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)
I’m just expressing doubt of Cohen’s claims.
Again, here you are spreading unverified, unproven accusations, just because they’re against the president. First it’s Cohen, now it’s stormy Daniels. Sick and pathetic.
That’s right. You couldn’t do it. We could put 10 of you guys up there and you’d melt trying to do Trumps job. All you guys can do is pretend you’re morally superior, but not actually prove it.
How does one prove to be morally superior?
Actions and behavior.
Well, no president has ever gone through four National Security Advisors within three years. Given the stakes involved, that degree of incompetence would be hard to match, I must admit.
There is nothing incompetent about firing employees, especially when they’re failing their duties. What a strange non sequitur.
No indeed. It's hiring four failures on the trot that is incompetent.
A high turnover rate indicates incompetence in management. Perhaps you can make an argument that a high turnover rate is somehow beneficial and reflects competency?
You believe the president of the US is like a manager, and the whitehouse like a restaurant?
Let’s see what Democrats are saying about this.
Boy, that sounds familiar.
Not including speech, I presume.
Justice Department nears prosecution of ex-FBI official McCabe: sources
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-mccabe/justice-department-nears-prosecution-of-ex-fbi-official-mccabe-sources-idUSKCN1VX2KB
But we'll see because I'm not offering a theory here just gut feelings.
Exactly, and it currently serves crappy unhealthy fast food...
Play the radio, make sure the television - excuse me - make sure you have the record player on at night.
Joe Biden, 2020.
And then there was Andrew Yang's $120,000 free giveaway to random American families.
But the others did well.
But we should compare them nonetheless, because one of them lives and is sometimes employed to disparage the other, while the other is working to make well on his promises and do right by his people—and making history while doing so.
That’s what makes anti-Trumpism so painfully hilarious, but at the same time ironic and pitiful. With the amount of scorn, bullying and hatred emanating from the anti-Trump base, one might expect that they were in some way or another better than the President. But given the contrast between their own lives and the life of the man they hate, their criticisms resemble less and less legitimate scrutiny and more and more the symptoms of an inferiority complex.
Even so they have taken it upon themselves to malign the President in nearly every breath, using terms of ridicule and hatred, all of which occurs from a very, very safe distance. This is easy enough to do for someone who will never attain the vast heights of Donald Trump, who will never be in the same position, who will never have the same amount to lose, and easiest of all, will never be in the same vicinity as the very target of their hatred.
It makes one wonder: given the chance for a face-to-face, could they really stand up to the man they vehemently oppose instead of continually making a show of it to their friends and online? Perhaps.
Even better, what I wouldn’t give to see a vehement anti-Trumper in the President’s position, under the same level of scrutiny. He would surely adopt the public/private view approach of PR politics, where every speech, every public appearance, every robotic delivery is formulated to placate and flatter the masses rather than engage with them.
Alas, I will never get such satisfaction. But there is one trifling thing I can always be certain of when listening to an anti-Trumper: Donald Trump is greater than them.
We're off to a good start here.
Quoting NOS4A2
Ah yes, true love. So nice to see someone expressing their romantic feelings without fear of ridicule and judgement. Regrettably, unless you kinda look like Ivanka Trump, I think your love shall remain unrequited.
This is true for Trump except that it’s designed specifically for his base rather than ‘the masses’ in general.
It's about dismantling another political institution - White House press briefings. Dismantling political institutions is one of the core goals of the ideological leaders behind this administration (not necessarily including Trump himself).
Yeah that’s quite the change, a welcome one in my opinion. The president has rarely been so accessible.
If previous presidents had the internet as a tool for informing the public, would they have used it? What's the role of the press today?
I can't tolerate CNN or MSNBC these days: too blatantly biased.
The internet is different from a press briefing though. You cannot put someone on the spot and force them to answer. Professional journalists can be more dangerous to a politician than random Twitter users.
It's also not like previous presidents did not use the internet. Obama used Twitter. I am sure the Bush administration released information online. What's different is not the usage of the medium, but the message being sent.
But what did we get from Sarah Sanders other than the bullshit she chose to present?
We each have to do a little deduction informed by our own psycho-social outlook.
Nothing of much value, I'd agree. But at least someone had to stand there and tell lies, knowing they were telling lies, by looking people in the eye.
Trumps impromptu "briefings" have a very different dynamic. One where Trump controls the setting. He can begin and end them at will without it seeming out of place. This suggests a different kind of stance on the accountability of government.
Those are little things, and it's easy to dismiss all these concerns as petty. I believe, however, that institutions are curcially important to a democracy. Proper procedure, political correctness, a certain decorum keep the system from slipping towards autocracy.
I wonder if you loved that he ended that loophole by executive order. Your hero indeed.
The strangest choice of words considering who we're talking about. It's as if it's projection.
For the rest, your love note was tldr as I got nauseous.
There was no loophole. Children were separated from their guardians before the Trump administration when there was doubt about their familial relationship. It was a rare occurrence. Under Trump it became policy to criminally prosecute every illegal entry (instead of the administrative route with ICE). Detention was only possible for adults. So minors were separated in each and every case. The crime was, though, that no one in his administration had in place a process of reuniting minors with their parents after proceedings had ended.
Not only is Trump responsible for his administration's policies, such an extreme change must have been made at the highest level and will have included him. So his executive order didn't come until after the very public outcry of his botched policy that he initiated.
Oh my fucking god
Trump started the zero-tolerance policy. That means adults go to jail for breaking the laws of the country. The children were cared for by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in facilities built during the Obama administration, while their “parents” served their time and awaited processing. Children cannot be held in prison. If parents don’t want to be separated from their children they should not commit crimes.
What law would that be?
That’s right, no crimes. Your silly lies are born of propaganda and group think. Back to the cliff, lemming.
Expulsion from the USA could be perfectly done by Ice, as it had been doing, without separation. The court system was also overloaded because the change in policy was that stupid.
And if parents don't want to be separated from kids they indeed shouldn't commit crimes. Except when they get out of jail, they can be reunited without a problem with their kids. Where it concerns immigrants, apparently this will take up to 2 years to have everyone reunited. As I said, the crime was not having a process for that.
