.
If you don’t want to open it, but claim I provided no evidence, then you are disingenuous.
I doubt you will, however.
The best example I can remember is the verdict in the OJ trail. Such a sharp divide on that.
New title: Everything Trump Touches Dies, Rick Wilson.
I posted this before, but in my drunken state I accidentally deleted it while fixing a quote I attributed to Michael (sorry, I'm new here). Luckily it was still open in Notepad++.
What about George Papadopolous (member of Trump campaign) bragging to an Australian diplomat in a bar that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton, then the hacked e-mails were released via Wikileaks, then that Australian diplomat called the FBI?
Do you really think that is not evidence of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of your response to Michael - Michael stated:
Quoting Michael
Your response was:
Quoting raza
The document I linked you to said:
"We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US
presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
[b]Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We
have high confidence in these judgments.[/b]"
The evidence they present:
[b]Starting in March 2016, Russian Government–
linked actors began openly supporting
President-elect Trump’s candidacy in media
aimed at English-speaking audiences.[/b] RT and
Sputnik—another government-funded outlet
producing pro-Kremlin radio and online
content in a variety of languages for
international audiences—consistently cast
President-elect Trump as the target of unfair
coverage from traditional US media outlets
that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt
political establishment.
[b]Russian media hailed President-elect Trump’s
victory as a vindication of Putin’s advocacy of
global populist movements—the theme of
Putin’s annual conference for Western
academics in October 2016—and the latest
example of Western liberalism’s collapse.[/b]
[b]Putin’s chief propagandist Dmitriy Kiselev used
his flagship weekly newsmagazine program
this fall to cast President-elect Trump as an
outsider victimized by a corrupt political
establishment and faulty democratic election
process that aimed to prevent his election
because of his desire to work with Moscow.[/b]
[b]Pro-Kremlin proxy Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, leader
of the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of
Russia, proclaimed just before the election that
if President-elect Trump won, Russia would
“drink champagne” in anticipation of being
able to advance its positions on Syria and
Ukraine.[/b]
RT’s coverage of Secretary Clinton throughout the
US presidential campaign was consistently negative
and focused on her leaked e-mails and accused her
of corruption, poor physical and mental health, and
ties to Islamic extremism. Some Russian officials
echoed Russian lines for the influence campaign
that Secretary Clinton’s election could lead to a war
between the United States and Russia.
In August, Kremlin-linked political analysts
suggested avenging negative Western reports
on Putin by airing segments devoted to
Secretary Clinton’s alleged health problems.
On 6 August, RT published an Englishlanguage
video called “Julian Assange Special:
Do WikiLeaks Have the E-mail That’ll Put
Clinton in Prison?” and an exclusive interview
with Assange entitled “Clinton and ISIS Funded
by the Same Money.” RT’s most popular video
on Secretary Clinton, “How 100% of the
Clintons’ ‘Charity’ Went to…Themselves,” had
more than 9 million views on social media
platforms. RT’s most popular English language
video about the President-elect, called “Trump
Will Not Be Permitted To Win,” featured
Assange and had 2.2 million views.
For more on Russia’s past media efforts—
including portraying the 2012 US electoral
process as undemocratic—please see Annex A:
Russia—Kremlin's TV Seeks To Influence
Politics, Fuel Discontent in US.
Russia used trolls as well as RT as part of its
influence efforts to denigrate Secretary Clinton.
This effort amplified stories on scandals about
Secretary Clinton and the role of WikiLeaks in the
election campaign.
The likely financier of the so-called Internet
Research Agency of professional trolls located
in Saint Petersburg is a close Putin ally with ties
to Russian intelligence.
[b]A journalist who is a leading expert on the
Internet Research Agency claimed that some
social media accounts that appear to be tied to
Russia’s professional trolls—because they
previously were devoted to supporting Russian
actions in Ukraine—started to advocate for
President-elect Trump as early as December
2015[/b]"
And much, much, MUCH, more (but I won't clog up the forum by pasting in literally 15 more pages of evidence. What I pasted in was only 2 pages).
Raza, do you still maintain that the following quote by Michael:
Quoting Michael
Was made:
Quoting raza?
So, he's not President. Well, that's a relief. :up:
Oh, is it one of those, "Nobody thought he'd win but pussy grabbing is more popular than you think, vids?" Yeah, old news.
Everything Trump knew about Trump was wrong. And still is.
I get it now. This is Hansover's way of apologizing for his huuuuge mistake in voting for this nut. Aw, cute. :hearts:
Hanover, but do you agree, or disagree, with the idea that US intelligence agencies are more reliable than the private sector pollsters?
Because those polls are what had most of us anti-Trumpers laughing (including those TV hosts).
There is a key point to be made here, IMO.
Comey did a lot of mea culpa, mea maxima culpa since he resigned. He explained it, from a prosecutor point of view, since new facts were available which would have mattered in an investigation closed only shortly before, for him, not reopening the case would be against the spirit of his profession.
The one thing that I think strikes out against his regrets is how goddamn identical each of his interviews are on the subject. He seems to have memorized a line from a crisis consultant or something... But that only speaks to his character, not his implication in a conspiracy...
However, he did not need to be part of the conspiracy to be a pawn of it. With a bit of character study, one could supposed it was predictable that he would reopen a case in the event that new relevant information would surface shortly after it was closed. Yes, perhaps the agency's normal policy of leaving the Legislative branch alone might prevail, but on the other hand, that line had already been crossed on both sides. So perhaps all that it took to steal the Presidency was to release part of the hacked data later to be caught only after the first investigation was close, coupled with some bad but predictable choices on Comey's part.
Do you think it will ever cross Giulianni's mind to do the liberal pundit run and apologize for his many mistakes? No, these guys dont care.
Comey did. He clearly wanted people to stop thinking he had reopened the case for optics only.
In the very vast majority of cases, when a prosecutor receives material which would warrant the reopening of a case, we would want them to act on it rather than not. In this case it was not possible to act without influencing the elections. In a way, thats not so much on Comey as it is on the American political circus which allows both of the runners to campaign while being under federal investigation.
The suspect claims it was accidental, the evidence at least dont contradict his account, and many who have interacted with him have testified that he has showed terrible regrets at the whole event.
Theres at least no reason yet to assume the guy likes to make skin suit out of people.
Actually, the Cold War was a Deep State conspiracy to set the stage for Russia being the enemy which could then be used to fabricate a hoax implicating Trump in massive wrongdoing and have him removed from office and thrown in Guantanamo.
Putin, of course, being Clinton in drag.
You have no idea. It stems much further back than that. The real reason why the Russian Empire switched sides during the Seven Years War in 1762 wasn't because Peter III was a Prussophile, but because he was warned by a time traveler from the future that if he did not switch sides, then it would alter the timeline such that Trump would never be born, let alone become President of the USA, and a puppet of a future leader of Russia. Peter III was of course assassinated that same year, by a rival undercover time traveller who supported Clinton, but by then it was too late.
That's false. You can reopen without telling the world about it which is how it generally works. That decision was clearly made to damage Clinton. You're just being a useful idiot for defending such a horrible action.
Quoting Akanthinos
You're missing the point. The analogy was to highlight Comey's behaviour afterwards doesn't inform us about his guilt or innocence. It's a red herring for you to bring it up in the first place.
Quoting Michael
That sounds very plausible. Any sources I can research this some more?
Sure: here's a reputable source.
Sure: here's a reputable source.
[quote=The Economist]American officials couldn’t get their facts right. James Mattis, then the commander of American forces in the region, blamed the Brotherhood alone for Egypt’s troubles. He later claimed that the constitution backed by Mr Morsi had been “rejected immediately by over 60% of the people”. In fact, about two-thirds of voters approved the charter, which is similar to the one Egypt has now. Mr Mattis and Michael Flynn, then head of the Defence Intelligence Agency, lumped the Brotherhood in with the jihadists of al-Qaeda and Islamic State, even though the Brothers repeatedly condemned those groups and opposed violence. Both men were given top jobs by Donald Trump.
[...]
Today’s American administration does not even wish it were different. To them, Mr Sisi has said all the right things. He wants to moderate Islam and reform the economy. He calls Mr Trump “a unique personality that is capable of doing the impossible”. Mr Trump, in turn, celebrates Mr Sisi’s tough leadership and calls him “a fantastic guy”. Like so many others, the American president seems unconcerned that autocracy is again breeding misery and extremism in Egypt.[/quote]
Egypt’s path from autocracy to revolution—and back again
What the...?
Trump can't even dominate the space between his ears.
If you recall, nobody ever denied anything that was revealed by Wikileaks, since it was all true. All the DNC did was try to divert attention by playing a blame game. Wikileaks showed how Hillary was willing to back stab a popular member of her own party to get ahead. Bernie Sanders was ripped off.
If someone is capable of that, one should then realize what she would be willing to do to someone who was not in her party who was seen as the enemy. She would pay and collude with foreign nationals to write a phony dossier to be used to set up fantasy collusion scenario designed to harm an elected President.
Assange is going to bring us back to the beginning, so we can have perspective and so the lies can start to unravel in the minds of the mindless.
The phony dossier nonsense again. :yawn:
This has exactly zero bearing on whether Trump colluded or not and the Russian intereference in the election. It's a red herring.
Our satellites in space are at risk of being knocked off balance or taken out completely via a missile. We have known this risk since the first satellite was sent to space but the advancement of other countries abilities to possess such a missile has increased the risk. Considering how much of our technological lives depend on those satellites in space and their ability to communicate with each other and our devices on Earth, it seems like a ripe target. A target that would not kill a human with the missile but the cascading effect of that loss of communication would have a death toll.
Every banking transaction.
The control over our power grid.
The logistical control over our delivering of food and fuel.
Our ability to control commercial air travel.
Battlefield operations.
We are not talking about a Space Man like Buzz Lightyear being out in Space to protect our satellites. But the Space Force being developed is something that was needed yesterday so we really need to get ON it. To use citizen dollars to start up such a HUGE branch of military is a heavy lift but a necessary one.
The question of necessity is valid as we do have an Air Force but there was a time when the air force was part of the Army and eventually grew to be it's own branch. We are watching the birth of another branch of our military.
How so? Just curious...
Meaning the missile wouldn't directly kill anyone but the effects of the missile taking out our satellite would have an effect on those here on Earth.
The death toll would come from every possible direction. Landing planes full of people without any GPS? The power going out in Arizona today when it will be 105* and surging in California where the fires would not be able to be fought from the sky and the communication on the ground between the trucks and command would be gone. Everything that relies on GPS would be fucked.
Which includes any pizza that @Maw might get us all wanting.
"[Omarosa] claims that she personally witnessed Trump use racial epithets about the White House counselor Kellyanne Conway’s husband George Conway, who is half Filipino. “Would you look at this George Conway article?” she quotes the president as saying. “F**ing FLIP! Disloyal! Fucking Goo-goo.”
“It had finally sunk in that the person I’d thought I’d known so well for so long was actually a racist. Using the N-word was not just the way he talks but, more disturbing, it was how he thought of me and African Americans as a whole.”
The first four aren't true. That's all landlines. The last one is greatly helped by GPS but not dependent on it.
Air Force Space Command
Air Force "Hardens" Satellites to Prepare for Space War
United States Space Force
One tentative yes and a whole lot of noes.
"This is a dumb idea. The Air Force does this already. That is their job," Mark Kelly tweeted on Monday after reading a story on Military.com. "What's next, we move submarines to the 7th branch and call it the 'under-the-sea force?'"
As always, we need the tapes.
:lol:
Part of the DNC narrative is connected to Russian hacking of the DNC server, which they did not allow the FBI to verify. They paid a contractor with money able to buy anything. If this DNC Russian hack narrative turns out to be false, based on proof given by Assange, the first of wave of DNC and swamp lies is exposed.
We may have to set up another special investigation, this time stacked with Trump lawyers and supporters, maybe led by the vengeful Chris Christie. Hillary had commandeered the DNC, during that internal leak or hack, so she may now have to be investigated for lying to the current investigation. Mueller may have to change the direction of his investigation, or be subject to the second investigation. This is all timed out for maximum impact. It is the D-day invasion where the virus is pushed back.
It happened. The Dutch intelligence agency saw it happening. Stop grasping at straws trying to have reality conform to your worldview and instead let yourself be informed by reality.
You may stretch your imagination in which ever direction you want, describe it, and stick an "if" in front. When you get good at it you can remove the "if" and write good fiction.
If he's this bad at deceiving the public, it doesn't bode well for his chances against Mueller.
"The claim that Ms. Clinton’s 2016 opposition- research activities were on the same moral or legal plane as the Trump team’s direct interactions with Russians represents a preposterous effort to confuse and distract.
Here is what the Trump team did: Senior campaign officials, including then-chairman Paul Manafort, Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner, met in June 2016 with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Kremlin-connected lawyer. They were told the lawyer could give them “very high level and sensitive information” on Ms. Clinton, as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
Here is what the Clinton campaign did: It employed a U.S. law firm that hired a U.S. research outfit that brought in Christopher Steele, a British ex-spy, to gather information on Mr. Trump from his network of sources. That network included Russians.
There is no evidence of any direct meetings or even tenuous connections between Clinton’s senior staff and Russian operatives. When the information Steele was gathering on Mr. Trump seemed alarming, he informed the FBI. When the Russian government offered dirt on Mr. Trump’s opponent, the Trump campaign didn’t even alert authorities about it. It eagerly took the meeting, with Trump Jr commenting 'I love it!' when told of the prospect of incriminating information'. 1.
The fact is, Trump himself simply cannot fathom that the Mueller investigation is anything other than an evil plot by political enemies to being him down. At the time of the Putin press conference, his own staff were backgrounding the media to the effect that Trump 'couldn't get his head around' the difference between there being an investigation into Russian meddling and accusations that Trump himself had consciously colluded with Russian agents. It was a distinction which is simply too complex for the notoriously short Trump attention span to absorb. So, in his own mind, the whole investigation is an outrageous fabrication, because he can't pay enough attention to actually understand what it's about.
But as he now has a large constituency of supporters who will believe anything he says, notwithstanding the abundant documentation of Trump's lies and un-truths, then these people are ready to believe that the whole 'Russia thing' is really a sinister DNC plot. And they'll stand and applaud his stump speeches, and turn out and vote for him again and again.
There is no importance of 'God' anywhere.
Is God willing to prevent evil but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolvent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able not willing?
Then why call him God?
Epicurus
Most banking transactions take places over a transatlantic fiberoptic link that goes directly up to Wall Street. A lot of large scale transations would place nationwide economies at risk if they were transmitted though the air. A simple receiver set up at the local source would allow for the worst type of insider trading practices, but on a worlwide scale.