Of course, no conversation around immigration is complete without acknowledging that the majority of people coming to America from the southern border are escaping from states that dissolved due to US involvement. However, those pushing for these draconian policies are just interested in cruelty towards immigrants of color, and will not be persuaded by any other means
[quote=NY Times]It was not immediately clear how badly the facilities were damaged, but shutting them down for more than a few days would affect the global oil supply. Analysts who closely follow the Saudi oil industry said they were hearing that the impact would not be severe — perhaps only a few days’ outage, which the Saudis could cover.
“Crude prices will still rise a bit, but apparently the world economy dodged a bullet,” said Robert McNally, the president of Rapidan Energy Group, a Washington-based market research firm.[/quote]
Saying that the world economy 'dodged a bullet' is (1) scary and (2) uncertain, because it is not yet clear how bad the damage is and what the consequences will be, but it implies that they could well be global. And it's surely a high-stakes game. You have fanatical Houthis, backed by fanatical Iranians, playing chicken with the world oil supply, with Stable Genius presiding in the US and allied in this case to the Saudis. At least he sacked Bolton - but heaven knows what might happen next. It's a tinderbox, and there's people playing with matches.
Looks like they left out a massive detail.
Better late than never, I suppose. The article was adapted from a book quoting a Clinton lawyer. Of course Dems have already cited the article as justification for impeachment. But they want to impeach him for an alleged incident the supposed victim does not even recall.
Yes. As I recall, Ramirez admitted that she doesn't remember the details from the night in question and can't be sure it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself to her. But her coterie and mother do remember the details and perpetrator? And given that Blasey-Ford’s lawyer recently came out saying her client was politically motivated, I am wholly sceptical of every single one of those claims.
Ramirez has said that she is confident in her recollections that it was Kavanaugh, and if over a dozen people can corroborate the story then there should be a renewed and serious ininvestigation.
It makes sense that she wanted to smear Justice Kavanaugh because she disagreed with his politics.
The investigation into Ramirez already occurred. It’s over.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/book-reveals-allegations-brett-kavanaugh-fbis-handling-probe/story?id=65625607
All for the alleged crime of pulling one’s dick out at a frat party 30 years ago. Sorry, it doesn’t warrant FBI investigation, let alone a second one.
Bit more than just pulling it out. And the point is that the first investigation was hardly an investigation at all.
Right, the domestic security and intelligence agency of the US should investigate allegations of sexual assaults between teenagers over 30 years ago. The investigation was limited in scope for a reason: the FBI had better things to do.
This is becoming a typical response from conservatives. They argue that it didn't happen, but if it did it's not actually a big deal.
Brett Kavanaugh is in one of the most powerful public positions in the country in a lifetime service no less, so yeah it's actually pretty important to do a thorough investigation.
I’m not a conservative.
There are reasons why we have statutes of limitations. The probe and the smearing were unjust enough.
Even with a disaffected right wing challenger who runs as 3rd party, the votes that person siphons off (which is always the only efficacy of 3rd parties), will not be enough.. There is no candidate on the other side that will unite a constituency... There is no Preparation H for the butthurt... Even the basic notion of getting rid of Trump will not be enough to quell these political hemorrhoids...
Ok a right-wing dickhead then, whenever floats your boat. This isn't about investigating as a crime, it's about whether or not he's fit to serve the position he currently holds, because of things he did as a young man in the past and the lies he told in the present.
It’s also responsible for investigating federal crimes.
Quoting NOS4A2
I suspect it was limited in scope because the Republicans who control a majority didn’t want Kavanaugh’s appointment to be put in jealousy, regardless of his guilt or innocence.
Quoting NOS4A2
It’s neither a smear nor unjust if he’s guilty. A proper investigation would have cleared it up one way or the other.
Is that the job of the FBI?
The timing indicates that it is a smear.
He's just a fun little troll.
It's the job of an independent federal agency
He's also just stupid
But not the FBI.
And?
I’m surprised you didn’t quote some article to pad your lack of original thought.
You give the impression that you're in here with us struggling to make sense of what's happening. You're not. You're just having fun.
I am having fun. I love talking about this stuff.
I’ve seen Aussies and Brits giving their two cents. Do you disregard their arguments on the same basis?
I don't understand trolls. They know what they're saying is bullshit. So they enjoy their opponents correctly calling them out on the rubbish they say? It's bizarre.
Although FYI, plenty of people were born in the US but don't live there anymore. Did you mean to say something else?
Yeah I guess news stories just magically appear in your mind
I dont think he was born in the US. He just wants to pose as an American, for whatever reason.
Ooh, birtherism. Isn’t that ironic.
https://archpaper.com/2018/08/epa-asbestos-manufacturing/?fbclid=IwAR2xJiOq9YJjNgY6FM9J38uvQu4YvTgVsmHpSJNUgXRan3-HRvyoFeStOww
When looked at in light of his rollback of other environment protections it becomes clear that his intention is to render the EPA ineffectual. But it is not just the EPA, it is part of a larger scheme to dismantle the "administrative state" piece by piece. At the same time he moves to increase executive power and shield it from oversight. Republicans seem to approve, but will sing a very different tune when the Democrats occupy the White House.
California and the automakers ignored the EPA when they signed the deal.
Seems like pretty impeachable stuff!
Think there's a war in the offing.
I am not sure that there is a war on the horizon but I do know that your leader was quite steadfast and clear about how Australia has its own relationship with China and hopes the US and China can work something out.
That's because he has a real dichotomy before him; the history of kowtowing to the US is in direct conflict with the economic reality that we get most of our income from China. If he were forced to choose, he would choose the USA, but that would utterly bugger our economy.
No, I was thinking more of an attempted war by proxy between the USA through the Saudis, and Iran. We would be In like Flynn...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-21/donald-trump-state-dinner-scott-morrison-welcome-distraction/11533602
It looks like the Dems are inventing fake crimes (again) while Trump is investigating the real ones.
Did Trump do something wrong?
Not much there, at least until the complaint is made public.
I wonder if the possible corruption of Joe Biden will receive any coverage.
There’s enough there to know that this isn’t “Dems inventing fake crimes”, so I ask you again to explain the reasoning behind your accusation.
The person I was responding to says it was “pretty impeachable stuff”.
Nancy Pelosi says “If the president has done what has been alleged, then he is stepping into a dangerous minefield with serious repercussions for his administration and our democracy”.
So please, what did Trump do to warrant these accusations?
If the accusations are true then doing the things he’s been accused of warrants the accusations.
Accusations of what? What are they accusing him of? What is the crime?
Using $250 million of military aid as leverage to pressure Ukraine into investigating Biden’s son.
Even if that was true, what is the crime?
So yet again I ask you to explain why you believe this to be “Dems inventing fake crimes”.
What did Trump do wrong? You said you don’t know. If you don’t know what Trump did wrong, how do you know he did something wrong? The Dems and their followers do not know, yet they claim impeachable offences and crimes against democracy. This is the simplest logic I cannot believe I have to spell this out.
"If the president has done what has been alleged, then he is stepping into a dangerous minefield with serious repercussions for his administration and our democracy”.
"If the president has done what has been alleged...”.
"If...”.
What has been alleged?
To be fair, I don’t know why the DNI didn’t disclose the memo. But I think there are at least 2 possible reasons why he didn’t do so. 1) because the DNI is being coerced by the Whitehouse or otherwise hiding it from public scrutiny, or 2) Because it is in fact not a cause for concern. I’m erring towards 2 because these sorts of non-scandals have been par for the course over the last 3 years.
I didn’t say I don’t know what Trump did wrong. I said I don’t know what law, if any, is broken if the accusations are true. But whatever happened is significant enough that the Inspector General considers it urgent and the White House considers it damaging enough to order the DNI to not comply with their legal requirements.
Now tell me why you think this is just Dems inventing fake crimes.
I already told you why but you suspiciously refused to quote it.
It's being alleged by the the Wall Street Journal (and others) that Trump "pressured" (their word) Ukraine eight times to investigate Joe Biden's son. That alone, had it happened under any President's watch, would be a presidency-defining scandal.
IF it's the case that Trump dangled military-aid as a carrot or stick to get Ukraine to investigate a potential political opponent, Trump will be impeached and convicted in the Senate. This isn't some murky campaign finance violation nobody understands. This would be using tax-payer dollars to pressure another country to investigate a political opponent. That's easily understandable and also happens to be indefensible. There might be a few Senators who would go on record in an impeachment trial saying that that behavior is OK, but there aren't 30 of them.
You have more faith than me.
It seems to me prudent to want to investigate the possible corruption of the US government.
Biden was the vice-president of the United States during when the alleged corruption occurred. The notion that he is doing it to “investigate a political opponent”, and not the corruption of which his political opponent and former vice-president might be guilty, is invented whole cloth without evidence.
I don't know. Maybe they would be that craven. I have my doubts, though. I think a lot of these Republican Senators are at the end of their rope when it comes to Trump and are looking for a good reason to bail. This would be that reason.
The problem with this is, if Trump really did use military aid that way, wouldn't his whole administration have ground to a halt? I can't believe someone like James Mattis or Dan Coats would be silent about something like that. And yet we have this whistleblower, who, according to the IG, has a serious complaint. Fascinating.
By Ukranians??? Uh, no. America is perfectly capable of investigating it's people. Trump wasn't asking for Ukranian help in an ongoing U.S. investigation. He was pressuring Ukraine to do an investigation. On someone who happens to be the son of his political opponent. I know you're smart enough to see the problem here.
And if there was a quid-pro-quo involving military funding, the Democrats will impeach. They might anyway, just if the WSJ reporting is accurate. And this isn't something that's hard to get to the bottom of, like the Mueller fiasco. The transcript of the call and the whistleblower's report will tell us everything.
That's why we have a DOJ. We don't outsource our investigations to countries like Ukraine. This Biden story has been around for years. You think a Republican DOJ wouldn't pounce on a chance to nail someone like Biden? Of course they would. If there was anything there, we would have heard about it by now.
Which is why I have trouble with this story. If Trump really did use military funding as a quid-pro-quo, we're just hearing about it now? Wouldn't that have been leaked to the press by a bunch of people?
Yes, the alleged corruption between Biden, then vice-president of the US, and his son was committed in and with Ukraine during the Obama administration. The alleged crimes occurred in Ukraine and with the Ukrainian government. I know you’re smart enough to see the problem here.
There IS a prima facia problem there. The NY Times and New Yorker have been covering it for about a year now.
But you seem to have missed the point: WE (America) are perfectly capable of investigating our own politicians. We have credible justice institutions that go back a long long time. Ukraine is barely a country. WHY would we EVER outsource an investigation to a country like Ukraine?
The answer is simple: we wouldn't. You don't have to defend everything this guy does. You realize that, right?
I don't know if this is a thing where you live, but the US Constitution establishes the "separation of powers" as a core principle. You might want to read up on that.
Trump urged the Ukrainian president to work with Guilliani , who was being facilitated by the US State Dept. in his efforts.
America wants to know if the former vice-president was abusing his power for reasons of corruption, and if the DNC colluded with Ukraine to influence the 2016 election.
Then tell me, which branch of the government has the most power in the field of international relations? I believe I know the answer, but am willing to admit my ignorance.
Last I checked, Guiliani was a private individual and Trump's lawyer. Whatever the position of the US State Dept. (part of the executive branch), his investigation is a private matter.
Quoting NOS4A2
The executive. Under the doctrine of separation of powers, it is not supposed to use this power to assume judicial functions
But the state department set up the meetings and assisted the efforts, and by some reports, encouraged Guilliani to investigate.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/giuliani-says-state-dept-aided-his-effort-press-ukraine-trump-n1045171
Correct, and thepresident can basically say whatever he wants to foreign leaders. The so-called whistleblower didn’t even have direct knowledge of the communications anyways, so maybe some scepticism is in order instead of blind faith.