As someone with some faith in the collective wisdom of the American people how does this happen. Is it just tribal, have we chosen sides, right or wrong? Is this some racial backlash over a black president. Is it fear. Anger? I don’t understand this collective acceptance of such a lack of character
Billions of words have been written on that. Three years ago when he was starting his run I would frequently refer to the Wikipedia article on demagogues:
Which seems clearly what Trump is.
The control over our power grid.
The logistical control over our delivering of food and fuel.
Our ability to control commercial air travel.
Battlefield operations. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Quoting Benkei
My dear friend, I am not sure you realize just how dependent we have become on the communication through satellites. Here in the USA, many people, MANY people no longer have "land lines" because they have a cell phone. Most land line owners are people who work from home and those over 45+. It might be different over in the Netherlands but my Indian that was just in Europe said that the cell phone reception there was like two tin cans and a string between. Here? If the satellites were knocked out cell phones will be affected. Even if we were able to time stamp our transactions with the rest of the world via landline phones, there would be a huge lag which would halt any trading of stocks or monetary exchanges.
The control over our power grid again I assert it would be a timing issue that would cause surges in power and rolling black outs. "If" that were to happen, the cascading affect or the secondary and tertiary impact on our hospitals, police stations, fire department would be crippling. All of our first responders are using GPS which is why they are able to communicate via truck to truck rather than to dispatch and back. Again, I am not saying it is impossible but it will slow down the warp speed in which we have become dependent on.
GPS plays a crucial role our ability to control logistical control over the delievering of our food and fuel across America. I am not sure how it works in the Netherlands, if you are all still on street corners with your veggies and into the Butchers to get your meat but here in the USA, many of us get those items from one grocery store. Whether it comes in from the West Coast off a container ship or from Chicago out to the rest of the nation, most of it is delivered by train and then by truck. Yes, the trains, though they will not run on time, will run on a set track that does not depend upon GPS. But once those trains arrive at their distribution center, those products are loaded onto trucks that move out in every direction, across our nation. Those trucks will no longer have GPS and yes they will have maps but it is the slow down that is going to be our Achilles Heel. Puerto Rico was a recent example of how crippling the ability to move food and fuel to the needed areas was and how many folks died from the cascading affects of no AC and medications/medical care being able to move it out to remote areas.
Now Benkei, if you don't believe the affect that a loss of GPS will have on our planes in the air as well as on the ground, I am beginning to doubt your logic about this. Yes, it is true that commercial pilots are taught how to fly their planes via the control panel and by sight but the Tower would have to manually be keeping track of these planes and landing them visually but when they are landing every 60 seconds on a good day? Think of the back log, the circling, the major backup with plane loads of people trying to get clearance to land. I have been debating this here at the ranch and my youngest who is a Sophomore in College said that it wouldn't be the easiest thing to do but it has been done. To which I guessed he was referring to 9.11 which he was and I agreed with him. Sure we could get, along with other countries support, specifically Canada, ALL of our planes in the air, on the ground with a couple of hours but then what?
The last one, the battlefield operations is by far the most important one when it comes to the protection of our citizens. Even if only one of my scenarios above, were to by some snowball's chance in Hell to actually come to fruition, we would be screwed, for a while...
But only for a while, IF, (which my son insists on interjecting) a malicious attack was successful. His logic is because satellites are a lot cheaper to make, launch and successfully complete it's mission to enter into the web of satellite communication than it would be to successfully take out a Satellite with any degree of accuracy with a missile.
Not bad for a kid turning 20 but having lived a few more years, I believe that it is the "unknown" risks that we really cannot do anything about but the known? The even possible, remote chance?
It's better to take out an insurance policy, clear a defendable space around what you wish to protect before the wildfire takes hold then to get caught with your pants down, saying "Who would have thought that THIS could ever happen?"
You've got nothing on Trump here other than his stubborn and apparently irrational defense of the Russians over the his own intelligence sources. I actually knew he was stubborn and impudent before this episode though.
Yep. Maybe obstruction of justice. We'll see.
That might be the case but you were talking about banking transactions not cellular to cellular calls. Cellular networks don't need to transmit to satellites either and in the Netherlands are directed over landlines, as it's much cheaper. So, like all internet data, for the most part, it does not go over satellite since satellite bandwidth is hella expensive (I should know, having worked for the EU equivalent of NASA, remember? :wink: )
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Power companies can and still do predict power output and usage on a variety of predictive models and have faillsafes to reroute overcapacity across the network. While satellites nowadays can help in ascertaining the amount of solar panels, they are not directly necessary for the work power companies do to manage the grid.
As to the first responders, I don't know what the US uses but here there is a system that makes setting up a private network possible which doesn't rely on an uplink to a satellite for the local calls between trucks but would require the satellite once connecting to dispatch. But if the satellite goes out, they can still use regular cellphones. So still no biggie.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I don't see the issue here. The speed of living hasn't increased to such an extent that stopping to look at a paper map is going to be a problem. This seems to be an exaggeration.
The first responders and logistics are supported by avoiding congestion and the like but it's not the end of the world. This will cause a few deaths but it's not going to cause chaos.
Finally, you need 3 satellites for a positioning and 4 for an accurate positioning. So the system is operational with 18 satellites, preferably 24. There are 33 in operation now. Then there's also Galileo and Glonass, which can work as a back-up. That's a lot of satellites you need to destroy at ludicrous expenses, which itself would be dependent on GPS to accurately fire to begin with, before you really start disabling people's ability to use GPS or its alternatives.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Air traffic control is done on the basis of radar not GPS.
There's some pretty compelling circumstantial evidence though. When talking about the hacking during a debate with Clinton he let slip something damaging:
To anyone with half a brain it's clear that Barron was complicit, no doubt taking charge of some aspects given Trump's penchant for nepotism.
I looked up "Barron" and it means warrior. So, if we can combine all these clues, the culprit is a 400 pound Chinese warrior sitting on their bed. Doesn't seem too hard to find.
Prolly one of these guys (my guess is the one on the right, not his svelte counterpart):
At a minimum I just proved there is a picture of everything on the internet.
No, I haven't forgotten for a moment about the EU's NASA but I thought maybe....Okay with that hard of an accurate blow to my theory should at least been started with a "darlin" or a "sweetheart" just to soften it a bit!
Hey, I thought you spent some time studying how to mitigate feelings being dented when in small group communication...
The control over our power grid again I assert it would be a timing issue that would cause surges in power and rolling black outs. "If" that were to happen, the cascading affect or the secondary and tertiary impact on our hospitals, police stations, fire department would be crippling. All of our first responders are using GPS which is why they are able to communicate via truck to truck rather than to dispatch and back. Again, I am not saying it is impossible but it will slow down the warp speed in which we have become dependent on. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Quoting Benkei
That one word is where our Achilles Heel is located. As I explained to my son, we don't know what we don't know. We didn't know that airplanes could be used as big freakin missiles loaded with hundreds of people before 9.11 either. Have you ever seen the movie 'Fail Safe' with Henry Fonda? It's worth a watch.
Quoting Benkei
For some reason I cannot get you to understand what an impact "still no biggie" has when it is complicated by the slow down to a grind and how that impacts our current ability to provide life saving support.
GPS plays a crucial role our ability to control logistical control over the delievering of our food and fuel across America. I am not sure how it works in the Netherlands, if you are all still on street corners with your veggies and into the Butchers to get your meat but here in the USA, many of us get those items from one grocery store. Whether it comes in from the West Coast off a container ship or from Chicago out to the rest of the nation, most of it is delivered by train and then by truck. Yes, the trains, though they will not run on time, will run on a set track that does not depend upon GPS. But once those trains arrive at their distribution center, those products are loaded onto trucks that move out in every direction, across our nation. Those trucks will no longer have GPS and yes they will have maps but it is the slow down that is going to be our Achilles Heel. Puerto Rico was a recent example of how crippling the ability to move food and fuel to the needed areas was and how many folks died from the cascading affects of no AC and medications/medical care being able to move it out to remote areas. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Quoting Benkei
"A few deaths"...
Quoting Benkei
I have heard the cost/risk ratio and I am still for finding a way to protect the satellites from nefarious actions. There are a few prototypes of defending one but what it would cost to defend the core of the system? I don't know. I keep hearing it isn't financially sound but I am still not convinced.
Quoting Benkei
My indian has offered to set up an appointment with the Professor that teaches the ATC program at his college and see if He can bridge my gap in logic about this because my indian is convinced that the planes would be fine and we would be able to adapt quickly enough to keep safety in line with the "possible" cascading affects.
I call a degree of bs or better for him a degree of naivety, as I have seen when a simple power outage in New York or LA can do to it's people
AND
those battlefield operations that "might" be effected? Those my friend, are going to be muy importante when a war is started by a malicious attack on OUR satellite system.
Can the Netherlands handle what little chaos is here on Earth, while the American's who were laughed yesterday and today, are in the middle of executing a plan that will retaliate against those who attacked OUR satellite system?
Oh look what came up on my news feed...
Do I think cutting taxes was good? For some people, but not for the ones who need it the most, and not when it’s going to impact Social Security and Medicare, both of which I and millions of other Americans rely on.
Do I think strengthening our borders is good? Not when it includes young children being separated from their parents, damages our relationship with the Mexican government, and ignores the fact that most Americans oppose it.
Do I think improved relations with Russia is a good thing? Not when the person who has sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" asserts a stronger faith in the words of a former KGB agent over the reports of his own intelligence agencies, and refuses to call that former KGB agent out on his actions on the international front and the actions he took against our election process.
Do I think trump fulfills the role of “moral leader” of the country? Only if your “morals” include insulting war heroes and their families, ridiculing the disabled, having multiple affairs while married, provably lying almost every time he speaks, calling our most sacred institution - the press - the “enemy of the people,” equating racists with peaceful demonstrators, bullying people by name and in public when they don’t agree with him, and ravaging our environment by the actions of his appointed cabinet members.
So, no, I can’t think of anything he’s done “right” that isn’t completely overshadowed by the myriad things he’s done - and continues to do - wrong. After all, Ted Bundy may have helped a little old lady cross the street at some point.[/quote]
Nobody cares.
Oh, I thought you literally meant that Trump said the N-word during the election.
On the contrary, for a disturbing amount of Americans, there is a conceptual difference between saying the N-word out-loud, and saying that Mexicans are rapists, the Birther movement, The Central Park 5, etc.. Many Americans have an extremely narrow view on racism, how it functions and can be expressed in myriad casual and subtle forms, i.e. if it doesn't beat you over the head, it's not racism.
If Trump is caught saying the N-word on tape, Americans will care (and there's little doubt he said it now. One of his spin doctors, Katrina Pierson, is on Omarosa's latest tape saying he did and discussing how to "spin" it). Of course, his rabid anti-*immigrant white nationalist base won't care, but they don't make up more than twenty of the forty percent who support him. The other twenty won't like it and he only needs to lose a small percentage of those to become unelectable.
*Before someone says they're only anti-illegal immigrant, I refer you to Laura Ingraham of Fox News who has let the cat out of the bag on that one in a recent racist video where she talked about fighting the "demographic" changes caused by illegal and legal immigration. "Demographic" as in too many non-whites who are now threatening to make whites a minority. This echoes Nazi and white nationalist propaganda, which is why David Duke of KKK fame and other racists responded so positively calling it:
"One of the most important (truthful) monologues in the history of [mainstream media] MSM"."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/david-duke-praises-laura-ingrahams-anti-immigrant-rant-one-of-the-most-important-monologues-in-history
So, a lot of racist sentiment in the US, both overt and covert, but the vast majority of Americans are not going to go with the overt stuff (as Maw pointed out), so despite the efforts of Trump's base and Trump himself in taking it mainstream, it will never get there. Apart from anything else, it's bad for business.
https://www.businessinsider.com/laura-ingrahams-advertisers-respond-to-racist-comments-2018-8
Midterms on the way and I can't imagine Trump passing anything or getting a break after a sweep by Dems.
Let's ask. Hey @ArguingWAristotleTiff and @Hanover. Would you rule out voting for trump again if he has said the N-word? The democratic candidate would be Pocahontas.
Well, seeing as neither of them is racist, I'm pretty sure if Trump is on tape proving himself a racist they would at the very least abstain or vote third party otherwise they would be supporting racism, but OK, they can speak for themselves.
You need to be a subscriber to upload files. You can post links to images though.
I think a large part of the reason for this is that many of his most ardent supporters don't see a viable alternative. The "other side" feels nothing but contempt for them and what they hold dear - for their patriotism, for their religious beliefs, for their lack of culture and sophistication, etc.
Less charitably (some would argue more accurately), one could say that they cling to their racism, sexism, xenophobia and the like, and that the Left should isolate and shame this group rather than reach out and try to connect with them.
Whatever the case, this demographic serves as the necessary "enemy" which the "friends" of all that's good and just and decent in the world must rally against. Politics as theology (Carl Schmitt?).
Or they trust in the checks and balances, accept the racism considering the lurch to the right we've already seen it's only a small step. The putative racism is increasingly emphasised "why can't you see trump is bad" by the hysterical left and trump will just repeat as nauseum "I'm not a racist". The thing is, except for a very narrow part of his base, everyone is already aware of trump's lack of morals. They don't care. Check his approval ratings among republicans. When they vote for trump, they don't vote for him, they vote for the Republican candidate, against Democrats, for deregulation, anti-abortion etc. Racism isn't going to be a defining element in the election because the US already is a pretty racist country to begin with.
The Democrats are not going to win by pointing out trump is a piece of shit. That was a given in the previous election and they lost.
If only, but, now the point is actually apparent and real.
Dems already won the popular vote, and it only takes a few percent to swing things, and at the very least a few percent of his supporters aren't going to vote for a proven racist. Also, Republicans only make up about 20% of the electorate—most are independents, and if even 10% of independents switch sides compared to the last election, he's toast. Conclusion, if Trump is caught on tape using the N-word, he's finished in terms of chances at the next election. That hasn't happened yet. But if he does, he is. America is not that racist and not that tolerant of racism. It's not a different planet, Benkei. Give them some credit.
Quoting Benkei
The tapes back up Omarosa's version of events concerning her firing and prove it was the White House who lied about it. Not that she's trustworthy, but if she has the evidence, that's not important.
We thought that with Bush the first time and his reelection. We thought that about trump the first time and let's make the same mistake again shall we? What you're missing is that people tend not to vote for a person but in accordance with their identity. Political denomination in the US is a part of personal identity and in the case of the republicans strongly associated with working class morals, social conservatism, patriotism. Democrats are for pansies, haughty academics and unpatriotic because if the US doesn't tell other countries what to do it's just weakness.
If the Democrats want to win all they need is a God-fearing veteran turned rural farmer to run for president who goes to church every day and will proclaim he'll bomb the shit out of terrorists and rebrand themselves accordingly.
No you're just taking things too far and applying stereotypes to the whole country. As If Trump could put on a KKK hat and declare Hitler's birthday a national holiday and everything would be fine because after all we were wrong about Bush and Trump's first election. No, there's a certain point where cynicism descends into parody.
Thanks, Benkei.
The racist element is obviously there among many Trump supporters, there's no denying this, but I also think there's more to it than that, although I'd be hard-pressed to pinpoint exactly what "it" is other than my previous comments concerning the way they feel about the alternative. For example, I have many Latino friends (mainly Facebook "friends" I went to HS with) who support Trump and despise the Left. These are people who (generally speaking) grew up in the suburbs of Los Angeles and who've assimilated their identify completely with the culture - not sure if that's the right word to use - of this part of the United States: flag-waving, church-going, football-watching, police-supporting, etc.
Surprisingly, even some Latinos who are more closely connected with their native culture support him. My wife's family are relatively recent immigrants from Mexico who grew up in predominately Mexican-American neighborhoods. And a few of her cousins are enthusiastic Trump supporters. I don't want to mislead here: most of the family members despise Trump and recognize that he's attempted to demonize them. But the exceptions are interesting.
I think this is a good point. I know each side tends to caricature the other but once again I think it's more complex than those manipulated images. There's definitely some truth to Benkei's stereotypes about average Trump supporters - as I outlined in my previous post - but the idea that they're all KKK supporters or white nationalists is wrong. At least in my experience - things may be much different in the Midwest or Deep South.
Full disclosure: I'm the only non-Republican in my immediate family (family gatherings are rough). All three of my sisters voted for Trump and seem pretty content with the job he's doing. They've all married non-whites - we apparently have a thing for Mexicans - and none of them are at all sympathetic to notions of white supremacy. They do however hold somewhat ignorant views (imo) on things like the country's past and what would be the best economic system for working class people. This biographical detail partly explains why I will never demonize all Trump supporters; I'm admittedly biased on an emotional level.
There are genuinely decent human beings - hardworking, compassionate, etc. - who support Trump and who are not racists or otherwise evil. Deluded in some ways? Ignorant of the nation's past and present? I'm biased of course but I'd say yes, absolutely. I'm not suggesting that all Trump supporters are ignorant (e.g. Tiff, Hanover, and Agustino are intelligent and well-educated), but that simplistic view of the nation and the world more generally does seem to prevail among many rank and file Republicans, and it's always seemed that way to me. It seems they're more susceptible to the "noble lies" or "founding myths" or whatever they're called.
Anyhow, just wanted to throw that out there.
Yeah, and pretty much all my brother-in-law's relatives voted for Trump and they're nice regular people who I've met and liked (mostly) and I'm convinced that a good number of them have a line of decency that they would draw and verified N-word use would be a bridge too far.
I'm sure there is some limit and the above is more of a parody than anything I've written. And the point I'm making is not a result of general cynicism. I'm cynical about any approach trying to bank on Trump's purported racism and for reasons I've given I think people don't vote as much for the person as you think they would. As stated, rightly or wrongly, the Republicans have a certain political image that a lot of Americans more readily identify with than the Democrats. I think the Republican party in itself is hijacked by a strain of irresponsible voodoo economics and xenophobes, or at least, no longer has the moral backbone to stand up to the type of nonsense Trump represents.
Meanwhile, the Democrats don't have a real narrative. They stand for tax increases, redistribution, pro-abortion, that discrimination thing that whites always get blamed for. Bernie Sanders had a narrative but it wasn't shared widely by the paid up and corporate shills that make up the majority of both parties. I'm also very hesistant to predict whether sufficient number of Americans would support a "socialist" if he managed to get the Democratic nomination.
I was, however, deadly serious with my Democratic character for the ideal presidential candidate. If it's about winning votes, you need to undermine the Republican narrative by making it your own to the point it can still be reconciled with whatever ideals you really hold. That isn't too hard, since it's mostly imagery. Then you need a consistent narrative that doesn't have any nuance.
One subject I'd consider in that respect is that of caring. The State stopped caring when it took money from the corporations, the corporations stopped caring long before that. I'd run on a platform of "power to you" and how to empower the average US citizen both economically and politically. So that's working together for a common goal; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Maybe something like this:
"Companies are the lifeblood of the American economy. Yet they have a darkside too.
Datacompanies have taken away ourprivacy and sold it to the highest bidder. Often that buyer has been the government. The same government that refuses to pass legislation to protect you. No more. Privacy is not the enemy of the economy.
Energy companies, heavy industry and mining have stolen our clean air, clean water, forests and the lands we live in in a manner that is not sustainable. They are slowly killing our children and our children's children. The government has not protected the environment, the air we breath, the water we drink, the forests we walk in and the lands we live in. No more. Sustainability is no the enemy of the economy.
Salaries have stagnated while the rich get richer. How come when you actually create something of value you make a fraction of the CEO, who's really no more than a glorified paper pusher? Talk about a sense of entitlement. I don't know about you but unless you invent the cure for cancer, I don't see why anyone should be making millions for phones you didn't design, didn't build and didn't invent. It seems to me the inventor, designer and assembly worker are doing all the real work.
And when the economy slumps you're fired at will and out of a job but the CEO gets a severance pay check? Where's the fairness in that? A captain ought to go down with the ship but as the CEO makes the decisions, the actual risks are borne by you and the shareholders. Meanwhile, the modest bakery on the corner is crisis-proof. It takes a lot of cash and an education to really mess things up for a lot of people. No more. Fairness and equity are not the enemy of the economy.
The banks have stolen our money. Taxes meant for governmental programs were used to bail them out because they took too many risks. The government refuses to regulate them properly and the banks haven't paid back a cent. No more. justice isn't the enemy of the economy.
All companies use our roads, our trains, our power grids, our land, our justice system. It's time they pay the appropriate rent when they pay but a fraction compared to the income tax we have to pay. No more. Taxation isn't the enemy of the economy.
The grip of corporations through donations on our political process means laws that should be passed aren't passed. Corruption runs through the political system at every level. Politics by the people for the people simply no longer exists. No more. Democracy isn't the enemy of the economy.
If you elect me, I say "no more". I will force companies to work in such a way that in their pursuit for profit and economic gain, that everybody benefits, that they pay their fair share for the goods and services that they receive from wider society, that they pay back debts owed to society, that they maintain and improve the world we live in and that they respect our rights and treat us with respect. I will wrest the economic and political control they have over our democratic system and return power to those that actually matter: we, the people."
So yeah, I'm not cynical at all. :wink:
I agree with most of your analysis and I'm all aboard with your description of the economy. Our only disagreement then, seeing as you concede that there is a line, is where it is. I say verified N-word tape, and you say... well you haven't specified, but something more. What then? You tell me.
I think a casual N-word on tape just verifies what we already know, which is why I think it's ultimately going to be immaterial. Plus, we're rolling from one outrage to the next, and that just means we're getting inoculated. To give you an idea, here's some Breitbart comments on this issue:
And it goes on and on and on...
Tellingly, the Wall Street Journal (as right leaning a mainstream newspaper I can find) simply doesn't mention the N-word at all. It doesn't exist to them.
So, what would probably make him a no-go would be something like active racism such as "I'm going to fire him because he's a n*****". Something like that as opposed to "There's n***** everywhere in compton".
I've always wondered about the purpose of using asterisks to "hide" offensive words. We all know what you're saying. Is it somehow less offensive if some of the letters are replaced with symbols?
Well, it's hosted in the UK and controlled by a Scottish guy living in Spain. Fuck the U.S.
One thing I'd add is that the left has no perspective on how morally bankrupt and hypocritical the right thinks it is. That is, the right does not see Hillary or Obama as better people than Trump.
This tape, whatever it might show, will be no more damaging than the pussy grabbing tape. The left needs a new strategy that focuses on something other than character assassination. It doesn't work. It might just be that issues matter more than character. Want a knock out blow? Come up with some good ideas. How is that a redneck viewpoint?
What this tape might do is further limit the effectiveness of polling data, causing more people to misstate who they'll vote for.
Get over it. You lost the war.
Trump is racist? Shocking news!
That hypothetical political pitch was really good. I honestly think a message like that, if pitched in a tactful yet forceful way, may even appeal to some social conservatives - maybe 10-20%. Gotta appeal to their pride (to their "machismo") and make it clear that these corporations - who've infiltrated the political system to an excessive degree even under the supposed "outsider" Trump - do not care one bit about their children, their communities, their nation, their God, or anything they claim to hold dear. They need to see and feel that blatant injustice instead of focusing all their anger and frustration on the poor, on immigrants, etc. These huge corporations actively undercut everything they value in the world. Point blank.
That cultivated (but justified) resentment then needs to be channeled in a positive direction beyond gaining revenge on the super wealthy and privileged. Outline a vision for America that finally squares with its high ideals, one that remains true to the latent possibilities contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, one that appreciates business activity and the entrepreneurial spirit while also believing there are much higher things in life (again: family, community, God - traditional conservative values, right?) than a nation's GDP or a human being's net worth.
It'd be a tough balancing act but I do genuinely believe that an inspiring and semi-realistic narrative could be crafted which draws from the positive elements of both of conservatism and progressivism in a typically pragmatic, American fashion.
It has nothing to do with the left. If your president uses the N-word, he's a racist scumbag just the same as anyone who would come on this site and use it would be considered so, and he should be condemned by everyone no matter what their political persuasion. If you can't come out and say that, that 's your problem not the left's. Racism is not a left /right issue. As if any of us on the left wouldn't disown Clinton (or whoever) if she was taped using the N-word. The level of insanity of blaming the left's "character assassination" for your President using the N-word only reflects the fact that you think the right are a bunch of racists looking for scapegoats. Well, I'm sorry you have such a shitty view of your own side.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/14/donald-trump-n-word-cant-guarantee-777475
By that token, everybody that already voted for Trump is a racist. Which quite obviously isn't the case. If you're white, then racism isn't a real problem to you. You're not the one experiencing it or affected by it. Why should it be a primary concern? Because you judge them harshly? Well, they'll just tell you to go fuck yourself right back Baden.
So far Hanover has indicated that if Democrats came up with good ideas and forward who he considers non-corrupt, he'd vote for them. Let's see where that takes us.
Glad you liked it. I'm a leftie as you know but I'm luckily not blind and deaf just yet. Taking the above forward, which Democratic candidates would you consider acceptable? What aspects would you consider "good ideas" of the following:
1. increased corporate tax (pay for what they use),
2. higher capital gains taxes (the Buffet Rule)
3. roll-back of recent tax cuts for the rich
4. repeal of Citizens United through legislation
5. universal healthcare
6. stricter environmental protection regulation
7. tax incentives for green initiatives (like duties on gas-guzzlers for instance)
Except you know that I mean someone who is unequivocally proven to be a racist. I shouldn't have to spell that out from the context.
Quoting Benkei
So... what? What do I care what a bunch of racists think? In any case, I've already dismissed your analysis as wrong. Because Hanover thinks you're right doesn't make you right. If the N-word tape comes out, Trump won't be re-elected. You can quote me on that.
They're - by and large - not racist and you insisting that they are just makes you look silly and sound like a hysterical left-wing fairy. You dismissed my analysis based on an outcome you prefer. Nothing more than a gut feeling. The fact you can't seem to be able to entertain another view in this respect is interesting. I'm glad you take racism seriously but if outrage is all you have, you're not going to convince anybody on the other side of the aisle. You might think that isn't necessary but at the end of the day they're still your neighbours, colleagues and fellow countrymen (if you were American but this holds true anywhere in the world). Enjoy hating about 40% of the world population; I'd rather not.
I think Trump is a racist scumbag but I'd rather find out how to get typical GOP-voters to vote for me than hoping to win an election because the other side fucks up. It really is politically weak trying to win an election on the basis of the total incompeteness of the figurehead on the other side.
Mmm no. But my example was what happens in a rolling black out or a total outage power, the cascading affect it has on our nation. Losing our logistical control at the clip we are at now would cause a slow to a grind for a lot of our daily functions we take for granted.
When the outage took place on the East Coast? No better friend than the Pacific sunset at that point if you normally dwell in Manhattan. :up:
I have a friend who fell asleep and woke to the black out. He had friends in high rises that had to walk 30 flights of stairs to get in and out of their condo. He said it was the wildest of times to be on the street and it took him back to his childhood because everyone was outside as sweltering as it was inside.
Bunch of strawmans. I don't agree with your analysis therefore I don't think Americans (on the whole) will vote for a verified racist therefore I don't think they're racist. Get it?
Quoting Benkei
That would be 3 billion people. So, what are you talking about? I directed my comments towards the number of Americans who would vote for someone who used the N-word in a derogatory manner. No offence, but you're not making much sense.
I'll spell it out for you.
I think many more people will vote for Trump even if he's a proven racist than you think but not because they're racist as you claim if they would. You'd condemn them for it. "Fuck them", as you put. You hope this isn't the case but that doesn't waylay my analysis in any way.
So on the basis of that, if I were right, then you'd go about proclaiming 40% of Americans would be racist, give or take. Yes? With me so far?
If someone votes for a candidate that is verified and unequivocally a racist or white nationalist or anti-semite or Nazi (or whatever), that makes them sympathetic to racism, white nationalism, anti-semitism or Naziism (or whatever). You might want to draw a distinction between being sympathetic to racism and being an actual racist. I take a more zero-tolerance view. So, yes, if 40% of Americans hypothetically voted for a hypothetical verified racist Trump (just as if they voted for David Duke) they would be sympathetic to racism and in my view racist to a degree (though not as racist as if they used the N-word themselves. There are levels of racism that start with thinking it's not such a bad thing and move all the way up to promoting it as an ideology).
I think the safest way for me to answer such an absurd question is to use your knowledge expressed about what you already know to be the answer:
Quoting Benkei
Quoting Benkei
Now, this one I will address. You are right, not only does nobody care, the somebodies of us that do care, got tired of jumping through hoops, putting our head in a Lion's mouth just to put food on our tables during the Obama administration.