That article set off so many red flags I googled the author. Guess what type of bias he is known for?
Anyways, the state dept is part of the executive. It does not have authority to assign Rudy Guliani as an investigator on behalf of "America".
Quoting NOS4A2
So, the president is above the law and the constitution when he talks to foreign leaders. Interesting.
That would be a genetic fallacy, dismissing a report based on where it comes from and not on its merits. Is this how you avoid exculpatory evidence? It is an opinion piece, no doubt. But it raises a great point: the State Department actually asked Rudy Giuliani to contact the lawyer for Ukraine’s president.
Why is this never mentioned?
No, he’s fully within the law and the constitution is what I’m arguing. No need to twist it anymore than you’ve already tried.
It would be, but I didn't dismiss it.
Quoting NOS4A2
Probably because Trump controls the State Department, so we can't assume the State Dept. is a neutral player here. Besides, the whistleblower report apparently doesn't concern Guliani at all. So bringing up Guliani and his contacts is a red herring.
Quoting NOS4A2
I think you're probably wrong about that. Who knows, maybe we'll find out.
Quoting tim wood
I don't think it'd be indefensible to have a rule that a head of state could not formally be investigated without some legislative proceedings. Key word being formally, there always needs to be a way to run a preliminary investigation in order to allow the legislative to make a deicison.
But of course, in Trumps case, a nuanced rule like that isn't the point. The point is to muddy the waters.
Quoting tim wood
There seems to be an overlap with the current legal challenge regarding prorogation in Britain. If executive decisions are not justiciable at all, this invites an abuse of power.
No, they’re not neutral. The state dept has to carry out the foreign policies of the administration. But they are completely relevant to the situation, not only because they are involved in it, but also because combatting corruption abroad falls under their purview.
Oh, are we already changing the narrative from "we're investigating an american for the sake of american justice" to "we're combatting corruption abroad"?
I don’t get it it. The alleged corruption would involve both Americans and Ukrainians. Does this not compute when viewed through the lens of the DNC narrative?
You don't get that the executive is not supposed to influence criminal investigations, either domestic or abroad, especially not when high-profile political opponents are involved?
That’s corruption. That’s exactly what Joe Biden is being accused of: firing the official that was investigating his son’s company. Not only that, but the DNC is also a target for investigation for working with Ukraine, a foreign power, to influence the 2016 election.
According to the press and their followers, Trump’s big crime is speaking with the president-elect to work with Guilliani. It’s all DNC spin, because it’s actually themselves and their candidates who allegedly broke laws,
Ah, such faith in your orange god! You regard it as "DNC spin" to have suspicions aroused by knowlege that there was a whistleblower report. These suspicions could easily be shown to lack merit by providing the whistleblower report to Congress, as is required by law. Refusal to deliver it ADDS to suspicions. Did he offer a quid-pro-quo to the Ukrainian President? That would be illegal and impeachment-worthy. On the other hand, was he just asking for dirt on a political rival without a quid-pro-quo? That is apparently legal, but it is the public interest to know if he indeed engaged in such indecent behavior. IMO, this sort of behavior ought to be criminalized because even if there is no explicit quid-pro-quo, there's always an implicit one when a President asks for political help from a country that is beholden to us for economic or military aid.
Quoting NOS4A2
So...you're OK with witch hunts, as long as the alleged witch is a Democrat.
The usual whataboutism. But Clinton did a thing!
Quoting NOS4A2
Now it's just "speaking" and not using US funds in military aid as leverage. The spin machine in action.
Quoting NOS4A2
"It's fine if I break the laws, they did it first"! Just more whataboutism.
The "information" is actually freely available. There are entire books written on the subject.
Also: The style of your post suggests you're suffering from a mental illness. Please consider getting professional help!
It doesn't matter - most Muslims either can not read at all and/or have not read any book but the Qur'an. It also doesn't matter because a Muslim will "believe" that all books are inferior to the Qur'an - the Qur'an being "believed" to be from a god, but is, in fact, just as man-made as any other book.
That they "believe" they are fighting *against* man-made laws is...
...the real mental illness.
They accused Donald Trump of the same: his score came back perfect.
What "mental illness" did you have in mind, specifically?
Yes, your ‘whistleblower’ doesn’t even have direct knowledge of Trump’s conversation, according to CNN.
You guys have propped up DNC propaganda, conspiracy theories and investigations for years now it’s not surprising that you’re now calling foul when you beloved candidates and parties are receiving scrutiny of their own.
Whataboutism? That’s convenient when your party and beloved candidates might be guilty of exactly that which you’ve been accusing others of being guilty of.
Note that now that Trump has gotten away with so many crimes, each new one (1) lowers the standards of the office and (2) makes it harder to make anything stick. He's like a comic-book villain that eats everything fired at him at gets stronger with every assault.
The burning question I have is, why do 'the American people' think this is OK? Why is it that the country of George 'I could not tell a lie' Washington is now governed by a mendacious narcissist with no regard for truth?
To little education, and too much television.
Teaching critical thinking in schools would create a discriminating consumer. Nobody sees any profit in that.
What the fuck?
Degrees upon degrees of batshittery.
I tend to do that, sorry.
Which part? Let me guess: all of it?
I have more, but there are too many people who would rather justify their hatred for Trump (in accordance with the jihad) than understand how much worse of a situation the U.S. would be in right now if Clinton had won.
The people hating on Trump are a part of the problem, not the solution. Stop with the blind hatred and understand the crimes of the Clinton cartel exponentially outweigh anything Trump has ever done.
- pressured a foreign leader to interfere in the 2020 American presidential election.
- urged a foreign country to intervene in the 2016 presidential election.
- divulged classified information to foreign officials.
- publicly undermined American intelligence agents while standing next to a hostile foreign autocrat.
- hired a national security adviser whom he knew had secretly worked as a foreign lobbyist.
- encouraged foreign leaders to enrich him and his family by staying at his hotels.
- genuflected to murderous dictators.
- alienated America’s closest allies.
- lied to the American people about his company’s business dealings in Russia.
- tells new lies virtually every week — about the economy, voter fraud, even the weather.
- spends hours on end watching television and days on end staying at resorts.
- declines to read briefing books or perform other basic functions of a president’s job.
- has aides, as well as members of his own party in Congress, who mock him behind his back as unfit for office.
- has repeatedly denigrated a deceased United States senator who was a war hero.
- insulted a Gold Star family — the survivors of American troops killed in action.
- described a former first lady, not long after she died, as “nasty.”
- described white supremacists as “some very fine people.”
- told four women of color, all citizens and members of Congress, to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came.”
- made a joke about Pocahontas during a ceremony honoring Native American World War II veterans.
- launched his political career by falsely claiming that the first black president was not really American.
- launched his presidential campaign by describing Mexicans as “rapists.”
- has described women, variously, as “a dog,” “a pig” and “horseface,” as well as “bleeding badly from a facelift” and having “blood coming out of her wherever.”
- has been accused of sexual assault or misconduct by multiple women.
- campaigned for a Senate candidate who was accused of molesting multiple teenage girls.
- waved around his arms, while giving a speech, to ridicule a physically disabled person.
- has encouraged his supporters to commit violence against his political opponents.
- has called for his opponents and critics to be investigated and jailed.
- uses a phrase popular with dictators — “the enemy of the people” — to describe journalists.
- attempts to undermine any independent source of information that he does not like, including judges, scientists, journalists, election officials, the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the Congressional Budget Office and the National Weather Service.
- has tried to harass the chairman of the Federal Reserve into lowering interest rates.
- said that a judge could not be objective because of his Mexican heritage.
- obstructed justice by trying to influence an investigation into his presidential campaign.
- violated federal law by directing his lawyer to pay $280,000 in hush money to cover up two apparent extramarital affairs.
- made his fortune partly through wide-scale financial fraud.
- has refused to release his tax returns.
- falsely accused his predecessor of wiretapping him.
- claimed that federal law-enforcement agents and prosecutors regularly fabricated evidence, thereby damaging the credibility of criminal investigations across the country.
- has ordered children to be physically separated from their parents.
- has suggested that America is no different from or better than Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
- has called America a “hellhole.”
Oh wait. That wasn't Obama......
This is precisely my point: people would rather justify their hatred for Trump than anything else.
Hatred is not a virtue - it is a blinding agent. A person who is full of hatred will never see the way the things are, because hatred is the device needed/used to create any/all "us vs. them" dichotomous worldviews. This dichotomous worldview of "us vs. them" is concentrated in long-standing "believer vs. unbeliever" division that began in Judaism (under a different framework), was solidified in Christianity and is perpetuated by Islam. The latter divides the world into two segments: "believers" and "unbelievers" such that there is a standing order to wage war against "unbelievers" for not "believing" that Islam is the only "acceptable" religion of god. They use "belief" to confuse people into "believing" the sources of:
i. supremacism
ii. fascism
iii. socialism
iv. war
are something *other* than Islam, when in the reality, Islam is the root of these and it takes a "believer" to "believe" otherwise.
The principle pathology of Islam is to scapegoat/project the crimes of its own house onto their political adversaries such that "believers" "believe" the adversary is guilty, instead of the accuser who is scapegoating.
The best example of this is the scapegoating/pinning of "collusion with Russia" onto Donald Trump, when in the reality it was the Clinton DNC who colluded to interfere in the 2016 (and now 2020) election. Again, the Clinton DNC is a front for the House of Islam: one required access to the "underground market" via Clinton, which is where you will find all of your human trafficking, pedophilia etc. and it leads back to the House of Islam. This is the sum of all fears of Islam: the world wakes up and realizes the depths of the corruption of the House of Islam. Hence, the need to destroy Trump at all costs given his knowledge that Islam is the root of fascism, and not "it's the Jews!". The Jews are the perpetual scapegoat for the House of Islam, which is why they still keep *some* Jews alive. You can't blame a group of people that don't exist.
[Quote]You guys have propped up DNC propaganda, conspiracy theories and investigations for years now it’s not surprising that you’re now calling foul when you beloved candidates and parties are receiving scrutiny of their own.[/quote]
Let's compare facts. Here's the facts I'm aware of:
1) A whistleblower from the U.S. intelligence community filed a complaint Aug. 12 that alleged some kind of wrongdoing at high levels of the U.S. government.
2) Intelligence community Inspector General Michael Atkinson has reviewed the complaint and determined it was credible.
3) Atkinson also determined that it was a matter of “urgent concern,” which is a legal threshold that requires notifying the relevant congressional committees. In this case, that would be the intelligence committees.
4) Leaks to the press have indicated that the whistleblower report related to Trump's call to the Ukranian President.
5) These leaks also indicated that the nature of the complaint entailed Trump pressuring the Ukranian President to launch an investigation involving the Bidens.
6) The Trump administration began reviewing a $250 million Ukrainian aid package just weeks after the August call and chose to release the aid earlier this month
7) The Trump administration has not complied with their legal obligation to provide Congress with the whistleblower report.
Do you disagree with any of these? What additional facts do you consider relevant to Trump's actions?
Regarding Biden- I'm fine with investigating anything he may have done. Hypothetically, if an investigation were to bear fruit after he's elected President, I'd be fine with impeaching him. Unlike you Trumpists, I apply a uniform standard. Corruption should not be excused or ignored, regardless of party.
You complain about DNC propaganda, and yet you embrace Trump's accusations of Biden. The matter HAS been investigated in the US and no wrongdoing was uncovered. No new evidence has been uncovered to warrant Trump's accusations against him. There is no fact-based motivation to pursue it - so it appears to be politically motivated. Contrast this with Trump's call: there are facts that have not yet been investigated. I'm not proclaiming him guilty of a crime but it seems highly likely he made a politically motivated and inappropriate request to a foreign leader.
So the "House of Islam" suppresses information, that Trump has, in order to safe Islam, but also the information doesn't matter because Muslims will not care?