Three out of the four members of my tribe are attending college which is a FANTASTIC feeling as we move forward in life. That one achievement, 3 of 4 in school represents two things that I would like you to understand. First it means that once again the small business sector is growing and NicK alone can provide for our family of 4 while we focus on learning AND the bittersweet fact that each of us students qualify for Pell Grants . Now, don't get me wrong, I have always supported the Pell Grants purpose, I just never thought me or my children would qualify for "The Pell Grant is a need-based financial aid for students who belong to lower income families. The Federal Government earmarks certain funds for this grant each year. The quantum of funds varies from year to year. The grants are disbursed to the eligible students from this fund. However, there are certain criteria that one must meet in order to be eligible for the grant."
So yeah, I care, I care a SHITLOAD about what is going on with our President and our country. Actions speak louder than words any day of the week and Benkei, the years of desperation under the Obama administration brought us and brought me to my knees. When my Mother In law's trunk loads of food, toiletries drew further apart and my pride hit rock bottom I was directed to the Bishop's Pantry at the Mormon church for food to put on my table. We had to dilute every investment IRA just to pay our mortgage, which for 18 months was more than 60 days delinquent, 6 that were 90 days late. We lost our curbside trash service because we couldn't afford the fee, which meant once a week for 7 years, I hauled our trash on a trailer to the local dump and let me tell you, it is a very humbling experience. We sold 21k dollars invested in our 3 horses for a single dollar because we could no longer feed them.
I am sorry, I DO have a LOT to care about.
Ok, so let's say I'm anti-abortion and strictly religious. The racist Trump is anti-abortion but the Democrat is pro-abortion. I vote Trump. Racist or not? The candidates are not representing single issues. Attempts to reduce it to that is what results, in my view, in unrealistic expectations of voting behaviour by average Americans.
Or, I'm a laissez faire capitalist ideologue. Same question.
Or, I have my own business and can benefit from tax decreases. Am I supposed to vote against my self-interest because, besides the points I do like and want, the candidate is also a racist?
I'm sure that for some the racist thing will be major enough to abstain or vote Democrat, I just don't believe it is the case for that many people. In general, the first worry for most people is a job and stability. Everything else is secondary - even racism.
I'm not aware of any ad homs I made towards you. I don't disagree with judging racists accordingly but I do disagree a sort of judgment by association that you seem to suggest here. I'd condemn the Trumpian voters who voted only because of his racism but unfortunately I can't tell them apart from the rest.
The economic upturn that Trump is reaping the benefits of was already in full swing under Obama with better growth figures than now. But really that's besides the point, economic crises, up turns and down turns are largely unaffected by governmental action. Judging Presidents based on economic performance is simply misplaced.
At least, at the very least, Obama made healthcare affordable for people which gave many Americans one less thing to worry about while they were struggling to make a living. Trump is the asshole trying to take that away (and doing so by illegal means by the way, by ordering departments not to execute or frustrate legal obligations under the law!) so he and his rich buddies can pay less taxes.
EDIT: And he's a racist, that should count for something.
I hope you KNOW that in your heart of hearts about me because it is labels like "racist" that get applied so liberally on this thread that make it feel very unsafe to discuss what is really going on, above the fray and noise of the "Gotcha of the day".
I am starting to understand why others have drifted away when the labels start being applied.
I get the point but my answer would be simple, you abstain or vote for a third party. In that way you neither support abortion or racism. (Note that in most states your vote would not have a hope in hell of having any practical effect anyway and it wouldn't be anything more than an expression of principle).
Quoting Benkei
That's no different in principle to saying if someone offers me 1000 bucks to call someone a nigger or to support someone else calling someone a nigger, do I do it because it's in my self-interest? No, I don't because a more important part of my self-interest than money is a basic level of moral integrity. I mean nothing angelic, just basic. If someone can't even get to that level, they're screwed.
Quoting Benkei
Realistically, neither party is going to destroy any class of people financially. If it were a case of the only way to prevent Venezuela-style socialism was to vote for a racist Trump, I might be more sympathetic. But both parties are democratic, so there's no huge forseeable crisis to be avoided for voting for either that would justify throwing dignity in the trash can.
Obama Care: To which our premium was $2,500 a month for a family of 4 with an annual deducible of $5,000 per person up to a total of $20,000 out of pocket before the policy were to cover 80% of any approved procedures. VS the crap shoot of paying a tax penalty for not purchasing a product and paying cash for all medical, dental, psyche and chiro visits.
How much should that "count"?
Quoting Baden
On a personal level I'm on board with you with this but then I'm pretty comfortable financially and socially. I can't say I'd judge others for a different valuation if they are in different circumstances (much worse) but I'd judge them if they were in similar circumstances.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
And what was it before that and how was it for everybody else? It's rather difficult to assess this as a counterargument against the system as a whole.
The problem may lie, for instance, in the fact that it simply isn't universal. Dutch premiums are about 1500 USD per adult per year, children are free up to 18. Deductible is 0 for children, about 400 USD per year. That covers basic medical care, visits to the general practitioneer are free (no deductible) and all the life-threatening stuff is covered, even abroad if you need care there immediately (with deductible but only up to Dutch rates, so you're screwed in Switzerland and the US for instance). Dental plans, fysiotherapy and alternative medicine are covered under an elective regime that's entirely free-market. We don't have the best system in the world but it ranked 5th in 2017 in the world.
So, just imagine the piece of mind I can have if I'm in an accident. No medical bills and no worry I'll lose my job (firing during illness is illegal). It's why I find a 52% income tax acceptable.
I don't think we disagree all that much then except in terms of the tone I took and in terms of defintions. I'll summarize my view by saying that no decent human being (of my estimation) would vote for a racist (of the degree we discussed) except out of absolute desperation (e.g. threat of immediate financial ruin etc.), and I don't see that applying to the vast majority of Americans on either side. Selling out a whole group in society for some petty gain in taxes or whatever may not be unequivocally racist, I'll concede that, it might just be pure opportunism, but it would still be despicable and I would feel just as negatively towards anyone who would do that whether you call them racist or not. But again, it's hypothetical as Trump hasn't been proved as yet to be a racist in the sense the supposed tapes depict.
(And I emphasize again this applies to whatever politician and voter of whatever side. It just seems a lot less likely that it would come from a Dem. But it could).
Enough for other GOP-members to refuse to nominate Trump as their candidate for the next election. But in fact, that should've been the case in the previous election already. How do you influence who gets nominated as a regular voter?
UK premiums are £0 and deductibles are £0.
And according to this, in 2017 we're 1st for equity and care process, 3rd for access and efficiency, 10th for health care outcome (although "experiencing the fastest reduction in deaths amenable to health care in the past decade"), and 1st overall.
You came 3rd. You undersold Dutch healthcare.
Here's the important bit on that page in my view. Americans pay twice as much for a healthcare system that is significantly worse than most developed countries. And no, Trump is not going to change that, @ArguingWAristotleTiff. The only ones who will are those espousing single payer healthcare, which is what all those countries who spend less than you on healthcare and have better outcomes use.
The alternative was not going to change anything either. ACA aka Obama Care was dead before it was ever implemented. The entire system has been upended and all of the medical community that COULD get under the umbrella of a for profit mega merger hospital, did. There is no way to unravel this cluster fuck of a medical system now. I do have some experience in the medical billing and insurance reimbursements and I can tell you that Obama Care dis jointed our health care system.
Quoting Benkei
I need not imagine as I see my children leaving America for the Netherlands and New Zealand for the peace of mind you are reporting. Again, actions speak louder than words and in this case their actions of relocating to another country, speak louder than my words of "I love you" ever could.
It's actually depressing as fuck but that's for me to handle.
Why is it an absurd question? The fact that you don't want to answer it doesn't make it absurd, just uncomfortable. It's a live possibility with Trump, and even if it wasn't, the answer should be easy. I mean, if someone said to me, "Would you continue to support Bernie Sanders if it turned out he called blacks the N-word? Or Jeremy Corbyn if it turned out he called Jews, kikes" (or name your leftie and your racial slur) my answer would be an unequivocal "No, of course I wouldn't". I'd drop them in a second. I don't see the difficulty here. Supporting obvious (as posed in the hypothetical) racists, anti-semites etc, is wrong. What's the problem saying that? Why play games with it?
Nor am I expecting Trump to be able reverse time and what the ACA did to our medical community, no one can.
Because it is not a game for me and I am not going to play this Trump "Gotcha" game with you.
I am being bluntly honest with you when I say I am VERY uncomfortable with your sweeping judgement on others being different kinds of "ist's" and it shuts down communication every time you do it. I do not wish to be labeled and I am very cautious with my allowing your feelings into mine right now. I do not wish to depart the forums over a "label" being applied to me.
I don't buy you being a victim of anything here, Tiff. But your answer is clear from this. That is very sad for you imho.
I am not a victim of anything Baden, nor will I allow myself to be labeled as such. I am remaining and will remain in a pro-active position on this. You are right it is only your judgement but it is a judgement all the same which you are entitled to.
What you are not entitled to is label me a racist.
And if you think you are? That is YOUR problem, not mine.
Please, it is not lost on me as to the reasons others have been banned or willing left the forum based on this very issue of labeling others.
So no, I will not fall victim. I will stand strong in that a person should be judged by a totality of their actions and not one action alone.
I'm not sure how to interpret that. You mean you would pro-actively support Trump if he calls black people the N-word? Where would your line be then? What would he have to do to lose your support?
You're not going to be in danger of being banned for saying you would vote for Trump even if he calls blacks the N-word. And I never expected you to take that position when I first said I thought it was to a degree racist (it's not directly racist and not a mod issue). But again, it's not about your feelings. Try to imagine your fellow black citizens reading this and how they would feel at you implying you would vote for someone who considers them "niggers".
That's a lot. I pay 20% on whatever I earn between £11,501 - £45,000.
National insurance on top of that though, right?
Good point. If I'm understanding this correctly, it's 12% of whatever I earn between £702 and £3,862 a month.
Might be easier to just look at my last payslip. Income tax + NI was 20.1% of my pay.
So how does the tax rate compare with America? Unless it's significantly lower over there, what's the rationale against single payer healthcare? No need for insurance, it's universal, and seemingly better quality.
And there's always the option for private healthcare on top (e.g. Bupa).
That's sad if true. Can't wrap my head around it. But then I don't live there and you do.
Don't be a [self-censored]. In Western Europe, along with, I can fairly confidently add, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, use of the N word by a national leader would result in resigning in disgrace followed by unelectability (if they ever dared run for anything again). Last time I looked we had politics over here too. What's your exposure to anywhere outside America?
Got an answer to the question? Did you really presume that use of the N-word was acceptable by national leaders of developed countries around the world? Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger#Etymology_and_history
"The variants neger and negar derive from the Spanish and Portuguese word negro (black), and from the now-pejorative French nègre. Etymologically, negro, noir, nègre, and nigger ultimately derive from nigrum, the stem of the Latin niger (black) (pronounced [?ni?er] which, in every other grammatical case, grammatical gender, and grammatical number besides nominative masculine singular, is nigr- followed by a case ending, the r is trilled).
In its original English language usage, nigger (then spelled niger) was a word for a dark-skinned individual. The earliest known published use of the term dates from 1574, in a work alluding to "the Nigers of Aethiop, bearing witnes". According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first derogatory usage of the term nigger was recorded two centuries later, in 1775."
That 1775 reference being a song sang during the American Revolution:
"The rebel clowns, oh! what a sight! Too awkward was their figure. 'Twas yonder stood a pious wight, And here and there a nigger."
Yes, they do. So... You thought that if, for example, Theresa May was caught on tape using the N-word or whatever you thought the British equivalent was, she wouldn't have to resign, and the British people would just shrug their shoulders and look at the consumer confidence index or whatever it is? Because that's politics everywhere. I'm asking if you really thought that.
You get the point though. We have different backgrounds and different things seem obvious to us. It seems obvious to you that voters don't care (much) about their leaders being racist. It seems obvious to me that they do. What you've got to realize though is that America is exceptional here. There really is no other advanced democracy I can think of where a leader could survive re-election after using the N-word* (if Trump really could. I concede the possibility I may be wrong about that though I still would bet he wouldn't.)
*If anyone can think of one, let me know.
Indeed. It's just a bunch of raving white supremacists over here. Even those of us who are part black can't help ourselves: those confederate flags are just so handsome.
My guess as to why you're so interested in the question is that you're experiencing a interest-void at the moment. As soon as your attention wanders on to your Next Big Thing, the US and all its coarse oddity will slide from your field of vision like a bad dream.
Why do you respond to serious comments with sarcastic shit-posts? What do you achieve by it?
Quoting frank
Ok, well that's just another highly ignorant comment. I've been very interested in international politics since I started on old PF close to ten years ago. That's not going to change.
Chief executive pay jumps 11% to almost £4m last year
:shade:
[U]Not true[/u]. It's a real problem for all of us.
Didn't get around to addressing that but yes, just like any serious ethical issue we take a side on. That should go without saying.
One good thing about business is everyone's money is equally desirable.
Not sure about prurience and titillation. That would depend on how the situation was presented. But in so far as a partner of another race is considered exotic, desirable etc., sure, business will use that.
You guys are nuts.
I hereby condemn my president for any racism he may harbor. So damned, this the 15th day of August, 2018.
Thank fuck for that. I've had enough making enemies for one night.
None appear to be good ideas, but instead are fundamental components of the Democratic platform.
Dude, you'll never be an enemy. :love:
I knew you'd say that. I missed my chance to call @Benkei a left-wing fairy for thinking you'd agree with any of it.
Your position is largely an ad hom, arguing that the speaker of the position must maintain a certain moral character in order to be supported even if that speaker speaks views you agree with. As long as Trump's racism, to the extent it actually exists, is not made part of his policies, then it just makes him a stupid fucking racist, but not someone I must vote against.
David Duke, for example, was an actual white supremacist who, as I understand it, wanted to implement racist laws. I obviously wouldn't vote for him. I don't know of any anti-black policy Trump's supported though.
With Trump, you have someone who is an elitist, megalomaniac and who is egotistical, brash, and unapologetic. The only ones he respects either carry his same last name or his genes. I feel fairly confident that he's made plenty of anti-Semitic comments in his time, and has little respect for Italians, Asians, or anyone other than those in his little protected family environment. The point being that I don't know what you expect to prove with this latest episode of his use of the N word. Do you think I'm just now learning that he's not a loving, caring, open hearted sort of guy? Go back through my posts. I've very consistently called him a buffoon, but he has my endorsement as long as he's the leading candidate with an R next to his name.
You argue there is some moral imperative to abstain should your only choice of candidate be racist, else you'll somehow be guilty of racism by association. I just reject that as long as the person has no intention to bring about racist policy. I also truly believe that Obama and Hillary harbor racist views as offensive as Trump's, just they're far more sophisticated, cautious, and civil not to say it in stark indefensible terms.
This is a pretty weak argument. As if racists wouldn't let their racism leak into policy. Let's get real. There's a million ways that could happen and it very likely would. They don't have to specifically make it part of their platform. But, yes, you have a moral imperative to your fellow citizens, especially black citizens, not to vote in an overt racist or anti-semite or whatever, whether or not they have racist or anti-semite policies. It's about showing a minimum level of decency and solidarity. And apart from that, what kind of message does it send to the upcoming generation? Your reward for being a racist, is... President? It would send a horrible message, that racism is acceptable and that would encourage more racism, which you would be partly responsible for. You can't separate all this and be purely pragmatic about it as that's not dealing with the moral issue, so much as just ignoring it.
Quoting Hanover
On the basis of what? Shouldn't there be evidence? I mean, even in Trump's case, we are talking hypothetically, so far. Though I'm convinced he's a racist to some degree, he still has plausible deniability, so voting for him as things stand is just about defensible. An N-word tape would strip that away completely though. That's not just cranky granddad racism, that's in your face, fuck you, racism. As I said earlier there are levels and there has to be a line.
You know what he's doing to non-white immigrants, right?
I was quite shocked when I saw that reply. I don't think that I'd ever have to ask that question. I would never knowingly vote for a racist candidate. I would instead support the cause of an alternative candidate from within the party replacing the racist, and I would want action to be taken against the racist by the executive committee of the party.
@Hanover, why wouldn't you do this? You don't have to abandon the party that you support.
And yet confusion about his sexism is rare. Racism is worse than sexism? Good grief.
Or, by the same token, how would you explain to a black child your support and vote for a President who would call his/her people the N-word? How would you explain his/her place in that alientating environment you've contributed to creating for him/her?
*Doesn't even have to be Trump or even the Republican party specifically. Trump is just a potential example.
The effective corporate tax rate is 18.6%. Companies are the largest users of energy, natural resources, air and water and their related infrastructures. What exactly is the justification that private individuals pay more to maintain those infrastructures than those that actually use it?
I was surprised how low that was, so wondered how it compared to here. It's 19%. :meh:
Was 28% 4 years ago.
He is enforcing the law. Immigrants who play by the rules and obey the law, from all nations, are not targeted. The Democrats can't make the distinction between criminals and honest people, since crime is what they do.
There is a book out which claims that Hitler and the Nazi party used the Democrat party legal tactics for discrimination against the blacks, in the early 20th century, as the model for their discrimination against the Jews. There is documentation that senior Nazi officials thanked the Democrats for their outstanding legal tactics for turning a group into second class citizens.
James Q. Whitman’s “Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law
The Democrats have never payed for their crimes, but have successfully diverted attention away from their crimes. Trump creates self esteem through jobs and a strong economy, while the Democrats give hopelessness and create resentment through welfare dependency. If person has a good job they can make their own choices. If they are on welfare you can control them.
It would be hardly surprising as the Democrat party was virulently racist at the time. Of course, there's absolutely no connection between that and Trump or today's Democrats.
Quoting wellwisher
Yawn. The Republicans destroyed the economy, you nincompoop, largely due through promoting the type of financial deregulation Trump also supports. Obama fixed it and handed the fixed version on to Trump.
Who then proceeds to fuck it up with his tariffs.
Pop quiz: Which party has been better on the economy measured by GDP growth rates?
Answer: The Democrats
And Trump agrees (I guess he accidentally ran with the wrong party):
“I’ve been around for a long time and it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.”
See, the thing is, facts matter. And all your partisan nonsense is just verbal diarrhea only you and your deluded cadre of fellow nincompoops believe.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/07/trump-is-right-about-one-thing-the-economy-does-better-under-the-democrats/#5fec1c046786
I read recently that there's such a thing as too-low unemployment:
So it's actually good for the economy to have a certain level of unemployment. But because it's also good for the unemployed to contribute to the economy[sup]1[/sup] (and also to eat), welfare provides an economic (and personal) benefit.
But let's not let facts stand in the way of Republican talking points.
[sup]1[/sup]
[quote=https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/11599/economics/economic-impact-of-welfare-freezes/]Aggregate Demand (AD) / economic growth. Welfare freezes will (ceteris paribus) reduce consumer spending, and lead to lower aggregate demand. It is an example of deflationary fiscal policy. It will be quite significant because people receiving welfare benefits have a high marginal propensity to consume because, on low incomes, they don’t have the luxury of saving – therefore, lower welfare benefits will directly lead to less spending in the economy. Welfare freezes will also contribute to a decline in consumer confidence because it will be a visible reminder of economic hardship.[/quote]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/07/trump-is-right-about-one-thing-the-economy-does-better-under-the-democrats/#5fec1c046786
You're right. I didn't word it well since I was shifting into the mindset of someone who would think this and as such it read as if I actually believed what I wrote.
Now that you have accepted the link between the presidency and the economy, you can thank Trump for the booming economy. As much as you might wish to find some hidden weakness in the economy, I can vouch that for the fact that the job market is stronger than I think I have ever seen it. It's definitely an employee's market. There are few things that give workers greater rights than increased demand for their services.
And Trump can thank Obama. The economy merely continued on the trajectory he set. All Trump did was come in and balloon your deficit to give massive tax breaks to the rich and corporations. That might result in some short term gain but will cause huge problems later on. But, of course, Trump doesn't care about later on, or anything except the glory of Trump.
GW crashed the economy through idiotic policies of financial deregulation which Obama had to reverse, so he didn't continue what GW set in motion. He reversed a negative trend set in motion by GW. Trump is continuing a positive trend set in motion by Obama. I don't think that's hard to grasp.
"Even if it's right next to you, you can't see it."
Right, Obama's TARP program bailed out the banks that the Republicans deregulated and caused to crash. It's a good argument except that the banks were deregulated equally by both parties (and notably by the Democrats who wanted to increase home ownership for everyone) (https://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/)., and it was Bush, not Obama, who instituted the TARP program. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-americans-think-obama-not-bush-enacted-bank-bailouts-poll-shows/ Not too hard to grasp.
Let's now talk about how hawkish Bush was and how dovish Obama was and try to ignore all the facts.
There needn't be a moral justification, only a pragmatic one, meaning that the question isn't fairness, but what will maximize the wealth of the individual. There is certainly a point of diminishing returns where if we overtaxed corporate revenues than the economy would be less productive and the individual would suffer. If not, we'd just tax corporations at 100%, considering they have no moral worth to begin with.
The bulk of total tax revenues comes from individuals, although I could not find a per capita figure, comparing the average tax revenue per corporation versus the average individual revenue. My point being that I expect that in raw dollars, the average corporation pays taxes greatly exceeding the average citizen, meaning they are paying for more of our roads and whatever else.
The man who squashed efforts to regulate derivatives was Greenspan. The crisis went far beyond housing. The crash just started with the implosion of the housing bubble.
You are an extremely unreliable historian and you're unapologetic about it. Definitely to be ignored.
The government could burn every tax dollar it gets, and still buy anything it wants with a key stroke. Economically, the only real purpose of taxes in a country with a fiat currency, and the good faith of debt holders, is purely to control inflation. It has a million other political reasons, none of them that matter - other than to get votes.
Economically, taxes should have no impact at all on corporate performance, investment, employment, etc. If all competitors in a market are taxed fairly it is just a base that the market operates on top of. Success or failure of any competitor is indifferent to an equal tax to all.
A few things:
- The cite I provided specifically referenced the federal reserve's involvement in the financial crisis, so I'm not sure why you're pointing out something that was not omitted from my prior post and claiming it was omitted. .
- Nothing you've said contradicts anything that I've said, which is (1) there were multiple hands from both sides that that played a role in the financial crisis, and (2) Bush instituted TARP.
- My point was that no one gets a pass, as @Baden was suggesting that the Republicans caused the entire mess.
- Your post is obviously retaliatory from my comments in a prior thread where you were repeatedly corrected on your historical inaccuracies, so now you're saying "You are what you said I am." This post is your attempted zinger comeback.
The "mess" was very clearly a result of a central column of economic conservatism: leave the economy unregulated. This principle was extended to investment entities whose insane practices actually caused the catastrophe. Regular banks were involved, but if they alone had been the problem, no one would have appeared before Congress asking for money to keep the global economy from falling apart.
Quoting Hanover
Very funny. You were the one who was repeatedly incorrect and never once admitted it.
I joined a group on reddit. It's pretty cool, but I decided to start my own anyway. While rustling up patronage on facebook for my group, I got invited to a private group there. On queue I don't feel like talking about philosophy anymore. :roll:
:brow:
Well, I asked Hanover a couple of direct questions above on the racism issue, which he ignored. That's his prerogative, so I'm not going to bang my head against a brick wall on that one. If anyone has made their feelings clear about all that, it's me.
Quoting Hanover
Generally speaking they did. Clinton handed GW a booming economy and a budget surplus* and in eight years he turned it into a huge financial crisis and the worst deficits and debt you ever had, and in the meantime killed a huge number of people in a couple of pointless wars. Trump will find it hard to top that in terms of pure destruction. Of course, it's obvious any Dem congressmen who voted with GW both on the war and on reckless financial deregulation also deserve condemnation. They just had a much smaller part to play overall. And my basic point anyway was that less than two years in, the economy is not all Trump's doing. He's had an influence obviously, but like GW, he got handed a decent deal by his predecessor. It's not like things would have been much different if Clinton had been in power for a year and a half. And what extra impetus you got, Trump bought with a huge addition to your debt, so your kids will be paying for his ego boost. It's short-term fakeonomics. Enjoy it while it lasts.
*"annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. "
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
I appreciate that. Just wondering why he isn't following his Huckabee cues and screaming about how Brennan is a traitor. Talking about GW and Obama's economy is just so day 100 of Trump's presidency.
To be fair, Clinton did sign the repeal of Glass-Steagall, declaring it "no longer appropriate".
-Trump links Canadian lumber imports to deadly California wildfires
"During a cabinet meeting, Trump and other officials downplayed the role of climate change on wildfires, while discussing the abundance of fallen trees creating a natural accelerant.
“It’s not a global warming thing, it’s a management situation,” said Trump. “And one of the elements that he talked about was the fact that we have fallen trees, and instead of removing those fallen trees, which get to be extremely combustible, instead of removing them, gently removing them, beautifully removing them, we leave them to burn.” "
https://globalnews.ca/news/4392206/trump-canadian-lumber-imports-california-wildfires/amp/
Well, it wasn't, 70 years later. And at that point it was advantaging investments outside the US, specifically giving the London market a huge advantage.
Although, in hindsight, and probably also in foresight, a simple and full repeal probably wasn't a bright idea. In fact, the complete opposite, such as a tightening of regulations allowing for US banks to create UK filials purely to avoids Glass-Steagall would have been a better way to go.
The crisis was a result of derivatives. No American president had anything to do with that.
Washington is run by nerds and Trumps reminds them of the football quarterback who may have stuffed them in the locker back in the day. Trump is loud, crude, resourceful and confident. The revenge of the nerds is in affect, using projected illusions of monsters, to intimidate and control. This exercise has shown that not all nerds are nice people. As a quarterbackTrump has practice under fire. Trump is starting to stuff some of the evil nerds into lockers, to the delight of those who had been intimidated by the illusions.
What I also learned was there are too many lawyers in Washington. These lawyers used law for profit, campaign donations and to railroad and intimidate people, while also allowing crimes to go unpunished for others.
We need an oversight committee on lawyers, which allow lawyers to be sued if they use law to games theo system. We d not allow doctors to oversee all doctors, so the same needs to be true of lawyers. Lawyers are considered less trustworthy than doctors yet we use oversight over doctors by people who are not doctors. How about doctors oversee lawyers? They can use a more moral standard for behavior where there are penalties even of done legally using tricks. Trick law helped Hillary avoid crimes while trick law was used to intimate the innocent. This would result in fines and/or jail.
Derivatives amplified the effects, but they certainly were not the sole cause of the financial crisis.
That must be really hard to do with their pockets so full of cash.
:lol:
Follow the yellow wig road...
Some of the gaffs she has made remind me of Gary Johnson's "Aleppo" answer. There is just no taking that gaff back.
It’s finally become philosophical.
That's a relief.
I'm feeling some good vibes emanating from Mr. Mueller. The force is strong with him.
At the risk of injecting a serious note into this farce, it seems to me that there is a useful distinction to be made between a witch-hunt, where you go looking for people who have committed imaginary crimes, and draining the swamp, where you investigate a series of perfectly ordinary and real crimes.
Oh yes, there is a light at the end of the tunnel where people who despise Trump, are dug in resisting everything. But his supporters are not in that tunnel and that light? That light is shinning from Trump's second term as President. :sparkle:
I wish I could get people to understand just how pervasive living illegally in the USA is, how Social services are offered to all and there are no questions about their legal status.
E-VERIFY system is an AMAZING system when everybody plays by the rules.
Here in AZ E-VERIFY signs are in every window of anyone hiring. But this monster had a Social Security # which is not surprising as you can get a fake one here on the streets for less than a grand and then they are home free, for a while.
But in the heartland of America, where they don't lock their front doors? I just don't see employers in Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, New York, South Dakota ect. running an applicants information through the E-VERIFY system when they were presented with citizen documentation that satisfy the needs of legal resident employment.
Which brings up the issue of profiling because as an AZ resident, I have never been asked if I would qualify through the E-VERIFY system by a future employer but I am a middle aged white woman. If I was darker in skin tone, about 15 years younger and a man, I imagine I would be asked if I would qualify through the E-VERIFY system before being hired. The penalty for employing an illegal immigrant is nothing to screw around with. They are serious about it here in Arizona but as you can see by the map enclosed not every state requires an E-VERIFY verification.
The focus on the fact that Mollie Tibbets was killed by an undocumented immigrant, and the calls for expanded deportation, profiling, etc. is unabashed racism, pure and simple.
How is it racism? :brow:
No one is calling for "expanded deportation" but rather better our immigration laws to bring people into our country based on merit and as a political asylum for those that seek asylum.
If we could control the illegal immigration, we would have more room for those who are seeking asylum.
Maw, do you lock your door at night?
If so, why is it so absurd to have a lock on the door (the border wall) to enter this country and make people be vetted before being allowed in?
Since you have not addressed the system that works E-Verify, let me remind you that all we need is participation, not resistance. This system is not in R&D, it is up and running and working when people participate.