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
I am not "accusing" you, I am just worried. I am not a medical professional, so I will not attempt a diagnosis. But your post is so rambling and so far away from what we'd call "reasonable", that I think you should consider getting help.
This claim is rhetoric. "People would rather" implies that there is a clear binary choice and the people are taking the illogical or disreputable one. "Justify" presumes that any dissatisfaction with Trump is not self evident or supported by documented evidence, but is only an unacknowledged bias. "Hatred" is a melodramatic straw-man, a feeling which no one could really attain without knowing the man, and morally hypocritical given his track record of warm fuzzy feelings.
You ran out of things to spin, so now it's deflection: "hey look at these other people, maybe they are bad, too".
Honestly, I am a bit disappointed you didn't come up with more creative stories.
Tend to do what, incite hatred? It's very obvious that everything in that post (truth or falsity being totally irrelevant) was clearly expressed with the intent to incite hatred.
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
Stop the hatred! Says the hypocrite who speaks with a clear design and purpose of creating hatred.
I agree with 2 - 7, giving anonymous sources and you the full benefit of the doubt, though I still remain skeptical about them all. It’s not clear whether this person is a whistleblower or leaker, however.
Let’s add some info that may have been largely ignored or suppressed.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/20/politics/donald-trump-whistleblower/index.html
The “whistleblower” does not have direct knowledge of the conversations. How does that factor into these conspiracy theories?
Let’s also consider the conversation from the view of the Ukraine.
https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/volodimir-zelenskij-proviv-telefonnu-rozmovu-z-prezidentom-s-56617?mod=article_inline
Sounds like a good little phone call.
Now, do you agree that Biden’s son was making $50,000 a month working for a Ukrainian company, Burisma Holdings, whose owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, was being investigated by Ukrainian officials? All this right after Joe Biden began his work in Ukraine, which he threatened by promising to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees if the general prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, wasn’t removed?
This is what Giuliani and Trump want investigated. You don’t want it investigated?
For me these are not necessarily criticisms: beliefs are necessary for so much that I love, there are divisions and us thems and some people deserve blame. That said, it seemed like elsewhere you have been contrasting yourself with people who believe, blame and promote us them thinking.
We know they want it investigated. The issue is over why they want it investigated and what they’re doing to push it to happen. If Trump is using taxpayer money to seek leverage against or otherwise damage a political opponent for no other reason than him being a political opponent then the outrage is warranted. If the United States has a legitimate stake in the situation and withholding military aid is appropriate in light of this then the outrage isn’t warranted.
That’s completely fair. It is inevitable that Joe Biden’s campaign will suffer, even if him and his son are found innocent of any wrong doing.
But remember, at least half a dozen committees of the U.S. Congress are investigating the President, which should give an idea of what taxpayer money is being spent on: seeking leverage against a political opponent. This is to say nothing of the spying on the Trump campaign by the previous administration and the party in power. Let’s be sure we hold firm to our standards.
There are no "our standards". There is you, employing your entire arsenal of rhetoric to defend Trump, and there is the rest of us. Your insistence that you defend some impartial standard is just more rhetoric.
Quoting NOS4A2
Your supposed standard here is really just false equivalence. It's the parliament's job to investigate the president. It's not Trump's job to investigate the Bidens.
Quoting NOS4A2
Trying to sneak one of Trump's false claims in here by including "the party in power" here. Any spying on Trump has since been disclosed, and it wasn't done at the behest of the party.
My current standard is simply that the Inspector General (a Trump appointee no less) considers it credible and of urgent concern (whether criminal or as a matter of national security), and so there is a good reason to believe that Trump's motives and/or actions aren't appropriate – and so certainly in need of Congressional oversight, which makes the DNI's decision to not turn over the complaint to Congress (at the White House's behest) despite their legal requirement to do so suspect and troubling.
There really just doesn't seem to be a legitimate defense against this scandal. You're more than welcome to support Trump's presidency and policies, but you really don't have to blindly support everything he does and accuse every criticism of him as being a politically motivated hoax.
Parliament? Yes, you’re right, Congress should investigate the executive branch. But as far as I know Trump is not investigating anyone. In fact, he was accused of encouraging the Ukrainians to do so.
The interactions between the FBI, the DNC, FusionGPS and Christopher Steele’s DNC-funded oppo research implies to me otherwise. We already know from testimony that the FBI counsel, James Baker, was given Russia investigation-related information by one of the lawyers of Perkins-Cole, who funded the dodgy Steele dossier, all of which was funded by the DNC. Either way, the investigation into the beginnings of that investigations, and the incestuous interactions between FBI and DNC, will be illuminating.
I agree it needs congressional oversight.
There is one legitimate defence to not releasing the complaint. It’s a matter of privilege, according to the DNI. It’s classified or a matter of national security. I don’t agree with these, but these are legitimate concerns.
So you agree it's a false equivalence?
Quoting NOS4A2
Obviously, because it implying otherwise fits your agenda.
Quoting NOS4A2
So your standard for an "incestous relationship" (nice job inserting another baseless claim) is that a lawyer from a firm affiliated with the DNC gave information to an FBI counsel. That's about as incestous as sitting in a room with your cousin.
DNC-funded, anti-Trump opposition research led to the spying of their political opposition, and led a vast subsection of credulous voters to believe in the Russian collusion hoax. At no point was the fact that the research was DNC funded, was gathered by a biased anti-trump spy, added to any FISA applications or their subsequent renewals.
The FISA investigation will be out soon, hopefully.
There was no Russian collusion hoax. There was an investigation. It found that the efforts of Trump's campaign fell short of criminal collision. You're lying through your teeth again.
Quoting NOS4A2
Perhaps it would have been added, if any of it was true, and not just partisan rhetoric. By the way, you seem to have omitted the question of whether the information was actually true.
There was. Russian collusion was a theme of the media and, not coincidentally, the DNC for years. You guys believed it all, and spent years promoting nonsense and still do apparently.
A theme is not a hoax. Stop sneaking in falsehoods via rhetoric or offhand remarks.
It was a ruse, a fraud, a swindle, a trick, a hoax. Believers were duped.