If it is far less statistically likely for an undocumented immigrant to commit homicide, relative to an American citizen, then it follows that the paroxysm over immigration including profiling, deportation, and building a dumbass border wall is, undeniably, a racist response. And yes, one can easily find responses more radical than merely "bettering current immigration laws" on white nationalist media such as Fox News, Breitbart, and other vapid Right-Wing publications.
By the way, Tiff, the locking doors analogy implies that immigrants (from South America in particular) are merely here to "steal" from us, which is racist.
That last line reads like a projection. You're the one unwilling to recognise you've naively voted in a racist crook as president. The crook part was also known before his presidency but white collar crime is simply rarely prosecuted (simply settled with fines). Except when you're president you can't go around like that anymore. So you're OK with racism and criminality from a white guy but those evil immigrants fuck everything up? Mollie Tibbets used to push lies
The simple fact you lap these kind of those stories up as uncritically true, combined with your irrational support for a racist are laying bare your bias.
When does support for a racist candidate and racist policy make you a racist yourself? Who would I have to vote for for you to conclude I'm a racist in your eyes? Your line seems to be somewhere slightly to the left of David Duke. I'm telling you that Trump is right next to the guy. From where I'm standing looking at you all I have is your denial you're a racist and your dislike of being labelled as one but if it walks and talks like a duck...
If you don't like being called a racist, then don't act like one. Sorry Tiff, but it has to be said and it's probably better you hear it from me than a random stranger.
Maw, you can work the numbers all you want but your "statistics" do not include nor will it ever include the true number of illegal immigrants because they do NOT report. Why is that such a hard concept to understand?
Think of it this way: you and I are under the legal drinking age of the state we reside in and we go to a party. At this party there is underage drinking, loud music, lots of cars, a couple of Kegs in the back, dancing and libations when a fight breaks out between two people in the yard and the cops are called. When that knock on the door comes along with the red and blue lights, where are you headed? Regardless of whether or not you or I were involved in the fight, now that the law is at the threshold of the residence where you and I are at but do not live, we are headed where?
Keeping in mind that both of us are well aware that we are not of legal drinking age but we are at a location where alcohol is being consumed illegally. Getting busted by the law for underage drinking is HUGE for those of us that are still underage. It usually means an attorney and a penalty/delay against gaining the chance of getting a drivers license.
Are you going to remain at the party and wait for the police to ask you for your ID? Or are you going to be fleeing the party like the majority of the other underage attendees?
Quoting Maw
And conversely there are pundits out there spouting ending ICE and having a nation without borders but I am not suggesting that is what your ultimate solution is for bettering our immigration laws.
Quoting Maw
(I bolded your "immigrants" because I want to be sure that we are still talking about illegal immigrants because I have not a single issue if someone from another country is here legally. My Great Grands were immigrants but they had to wait and come here to the USA legally.)
I think that it is a HUGE, unfair leap, to suggest that by having better control over our nations borders implies that illegal immigrants "are here to merely steal from us".
Maw, I know people on both sides of this, both people here legally and illegally. I know that the illegal immigrant within our group of friends feels intimidated by the way our country treats the undocumented immigrants, yet she remains. She knows what it is like to only be able to work for cash at a Mexican Party store and works on beautiful dresses for young ladies Quinceañera's and makes a decent wage doing it. Of course that is paid in cash, no taxes submitted, though likely collected from her. She has to walk to work because driving is too risky in getting caught being here illegally. For a year when things really got heated here in AZ, with Sheriff Joe instructing our County Police force to profile (continuing 3 years beyond when a Judge ordered him to STOP the profiling) looking for illegal immigrants, she didn't come out of his house.
I ask her if she wishes she were American and she says no, she eventually wants to return to Mexico. When I ask her why she doesn't marry our friend in the group who is an American, the man she loves, the man she has lived with the last 15 years, the man who paid for her safe transport 6k, from central Mexico to a bus station in downtown Phoenix. She says no, she doesn't wish to marry our friend and for what it is worth, he does not wish to marry her for a multitude of reasons.
So their plan, in the event that she is ever picked up as being here as an illegal immigrant, is to deny knowing she is here illegally and allow the deportation proceedings to begin. She would likely be flown back to Central Mexico where her family lives. Our male friend who would deny knowing she was here illegally would not be charged, still maintain his USA citizenship and move to Mexico to join her and "retire" in Mexico while retaining his SS benefits for when he retires.
If there is any interest as to why he brought her up here illegally so many years ago, it is because our friend met her on a trip to Mexico and found out her boyfriend was physically beating her and her family was not stepping in, so he sent for her.
Back to the stats: if it turns out that our male friend is beating her, do you think she is going to report him to the authorities?
Yes, hearing a dear friend of mine, who has truly known me through the years, call me a "racist" makes it "better".
If we can drop the labels, I am willing to engage if you wish...
Did you read the links contained within your link above? :brow:
Immigration and Crime
Assessing a Conflicted Issue
By Steven A. Camarota and Jessica M. Vaughan on November 18, 2009
Related Publications
Download a pdf of this Backgrounder
Steven A. Camarota is Director of Research and Jessica M. Vaughan is Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Intro: This study examines academic and government research on the question of immigrant crime. New government data indicate that immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates. The overall picture of immigrants and crime remains confused due to a lack of good data and contrary information. However, the newer government data indicate that there are legitimate public safety reasons for local law enforcement to work with federal immigration authorities.
Conclusion: In our view, poor data quality and conflicting evidence mean that neither of these views is well supported. Given the limitations of the data available, it is simply not possible to draw a clear conclusion about immigrants and crime.
We are talking about homicides committed by convicted undocumented immigrants divided by total undocumented immigrants who have been charged with a crime. If we replace the number of undocumented immigrants who have been charged with criminal activity with the "true" yet unreported number of undocumented immigrants, then the percentage of undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of homicide becomes even more minuscule, thus further demonstrating how statistically improbable it is for someone to be killed by an undocumented immigrant. Congrats, you've proven my point.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
ICE was formed in 2003, and we didn't have open or chaotic borders prior to that. ICE ought to be ended; it has become an arm of a white nationalist administration.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I was referring exclusively to undocumented immigrants. And it was YOU, Tiff, that brought up locking doors at night as a defensive analogy for the border wall. What was the analogy supposed to refer to, then, if not stealing or murdering? Why else would someone lock their door? Do they expect a criminal to walk in, sit on their couch and watch TV, maybe cook up some pasta and use their fine silverware?
So the best you get back with is a link that says nothing is conclusive in 2009 and ignore the studies done since then in the same article? Have you read everything or is this the bias causing you to be selective again? At the very least even that article debunks your earlier post on Debbie but you seem to miss that point entirely.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I and a number of other posters have been engaging you for years and I've seen a gradual shift to the right and into racist positions. You haven't been paying attention. Within a few weeks of the discussion on the separation, which was appaling (your reply : but immigration!) you come up with this canard about Debbie in the Trump thread. Why? Because racist bullshit is supposed to excuse the terrible policies Trump passes? To excuse his racism? "Oh look, here's one actual criminal immigrant so trump is right calling them rapists." I really don't know what it's doing in this thread. You're playing the same game of distraction as the current administration. Where is your Fucking outrage about Trump his cronies 'crimes? If you're so concerned about crime you ought to be consistent. The fact that you're not is because it isn't about crime for you but about immigration. So well done, you misuse a tragedy to argue a case for further restrictions that isn't supported by the evidence.
Now, you can take me calling your casual racism out seriously and reflect on your position with Debbie, Trump in general, the N-word he might have said and whether you'd vote for him again if he said it and how you reacted to the inhumane treatment by the US government of immigrants by separating children (including babies) from their parents or you can play the victim for being labelled a racist. You might not like the label but it's entirely apt. The fact you keep coming back with these alt-right talking points despite the opportunity here to learn the facts and your inability to do so is what betrays the underlying bias. I'm pointing it out in the clearest term possible by using a label : tiff you've become a racist. You weren't one 5 years ago but you are one now. People change and I'm telling you, you haven't changed for the better.
I have very much enjoyed engaging with forum members in here as well as over at PF for over the last decade. I have had a gradual shift and am still in motion about many areas of philosophy and how that impacts change in my life. My words and thoughts are not always pretty but I do speak with personal honesty and I am sorry if that honesty hurts but if I stop and start playing games like go along with the crowd, I am faking it and that isn't me.
The first philosophical movement within me started with Tobias on the idea of "proportionality" and the response the USA had to 9/11. It was and still is a very hard thing to talk about but I was able to apply what Tobias suggested and have taken that tool - proportionality - and put it in my 'tool bag' that helps me with the balance of life and the curve balls that I have fielded and those still to come. In this very thread, my position has changed about the "Zero Tolerance" policy from being a necessity that was being dictated by laws that were on the books, to understanding what impact it was having and how we could change it. Obviously that was lost on you but that is okay because the introspect was into me and it wasn't lost on me.
Quoting Benkei
The reason I have posted anything about Trump on this thread is because it is the thread I have been participating in and if you read back the thousand something posts, you will see that every Trump supporter has been run off. Why? Even if you believe that everything Trump does is fucked up, that doesn't mean everyone does or has to agree with you.
Quoting Benkei
Benkei, even when I talk to the most staunch opposition to Trump within my group of family and friends, we are able to converse about it without feeling the need to use personal profanity attacks on one another. "Where is your Fucking outrage about Trump and his cronies 'crimes'? I have my personal issues with Trump but what his friends did is not one of them. I don't apologize for not being outraged about that one point but I must choose my battles. I won't participate in feigned outrage.
Quoting Benkei
I am not a victim nor am I a racist. But I can tell you that the divide you see actively happening here, between two people who have been friends for almost a decade? That is the cut that is dividing much of our country. It indeed is about policy but it is also about looking for a solution, together, not bashing and labeling each other. I would think our friendship could rise above the fray of politics but I am not the one seeing you in a dark, racist manner.
Quoting Benkei
I kept returning because I believe in our country and this thread becomes an echo chamber without a single voice about what might be the other side of the perspective you are seeing.
Quoting Benkei
I Thank you for your honesty.
Never forget that the Mayor of San Juan repeatedly begged Trump for additional help and resources in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, and Trump lashed out and her. He called Maria, "not a real catastrophe" and infamously threw paper towels to Puerto Ricans. He praised relief efforts for doing a wonderful job, and told a Puerto Rican family who showed him their damaged house to "have a good time".
So you actually believe that Trump is good for our country, or democracy in general?
Praxis, while your inquiry maybe well intended, I feel comfortable in saying that, I am not sure what I feel comfortable in talking about here, when it comes to our President and my beliefs.
As a result of such discussion, I may have indeed lost a dear friend and forum member, of over a decade, in trying to explain my perspective and explore other's perspectives. That was not the intention of my sharing but I cannot control how others feel about me and for a while I was and am still having a hard time dealing with labels that are being applied to me.
My fellow forum members that I have grown to know, many I genuinely love and respect as friends since 2007, are going to be members long after this executive term of our democracy has been written.
For me? One friend, is one too many in this life and as I have said before, "let us not destroy in leaving what have we built together in coming" and that applies to myself as well.
If you were comfortable with your insecurity then you'd be open to discussing your beliefs. That's what being comfortable means in this context. But I suppose you mean that you're comfortable taking a self-protective position. You should not be, particularly on a philosophy forum where the pursuit of truth is paramount. That includes the truth of your beliefs and the truth of your relationships.
Quoting praxis
W
T
F are you talking about? Attempting to grasp the concept of truth is philosophical. Pursuit of truth is paramount in a court of law. Were you expecting to try somebody or did you want to understand somebody else's point of view?
If it was the latter, try coming across a little less like a jackass.
It's creepy to talk about someone who doesn't speak up for themselves, but since you bring it up, she wrote, "I am not sure what I feel comfortable in talking about here", and this expresses a degree of insecurity surrounding her beliefs about the Lier-in-Chief.
Quoting frank
People philosophize in order to merely be philosophical?
Quoting frank
Law is the pursuit of order and justice or the enforcement of social norms, I would say. Like politics and religion, this often has little to do with truth.
Quoting frank
I suppose this means you don't care to understand my point of view. :sad:
Seems like a good place to examine our beliefs to me. The only thing that could be injured is ego.
if it doesn’t scare the bejesus out of you it ought to. Notice that Trump continually repeats the mantra ‘no collusion’ when he’s been witnessed at least twice, live on internationally televised broadcasts actively colluding with Putin [i.e. the infamous ‘Russia if you’re listening’ and the Putin summit press conference.]
Simply, Thank you. :broken:
I'm not faint. Dow Jones loves him. QED.
Prove that he's bad for our country or democracy if your heart can handle the challenge.
I voted for Clinton so don't get yourself overly excited.
I guess preaching to the choir takes heart, but of a different sort. The only hard part is deciding where to start.
I know, last nights rally in Indiana. Talking about the Justice Department and FBI, Trump said "I wanted to stay out. But at some point, if it doesn't straighten out properly -- I want them to do their job -- I will get involved, and I'll get in there, if I have to." Also, in regard to the 'fake news' (news that is unfavorable to him) he said "These are just dishonest, terrible people. I'm telling you that. Terrible people." This on the same day that a man was charged with making violent threats to Boston Globe employees, calling the newspaper the "enemy of the people."
It's not good for democracy to erode the independence of law enforcement and the judiciary, and it's not good for democracy to deliberately undermine the free press.
The environment
Here's a list of the environmental regulatory rollbacks of the Trump Administration:
http://environment.law.harvard.edu/POLICY-INITIATIVE/REGULATORY-ROLLBACK-TRACKER/
A new report concludes that one effect of these rollbacks and changes to regulatory agencies is 80,000 deaths each year.
Healthcare
3.2 million fewer Americans have healthcare since Trump took office. With the new tax bill that number is expected to increase by 13 million in ten years.
Employment and the economy
Really good. Sustainable??
Quoting frank
Sounds pretty faint to me.
Lincoln suspended the right to writ of habeas corpus. Democracy got along just fine. I think you'd probably agree the present situation is fairly tame in comparison, yet you declare the sky is falling. Why is that?
Quoting praxis
That's a worrying speculation. May we have some proof that 80,000 people died because of those regulatory changes?
Quoting praxis
There was a big wildfire too.
Do I need to explain the difference between a stray expectation and proof?
Quoting frank
Quoting praxis
That tends to confirm my suspicion that you're wealthy enough not to really care that the economy is booming. You don't really care about the well-being of all the people who are presently able to feed their families because of that prosperity.
What you do care about is the fact that Life did not deliver a perfect world to you wrapped up in a giant golden bow. Every generation of Americans has had to grow a spine and stand up for what they believe in. Praxis, it's your turn. Stop whining about it and do it. Open your eyes and see that the present situation is not the fault of one man and attacking your fellow Americans is not going to accomplish anything.
Turn your attention to what the problem really is, think about how you can fulfill your obligation to your society, and for Christ's sake, have a little faith in your people and yourself.
Quoting frank
The question is if the kind of actions that I’ve pointed out are good for democracy. Many believe that a free press and an independent judiciary and law enforcement support a healthy democracy. If that’s true then any effort to undermine these institutions is, well, not good, right?
Quoting frank
I can look up a link to the report if you like. I gave a link to the list of deregulations, which is quite extensive.
Quoting frank
Do you actually believe these reports are wild speculation? There are already 3.2 million fewer Americans with healthcare, as I pointed out.
Your goal was to show that Trump has been bad for democracy or the American society. If he has actually undermined either, please demonstrate that.
Quoting praxis
I don't need the report. I need proof that 80,000 people have died directly as a result of Trump's actions. Otherwise, you have nothing but a speculation.
Quoting praxis
I think you mean they lack health insurance. They will receive free healthcare at their local emergency department which is not allowed to turn them away. This has been going on in every American community for decades.
You haven't proven your point. Sorry.
And you made yours with “Dow Jones loves him”?
Faint, my friend, so very faint.
That is correct. Me:1. You:0
We’re not playing the same game. Going back to the beginning, the challenge was to defend the belief that Trump is good for the country and democracy, not to prove it.
The refuge of a poor loser is to move the goalpost. :razz:
Anyway, the kind of analysis you asked for is the task of historians, some of whom may have been born today. We can't place it in a historic context. We don't know what happens in the next chapter.
:clap:
None of what he says, is, or does, is in the least compatible with conservatism as such. The fact that the co-called ‘Conservative party’ fell to his chicanery without even a fight, only serves to illustrate the intellectual bankruptcy of conservative politics in America. It has nothing to do with conservatism as a political or intellectual movement. It’s only about debasement.
//ps// another bombshell. You have to wonder how many more it's going to take.
I see you and raise with I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration.
A soft coup? As much as I disagree with Trump, the idea of staffers taking covert unilateral decisions is not good. If things are as bad as this official is saying it is then they should resign and put a face to their words. Push for impeachment, or even the 25th Amendment as the author said has already been considered. Don't take it upon yourself to be a shadow government.
(I've been intentionally avoiding politics for the past week or so, but this seems a pretty big deal)
I had the same thought - but they might say that if all the sane members of the Administration were to do that, then the fox would be well and truly left in charge of the hen-house. Desperate times call for desperate remedies.
(Imagine being in staff meetings with Trump today..... :worry: )
and...Elizabeth Warren calls for 25th Amendment to be invoked for Trump.
plus ....Rick Wilson calls on informant to go public
What's bothersome about Trump is that he really does display gross incompetence, negligence and untruthfulness on a daily basis. Yet he's convinced himself and his supporters that he is the only person telling the truth, and all of the reporting about his incompetence and possible corruption is a media fabrication. This is so far from the truth - but still nothing changes. Every time you think it must be the final straw, that something will really change this time - it just keeps rolling along. Michael Moore said today we better get used to the idea that Trump will be re-elected, unless the Dems pick someone with star power, like Oprah Winfrey or Michelle Obama (which won't happen). And I have a dread feeling he's right; the situation really is terribly broken.
I still think he will be impeached, or more likely resign in lieu of impeachment. If the republicans lose the House in the midterms then it seems all but assured.
I would guess that every single democratic seat would be down for impeachment, and surely a few republican senators would as well.
Counting only currently held democratic seats, we're 20 votes short.
Could the number of republican senators plausibly willing to impeach plus the number of additional senate seats gained by the dems in the fall be greater than 20?
There are only 9 Republican-held Senate seats up for election. Best-case scenario the Democrats (and Independents) will have 58 seats.
What's the plausibility that some republican senators would vote to impeach?
Surely there must be at least a few republican senators eager to plunge the dagger though...
1) Bill Clinton deserved to be impeached and should have been removed from office because he committed perjury - lying about getting blow jobs
2) Trump does not deserve to be impeached if he broke laws during the campaign (such as might be uncovered by Mueller's investigation).
My impression is that Lindsay Graham believes this, so I'm curious if anyone else does.
I haven't reached my media time yet. What went down?
"We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore,' Trump said last June "And they won't be. They won't be."
:rofl:
You can see a video of Trump being laughed at by other leaders and other countries here.
He actually took it well, considering. :D
Go
Away
:cry:
Late night comics celebrate UN countries mocking Trump, United States
Brietbart is even worse:
Establishment Media Sides with Countries Laughing at America at U.N.
They were laughing at Trump, obviously.
Well, President's do tend to personify a bit the country they lead, you know.
I'd say the Trump administration is a tragicomedy: you really don't know if to laugh or cry. The various books about the administration paint such a painstakingly similar picture. In fact when I think of it now, to a foreigner Trump supporters are a tragicomic bunch too.
It's just the spin is so blatant.
I wasn’t aware that he started referring to himself as General Trump. Not surprising, though. Only a matter of time before he is wearing military outfits like some banana republic dictator. :grimace:
:lol:
Why does everyone laugh at our fearless leader? Is he a clown? Does he amuse you? :yum:
Not sure whether to be amused or horrified that the leader of the most powerful country in the world has the mental age and emotional maturity of a 12-year-old, and is literally being laughed off the world stage. And that a huge swathe of Americans are just fine with that because, apparently, the only job in the country where no standards of competency at all apply is the Presidency.
Yes. One doesn’t know whether to laugh, cry, recoil, clap, boo, or just walk out of this movie. Oh wait,
the doors have been sealed for our protection... guess we’ll stay.
To continue the drama metaphor of clowns and the world stage... the mask has fallen off the presidency. It slipped after the invasion of Iraq, and now it’s on the ground. The head of the leading imperial power in the past might have tried to appear dignified, cultured, educated and ethical. But that was the costume for the part. Raw power and expansion was and is the goal of empire. Culture, thought, and ethics grow elsewhere in the territories as a provisional crop for export. This is becoming such a shockingly naked truth that it’s almost pornographic. How can anyone keep anything hidden, covered, or secret for more than 5 minutes nowadays?
It's a very simple symptom, we value entertainment higher than we value good leadership. And an incompetent leader provides a high quality entertainment. But those who laugh at the leader are not really allowing themselves to be led, they're just being entertained. So the entertaining leader is not really the leader. Who, or what, do you think real leads the most powerful country in the world?
A conglomeration of forces for and against Trump seemed to have formed a kind of Frankenstein's monster of an administration that's blindly and destructively stumbling forward. There is nothing worth calling a leader. There's no coherence around an obvious central force or set of values.
Leftist Comics With Terrible Ratings Exploit UN Laughter And Spit in the Face Of Our Noble People!
War - The Only Option?
Despite the Negative Press Covfefe
Apparently Trump missed his cues from Fox News and claimed that he meant it as a joke.
Imagine telling the same joke for years at rallies and it only finnialy working for the UN audience. No wonder he didn’t expect to get a laugh.
"Trump went on stage at a rally in Mississippi Tuesday, mimicking Ford’s Senate testimony and attacking her for gaps in her memory.
“I don’t know. I don’t know. What neighborhood was it? I don’t know. Where’s the house? I don’t know. Upstairs? Downstairs? Where was it — I don’t know. But I had one beer, that’s the only thing I remember,” Trump said in his impression of Ford’s testimony.
I mean is it surprising that a guy who publicly mocked a disabled reporter, called some people "low IQ", openly considers journalists to be the "enemy of the people", and a Sunday shopping cart list of whatever else, will deride the victim of a credible sexual assault case? It shouldn't be surprising, it's not abnormal, etc. this is simply the character of Trump. It's who he is. Personally, I think this display was mainly to detract from the New York Times story, but as stated, it's also not out of character either.
Trump is the most transparent politician ever. All the reporting, the books about him and his administration and also his actions, speeches and tweets paint a unified picture of this narcissistic, soft-skinned liar.
But that transparency doesn't mean a thing to his supporter who so much hate the leftist establishment. Doesn't matter that objectively he is a rather poor President: those who critisize Trump have to be pinko liberal Hillary voters swallowing everything that the fake news tells about him.
There have always been crackpots, but none has ever been this popular.
I think much of his reaction is due to this hitting home. Imagine if every woman he ever behaved inappropriately with came forward. He wants accusers to be considered liars until proven truthful.
On a positive note, at least the Trump administration admits to global warming... :roll:
It's really reassuring to know that we have a sitting president who can walk straight up to the world's largest tyrants and expertly force them to tell the truth.
What reason on earth would there be for someone to strongly deny something they didn't do?
Once someone strongly denies something, nothing can be done. It's game over.
Just a few moments ago I watched a video of him denying that ever promised to donate 1 million dollars to charity if Elizabeth Warren would release her DNA test results showing she was native American. He called her Pocahontas for years, and when she finally gets a DNA test and is asked about he suddenly he doesn't care and never promised to donate anything to anyone...
“I think we have to find out what happened first,” Trump said. “Here we go again with, you know, you’re guilty until proven innocent. I don’t like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I’m concerned.”[/quote]
[quote=Slate]America’s top diplomat has just told the world’s tyrants that they can do anything they want, even murder a prominent American resident, as long as they’re generous to President Trump.
The message was sent in the form of an official readout from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s meeting on Tuesday with Saudi King Salman:
"The Secretary thanked the King for Saudi Arabia’s strong partnership with the United States. The Saudi and the King discussed a number of regional and bilateral issues. The Secretary also thanked the King for his commitment to supporting a thorough, transparent, and timely investigation of Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance."
Pompeo, you will recall, was dispatched to Riyadh to tell King Salman in no uncertain terms that he had to come clean on what happened to Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident and Washington Post columnist who hasn’t been seen since Oct. 2, when he entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. It is now all but certain that Khashoggi was tortured and killed.
Yet now we see—from the State Department readout and from the photos of the meeting, which show the secretary and the king shaking hands and smiling broadly—that Pompeo’s mission to Riyadh was nothing more, or less, than a visit of reassurance that everything will soon return to normal as long as the key players devise a cover story that isn’t quite 100 percent inconceivable (and 99.4 percent is good enough).[/quote]
[quote=The Daily Beast]The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is starting to float a trial-balloon explanation for its apparent slaying of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, The Daily Beast has learned, in hopes of escaping the consequences of an episode that has shaken whatever geopolitical confidence existed in Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
According to two sources familiar with the version of events circulating throughout diplomatic circles in Washington, the Saudis will place blame for Khashoggi’s murder on a Saudi two-star general new to intelligence work. That line is in keeping with President Donald Trump’s Twitter-borne speculation that “rogue killers” may be responsible for whatever happened to Khashoggi inside Saudi Arabia’s Istanbul consulate on Oct. 2.[/quote]
Trump is not the USA...
One difference is that the US could completely destroy the Netherlands right now. NK is a few months away from that capability.
Wow. Touched a nerve. I'm not the threat, Benkei. I agree with what you wrote. Revisit your opinion and see if you can figure out where the threat is really coming from.
:razz:
Ah... come now, let's be reasonable.
Propaganda is in every society. In each, there are some people who believe that the propaganda itself is true. Some others who believe that the propaganda is true will also believe that because it is true, so too is some other thing that they already believe.
Strikingly similar.
I detest Trump not as just a person prone to perform immorally, but also as evidence - prima facie, no less - of what can happen in a society when all the moves have been made, when all the legal groundwork has been set, when the people have been led to accept some corruption, that allows a government to legitimize monetary/financial bribery.
In the guise of free speech no less.
Citizens United did not offer the power of free speech to foreigners. We know that the Republican Party didn't spend much at all prior to the general. Trump says it was out of his own pocket. That's one of his trademarked lies.
It's the inevitable consequence of monetary corruption in government.
A poorly informed people.
Free speech is an inalienable right. The inalienable rights of being an American belong to all Americans, and to no other people. Any law that allows unlimited untraceable campaign contributions has offered any and all foreigners who have the financial means to have much more powerful freedom of speech - at a time when this American freedom is exercised at it's most - than the large majority of American citizens themselves.
https://slate.com/culture/2018/10/trevor-noah-jamal-khashoggi-donald-trump-daily-show.html
I can't even follow this shit.
Branson pulled out of a meeting and the Saudis cancelled a project. I think he's fine with that price. What about these arms manufacturers? No moral compass at all? Doesn't Lockheed have a position on this?
Quoting Benkei
You're wanting a 'moral compass'? Haven't heard of such a thing, but I'm sure for the right money, Lockheed can build one for you. What sort of money are you talking?
Edit: forgot the link: Lockheed Martin mission, vision and values
Doing the right thing is whatever helps our glorious divine leader.
That must have been correct. Trump is divinely inspired in all things. Like Kim, he doesn't have a rectum.
What do you mean by this? Detrimental to civilization?
I think Trump was just making a point about business etiquette. He didn't criticize Obama because he thought the president ought not to bow to the king at all. He rather thought the president ought to bow in the opposite direction.
Trump doesn't bow, he curtsies like a proper school girl.
No doubt... much groundwork had to be laid... as has been.
There are two ways that climate change will pane out. The first, and most likely scenario, is that our inability to slow or stop climate change will severely affect food supply and raise sea levels, particularly in underdeveloped countries that do not have the capability to handle distribution of resources or mass migration of their citizens. As a result, people from these countries will likely immigrate to developed countries in North America and Europe. As we have recently seen, mass migration from underdeveloped countries to developed ones often results in reactionary, neo-fascist movements, which have gained political currency across America and Europe, as citizens feel threatened by mass migration, and demographic and electoral shifts. This will be especially true as the threat of raising sea levels and food supply shortage looms overhead.
The second, highly unlikely scenario, is that socialist policies are enacted to ensure cohesive policies to slow and eventually stop climate change, before the aforementioned affects occur. However, if they do occur, that distributive measures are enacted to provide a more egalitarian distribution of resources.
One of the unfortunate outcomes of a mass migration threat could be defensive war involving population annihilation. It might be nice if all the destination countries joined in welcoming all comers in a "we're all in the same boat" spirit of camaraderie and compassion. That might happen for a while, as long as the numbers are not too high in the beginning. But it probably wouldn't last long.