The Mueller report also sets out 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice by Trump. In accordance with advice from the OLC the report doesn't conclude one way or the other but the facts are there for those who want to read it.
The term collusion was not introduced by Trump, but by the DNC and the media that breathlessly followed. They ran with it, falsely and without evidence, for years.
Now you have to convince us that the president’s rebukes of the hoax was obstruction or the protestations of an innocent man.
No I don't. You need to read the full report.
No. There was evidence (lots of it) that Trump's campaign was involved with russian agents. Trump and various members of his campaign where caught lying about contacts with russian citizens multiple times. Then Trump fired Comey, citing the investigation into contacts with Russia as a reason - more evidence of wrongdoing.
All this caused a major investigation. Said investigation ultimately concluded that there was insufficient evidence to indict anyone for collusion. Several other crimes were uncovered.
You're lying if you claim insufficient evidence is the same as "it was all a hoax".
This recent Ukrainian “scandal” will likely backfire—again—proving typical opposition overreach but also bringing attention to the possible corruption of their favorite candidate.
Whatever are ”russian sourced active measures"?
Quoting NOS4A2
Look at you using Trump's propaganda speak.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's not the nation of origin that matters. It's about working together with agents of a foreign and geopolitically "hostile" government. But you know this, you're just spreading propaganda.
Quoting NOS4A2
Which it is allowed to do thanks to legislation passed by a republican government.
Quoting NOS4A2
Possibly, Trump and his team have gotten better at this.
Quoting NOS4A2
I curious, just what limits do you think the opposition is overreaching?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures
I didn’t get that from Trump. Look at you assuming I did.
Yes Steele worked with Russian FSB and intelligence officials in the Kremlin to produce a salacious dossier. You knew this, of course.
You think the American govt. should spy on its own citizens and political opponents? Wow.
Demanding the president’s private conversations with leaders because someone who doesn’t even have direct knowledge believes it’s bad.
Oh so now opposition research by the DNC was also a secret operation by the Russian intelligence services, who tried to undermine Trump while at the same time trying to get him elected?
Quoting NOS4A2
And I am sure you have evidence that Steele worked "with" russian officials "to" produce a salacious dossier, rather than just using sources from those circles?
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, this is exactly what I said...
Quoting NOS4A2
Bad enough for the White House to not comply with it's legal obligations. Are those legal obligations somehow "overreach" to you?
Now you don’t care that an American campaign was working with Russian intelligence to get dirt on their opponent in order to influence an election. Isn’t that a surprise.
What do you think they were doing, telling the truth? Helping the American people? They spun a web that reached the highest offices in American intelligence, resulting in a massive tax-payer funded witch-hunt.
Yes it is because any complaint could be use to disrupt the highest office in the land from doing its constitutional duties.
Oh I do care, you just don't have any evidence, and your conjectured story is contradicted by the documented efforts of the russian state to get Trump elected.
Quoting NOS4A2
So no, you don't have any evidence.
Quoting NOS4A2
But it isn't just any complaint, is it? There is a process for vetting complaints. So why do you think this specific vetting process is insufficient? where do you draw the line?
Yes it was. Page 16 of the application (if we’re talking about Page). Although it doesn’t name the DNC because it’s standard procedure not to identify U.S persons/organisations unless they’re a target (it also doesn’t name Trump - it just refers to Candidate #1), it clearly states that the motivation of the research was to discredit a Presidential campaign.
One thing I’ve never understood about this accusation is that there’s no point in hiring an expert investigator to make stuff up. What you want and pay for are facts that can damage your opponent. That’s why you hire an expert investigator.
What a creep.
We know that Steele sourced his info from Russian intelligence. He said as much in the dossier. This dossier was used to throw American politics, American law enforcement and the press into disarray for years to come, fundamentally threatening democracy itself. Americans spied on other Americans. Did any Russian bots achieve so big a score?
Nothing of Steele’s rampant anti-Trumpism or that the client of the law firm was candidate #2’s campaign.
That is insufficient because it fails to mention who was paying for the information and seeking to benefit from it, candidate #2 and her campaign. That information was suspiciously left out, even after Bruce Ohr had explicitly warned the FBI of Steele’s biases and the people who were funding his research.
Ohr also said he warned the FBI.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-bruce-ohr-told-congress-1535668660
None of it was included in the application, and in fact it said Steele was reliable.
You're conveniently ignoring the role of a certain person, whose name starts with T, in throwing Ameircan politics into disarray. If Trumps actions had not been so incredibly suspicious, and incredibly disrespectful towards Congress, courts, and law enforcement, the Steele dossier wouldn't have thrown anything into disarray.
Quoting NOS4A2
Oh really? I'd like to hear you justify this claim.
Quoting NOS4A2
Based on the Patriot act, for which the Bush administration is majorly responsible. You're not claiming that the investigation into Trumps campaign marked the first time Americans spied on Americans, are you?
Quoting NOS4A2
Since russian bots contributed to Trumps election, which is the root cause for all subsequent turmoil, they kind of did.
It didn't need to mention it because the information it gave – that the motivation was to discredit Trump's campaign – was sufficient to establish bias.
Someone can be biased and reliable. Being biased doesn't mean that you're going to put your career and reputation on the line – and possibly put yourself in legal jeapordy – by just making any old shit up and passing it off to the FBI as credible intel.
Am I to dismiss everything you say in support of Trump and against his opponents on the grounds that you clearly have biases of your own? Or should I consider your arguments on their own terms and weigh their strengths against your motivation? That's what the FBI did in stating that "notwithstanding Source #1's reason for conducting the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia, based on Source #1's previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source #1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible."
FISA courts have been around since the seventies. So no. As far as I can tell, this is the first time it was used on an opposing political campaign.
Using the intelligence apparatus to spy on a political campaign is Watergate-level stuff.
What, some Facebook ads and fake twitter accounts contributed to Trump’s election? In contrast, multi-millions in DNC propaganda and vast, incessant negative reporting did not contribute to Trump’s election?