I don't think there is any group more or less likely to be infinitely kind (or harsh) in response to really high population movements in their direction. It will depend how the destination population views their own situation. If they feel insecure without high population movements, then they may support an aggressive operation to repel the unfortunate people who must move or die where they are.
Is it possible to repel hundred of thousands of people on the move? It is possible, of course. It would just be extraordinarily savage. But humans are capable of savagery, regardless of how they behave when all is calm, all is right.
So, again: the critical effort to control CO2, methane, and other green house gases. (I don't have much confidence the world can get its collective act together soon enough.)
Quoting Maw
I doubt that too. It would require a global military-style government of some kind. Either that or the emergence of a new global religion.
I foresee disintegration in the relationships between global entities and an every-man-for-himself sort of arrangement. Not exactly Mad Max.
It’s frightening to think that tactics like this actually work. Are Trump supporters really that moronic?
It is simply amazing that he has been able to turn an ever dwindling crowd of desperate people fleeing abject poverty and violence into a strategic threat to he United States that requires military intervention is both a credit to both his and many of the Americans baser instincts
How an educated electorate has allowed a Trump to happen continues to be a mystery to me.
1. a public figure with access to the airwaves or pulpit demonizes a person or group of persons
2. with repetition, the targeted person or group is gradually dehumanized, depicted as loathsome and dangerous—arousing a combustible combination of fear and moral disgust
3. violent images and metaphors, jokes about violence, analogies to past ‘purges’ against reviled groups, use of righteous religious language—all of these typically stop just short of an explicit call to arms
4. when violence erupts, the public figures who have incited the violence condemn it—claiming no one could possibly have foreseen the ‘tragedy’
Not quite identical to hate speech I guess, but close.
Looking back, I don’t recall Obama having gotten into this territory, but Trump on the other hand...
More importantly, what do you think?
Trump’s Assassination Dog Whistle Was Even Scarier Than You Think
Republican nominee engaged in so-called stochastic terrorism with his remarks about “Second Amendment people” and Clinton
[i]David S Cohen
Rolling Stone
Aug 2016[/i]
The absurdity of his desire to void the 14th amendment is that his defenders then jump into proposing the Supreme Court could reinterpret it. You know, the same guys who inist on justices who strictly interpret the constitution.
It's going to be okay, Lif3r, just stay with me. Like you, I was shaken to the core by the attack on our country and I still to this day have a very difficult time with accepting the reality of what happened that day and how those looking to find a "reason why" seemed to remove the humanity from it all.
But that doesn't mean that we as a nation are going to fail, we as a nation are in the middle of change. When people use platitudes like "The only constant in life is change" this is what they are talking about. The only problem is that we are the ones walking through the storm, making it impossible to see the other side of change, the sunny side of the storm we are currently walking through. If you could see it from a distance, you could see the edges of the storm framed by sunshine but it's not always that easy.
What we have to do, when we find ourselves walking in the storm we are currently walking through as a nation, is to keep walking for it does no good to stop and get soaked nor do we wish to turn back through the storm we have made it so far through, only to have to walk through it again.
No, take my hand and together we will weather this storm and make it out the other side, I have faith in you and I have faith in me to succeed at that. Just understand, we have a shared responsibility to bring with us grace and understanding of what others may be going through that we are unaware of, never losing sight of the fact that we need to take care of ourselves before we can offer assistance to another no matter how desperate they may be. Much like the Oxygen we are required to breathe, you need to tend to your own self, before helping another traveling with you, in the event of the loss of cabin pressure on a plane for without the instinct of self preservation, you will be of no help to anyone including; but not limited to yourself.
You will be okay, I will be okay and together we as a society will be okay and with that secured, we will then be able to reach out to help others. :sparkle:
Screw Trump, and his fascist followers. I'm standing on the side of liberty.
Just as with everything else that Trump says he will do, this too won't go anywhere. You're simply making the mistake of thinking these issues too logically and not thinking of what Trump actually does here.
Do you Americans have the wall? No.
Is it logical to deploy the army to the border when by law deploying sheriffs, other police or the national guard would be far more effective and basically the intended action if there actually would be a problem at the US border? No.
Is it logical to make claims of tax cuts to ordinary people when the congress is on recess or to think that an executive order will overthrow the constitution? No.
The whole intention is just to get the left to be outraged and simply to give the appeareance of something being done. Appearances are enough. People actually don't care if things really are done or not because they are too obsessed in hating the other side.
People didn't care that Obama continued the war-on-Terror quite on the lines that Bush had gone and increase the drone killings, they were just satisfied they had a democrat as president. And so it is with Trump. How absolutely inept at leading anything Trump is simply doesn't matter. If you just go and yell that all Trump supporters are fascists, that's what Trump wants. That's what conservatives will hear: you calling them fascists.
As far as Trump wanting people to call him a fascist, how is that true? That's the last thing he and his fellow-travelers want. Right-wing political correctness is in fashion these days --- no matter how much of a racist a person is we should not call them a racist. Why not? If the description is accurate, then it is useful, and in Trump's case, the description of him and his supporters being racists is accurate.
This is a good observation. Trump is a marketer who likes to win, devoid of principles. Deploying troops to the border is theatrics that is cheered by his supporters and decried by his detractors. When his detractors react hyperbolically, he "wins". By continually discussing his nonsense, we keep it alive and keep his supporters energized. The "invasion" by the caravan has become a major issue in the election because Trump made it so, and we detractors keep discussing it. News sources that attempt to expose Trump's absurdity with facts add to the problem because 1) his supporters aren't interested in facts, they cheer Trump because they agree with his sentiments 2) his detractors keep the discussion going; the more absurd his behavior seems, the more we react, the more we pump up his supporters - especially when our reaction is hyperbolic.
Consider his assertion that he'd eliminate birthright citizenship. When his supporters go on TV and are confronted with the facts, they jump immediately to the absurdity of birthright citizenship - appealing to the base despite having no legitimate means of doing anything about it. This multiplies the opposition responses, since now there's the urge to respond to the notion that it's absurd, added to the unconstitutional nature of his claim and the implied racist/xenophobic attitude. This creates even more passion in his followers and keeps the discussion alive. This is a win for Trump.
Didn’t Nixon say something to the effect that if the President does it then it’s not illegal?
So, it makes sense for Trump to attack foreigners and make fearful claims about a foreign invasion, if his goal is to motivate his base. However, it will turn off everyone else who does not share that view, so it's not a policy position with broad appeal that all Americans can join in on.
The biggest danger is letting Trump define the opposition position, which the left is letting him do right now. The opposition is characterized as wanting open borders, though hardly anyone actually wants that. The Democrats need a coherent, comprehensive plan that applies both compassion and practicality. A good start would be the 2013 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.
Good point. But I think political fanatics on both sides would gladly see their kind of tyrant trample over the 'red tape' in the way of what they just 'know' is right.
https://jacobinmag.com/2011/03/burn-the-constitution
'Popular sovereignty' can be a real nice paint job on mob rule that has no respect for individual rights.
I disagree. They (Trump and his supporters) just love when some "pinko-liberal snowflake SJW" goes into a 'Trump is Hitler'-rant. What better example is there than calling Trump supporters fascists? It's just like when Hillary made the stupid error of accusing Trump supporters being "basket of deplorables", they just loved it. And they are using this approach now. Just look at this GOP add of "Jobs not Mobs". It's evident that they do want this.
Never underestimate the hatred of the democrats of the most ardent Trump supporters. And it's all about feelings, nothing about facts. The real question is how many are there left in the Trump echo chamber.
This is the problem when handling misinformation or pure disinformation. To think that disinformation can be corrected by showing it's false is the wrong idea. Just to start talking about the disinformation is wrong, it just gives it more credibility as you are talking then about it. And as if people loving Trump would correct their views by listening to the hated "fake news" that is constantly vilified.
Now it is good to show what is disinformation, but that typically needs time and then it has already been forgotten.
I don't fullly agree with your descriptions of left/right thinking because I think the true picture is more nuanced and mixed up.
"1. Tribalism: The left likes foreigners and minorities, while people on the right, don't."
Isn't it more of a case that the left accept others for what they are - or indeed reject them for what they are..? (should be anyhow)
"2. Inequality. People on the right are unconcerned about inequality, while people on the left are greatly concerned about it."
Ordinary not well off right wingers turn a blind eye to billionaires' wealth but are angry that salaried middle class earn twice as much as them (reflecting an envy bias towards people who are in the same ball park).
Leftwing people make lots of statements about redistributing wealth and yet ......
"3. Human nature. People on the right view a person's wealth or poverty as being due to their own efforts in life, while people on the left look at institutional causes, outside the person's control."
People on the left tend to be meritocrats, and strongly advocate the competitive nature of education (while also claiming that education is really all about the love of learning).
"1. Tribalism: The left likes foreigners and minorities, while people on the right, don't."
Isn't it more of a case that the left accept others for what they are - or indeed reject them for what they are..? (should be anyhow)"
Isn't that an admission that the left accepts foreigners and is less xenophobic than the right, exactly what I stated?
"2. Inequality. People on the right are unconcerned about inequality, while people on the left are greatly concerned about it."
Ordinary not well off right wingers turn a blind eye to billionaires' wealth but are angry that salaried middle class earn twice as much as them (reflecting an envy bias towards people who are in the same ball park)."
Leftwing people make lots of statements about redistributing wealth and yet ....
Here are the facts: people on the right, support inequality, even the poor do. People on the left support equality, even wealthy people on the left, like Warren Buffet, for example. How many Trumpers are poor yet fully support tax cuts for the wealthy and a reduction in social insurance policies for the poor? Almost all of them. In fact, economists and political scientists have puzzled for years over why people seldom vote according to their class economic status. It's because political affiliation is more about psychological personality traits than it is about maximizing utility in any economic sense.
You can also get on almost any social media site and just read the comments between the people on the right and left, and you'll see, over and over again, how each group breaks into the patterns I mentioned.
Now, I'm an independent. For example, I believe that a poor or rich person had some personal responsibility for their failure or success, but also that institutional factors were involved as well. I am okay with inequality that is generated by what a person lawfully earned and achieved, but am against inequality driven by such underserved things like inheritance. I am okay with foreigners, but don't want so many of them in my country that it alters our liberal democracy. So, you may find people like me who don't fall within the right and left divide, but my point was that those who do adhere to the right, largely think in the way I described, and likewise for those who identify with the left.
As regards opinions on taxation, it all depends on how issues are phrased. One thing everyone has in common is a strong sense of fairness - alas coupled with a generous dose of [s]hypocrisy[/s] self delusion.
Apparently, Trump knows so little about the operations of the federal government, that he doesn't realize that the House can investigate him, and prevent him from passing any legislation. He lost an enormous amount of power last night, but is too dumb to realize it.
Can the American president and his followers get any more comical?
Let's see when Trump goes after Mueller if the US still has some remains of rule of law and a justice state or if it has turned into a banana republic.
There is no such thing as "more" evolved! Honest. (OK I suppose you are saying that yourself).
There is however emergence.....
It will have a very positive effect on the nations' legal attitude towards cannabis both medical and recreational. Following Canada's lead of course. :wink:
I also don't think biology determines morality or all of our beliefs. I think it gives us a framework and for some people, a preference for accepting certain ideas as opposed to others, but that is not the same thing as determining them.
I wasn't making any "moral" judgement by pointing out that the right wing mentality served us well over the time scale of evolution. A good dose of sceptism, pessimism distrust and so forth are potions that can still usefully protect. However, there is a journey to be made in modifying our emotional intuitions which served us well in the past. because of the explosive nature of human technology and culture which require the "journey" to be made to make the most of them. This journey is evident historically in the sense that what was once deemed "liberal" is now accepted by "mainstream" conservative. But as world politics clearly demonstrates, it is still an ongoing battle.
Some people are able to embark on the journey more easily than others.
Existentially, the choice is about finding who will support you or cut you down.
Once you do that sort of thing, the question is open by default. Trump wants everything to be fought out in a cage.
Just step in.
Hardly surprising as Trump picked his defence secretary because he had a nickname of "Mad dog". Likely was dissappointed when the former general wasn't at all like colonel Nathan Jessup (played by Jack Nicholson) in A few good men.
The generals typically have been so. A telling anecdote (that Trump himself told to reporters) is when Trump interviewed Mattis for the job. Trump asked the marine general what he thought about torture. Mattis replied that giving a bottle of beer and cigarettes to prisoners are far more effective tools in interrogation than torturing people. What is telling was that Trump disagreed with this and said that he was in favour of torture because his supporters favour it.
While black supremacism on the other hand is a lot more present in society and affects cities in a very dramatic way, with violence and crime in the name of race, attacking any ethnicity. Society realizes that KKK is way less of a security concern nowadays than BLM, becouse events such as the horrible killing in the sinagogue are a fraction of the massive killing being produced by gangs all over the country.
Moreover, KKK thinking is criticized and marginalized and dealt with, while BLM thinking and Muslim supremacism are not subjected to real criticism in most media or censored or their funding controlled. If ALL supremacist, tribal, non civilized ideas were equally treated by both right and left media and administrators, there would be no more reason for concern among voters depending on what colour the supremacist creed claims.
One thing is for sure--if Trump wins reelection in 2020, no Democrat will believe that he won in an above-board manner.
1. White supremacy is a definite problem in the USA, and is not merely confined to fringe groups. The fringe groups want to rid all non-whites, including very white-looking Jews, from the nation, but even the non-fringe elements on the right often engage in racism and have used racism for years to manipulate public policy. Why does the USA have the fewest social safety nets for the poor among all industrialized nations? Because poor white people support reducing social benefits when they believe that it hurts minorities more than it does white people. This has been going on for decades and decades in the USA. Trumpism is simply the latest version of this. Ronald Reagan, for example, talked about a "welfare queen" who bought food with food stamps and then drove away in her brand new Cadillac. He never once mentioned her skin color, but everyone knew he was speaking of a black woman. When the GOP has stated for years that they want "small government," that was simply code for we want to reduce welfare benefits for black people. After all, the GOP typically increased the size of government when it came to military and prisons. So, white supremacy has had a huge impact on national poiitics in the USA for a long, long time.
2. Black lives matter is only a terrorist group in the eyes of racists who live on social media. Sure, there are some hateful elements in BLM, but, it is not the majority view, or what the movement is about, and, unlike David Duke, the alt-right, the KKK, neo-Nazis, they do not condone violence.
3. Even if we assumed that blacks were as racist as whites, this would still mean white racism was the more serious problem, based solely on math. Since whites are the majority, a black person is far more likely to be the victim of a white racist than a white person is likely to be a victim of a black racist, even if both groups are equally racist. Ask any mathematician.