That’s a weird way of looking at it. The bias of candidate #2, who has a stake in the very same election and much to gain, far outweighs that of any other person.
It doesn’t matter. There cannot even be the appearance of bias in matters like these, especially when it comes to secret courts and spying. Leaving out the financiers and anti-Trump bias is lying to the courts.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1176559970390806530?s=21[/tweet]
Just who was "using" the intelligence apparatus, and to what purpose, according to you? I'd ask for evidence as well but I know I won't get any.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes.
Quoting NOS4A2
Well if it did, it must have been very poor propaganda indeed.
A few Facebook ads and twitter bots worked better than the entire DNC media-machine and the entire American media.
Everyone but you. You have resorted to snark and name-calling. Excuse me while I dismiss everything you say as piffle.
Are Fox News, Breitbart etc. not American media? As to your question: evidently Trump's campaign was relatively more successful than Hillary's.
Indeed it was. Not only that but it cost far less.
Hold on to your hats, it’s going to be wild.
You’re feeding a troll, Tim.
Wow - what a bloody day :smile:
Foreign meddling, ladies and gentleman.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-ukraine-09-24-2019/index.html
If what Pelosi and other Democrats allege is true, they probably have a case. Unfortunately, it’s on the basis of a complaint they have not yet seen describing a call they do not know. It’s nuts, and I’m surprised Pelosi agreed with it.
This was my argument:
“We’ll see if the calls for impeachment and treason were legit or straight DNC propaganda.”
I merely merely had to link to the video of Pelosi calling for impeachment. We’ll see if it’s legit or “straight DNC propaganda” in due time. My evidence will be the transcript of Trump’s phone call. What will be yours?
But when the tape came out, that's when Nixon resigned.
By the way I'm a moderate independent.
But why is the US giving military support to Ukraine in the first place?
When Flint, MI hasn't had a drinkable water supply in some years now?
China needs to become the global policeman so the US can decline into a state of sanity.
...sure. It's all about where the priorities are... .
The official reason though is that it's apparently cheaper to give aid to that Soviet Union-bordering country than to fight wars, boots on the ground, and other aggression, etc...
And yes everyone in the global community needs to do their part. The problem is he apparently mixed partisan election politics.
It's unfortunately laughable since now he is part of the undrainable Swamp Team.
We need more Moderates in our political and religious institutions!
Yeah, good point. In the absence of a tape, it's the whistle blower and his boss' ( who ironically was appointed by trump) testimony that will likely be more persuasive.
4D chess or just stupid?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
They are attempting to impeach the president over nothing.
Compare the conversation to the unmitigated fantasies of the DNC.
Straight DNC propaganda..
Can’t take it, can you Timmy? That’s the cognitive dissonance boiling in your brain. You’re finally finding out you’ve been lied to. Get on the right side of history, pal, there is plenty of room here. It might do you some good.
I think it's probably time for him to step down, no?
If you look at it objectively, the minuses are now beginning to outweigh the positives.
The GOP should try for a moderate republican instead...yes?
Absolutely not. A moderate republican will be like every other: a war hawk, social conservative type like the Vice President or Romney. The Dems are unelectable.
They should try for one that has more sense than God gave a doorknob.
Do you consider yourself a far-right white nationalist, or a far-right religious fundamentalist, or otherwise an extremist?
(The reason I ask is that a lot of folks from his base seem to be those kinds of people.)
No, and that’s another unmitigated fantasy. The so-called “base” includes people from all walks of life, even registered Democrats.
Can you answer the question? ( What are you?)
I did answer the question.
Why do you want to know what I am?
You’ll get there Tim. The first step is the withdrawal. The lies and fantasy will release your mind soon enough. Stay strong.
A lot of people are talking about Viktor Shokin, Ukraine’s prosecutor general., but most reports, including a push by the International Monetary Fund to investigate and prosecute those guilty of corruption, claim that Shokin did not do his job effectively. There is no substantive evidence that Shokin was fired, as Trump claims, to protect Biden or his son.
It is clear that Trump ordered almost $400 million in military aid to the Ukraine to be withheld. It is also clear that Trump has told conflicting stories about why he did this and that these stories do not match the facts.
Of course Trump's defenders want to pretend that the transcript is evidence that Trump did nothing wrong and once again declare the case is closed. It is not. Just what the impeachment investigation will uncover is an open question, one that Trump is doing everything he can to block from seeing the light of day.
According to the transcript the favor was actually regarding “the server” which I suspect is the Hacked DNC server, which for some reason is in Ukraine. Attorney General Barr and numerous investigations are getting to the bottom of how the Russian hoax started, and that the DNC server is in Ukraine is troubling to say the least.
He mentioned Biden only in passing, despite the claims of democrats. Hunter Biden, who had zero experience in the energy sector and was just then dishonorably discharged from the military for smoking crack, landed a $50,000 a month gig on the board of a Ukrainian company right after Biden became the point man there. The same happened in China. Elder Biden started working with the Chinese, son get’s massive deal shortly after. It’s something worth looking at.
Easy does it Tim.
As they say, don't feed the troll.
The mantras we tell ourselves to avoid a contrary opinion.
"Why do you want to know what I am?"
For a lack of a better word, are you embarrassed for some reason, or is it something else you don't care to disclose?
I just think it’s an irrelevant and stupid question.
Why do you want to know?
"I just think it’s an irrelevant and stupid question.
Why do you want to know? "
I'm a Moderate Independent who draws good from both sides (with some minor exceptions of course).
Again, I'll ask, what are you? Far-right I'm guessing(?).
For example, would you like to own a machine gun or a rocket launcher or even a tank? Should that be made available to the public?
Was Reagan a Moderate?
Maybe answering some of those that will help me understand you.
Sorry, I’ve been on trial here since I started participating. My politics? I’ve always considered myself liberal.
I’m no moderate, however. Moderates have done nothing but stifled movements for liberty in favor of peace and conformity.
Me too.
I think NOS4A2 is from a tiny village on Cedar Island. His dad makes explosives for a living and so his left arm is made of a styrofoam cooler that washed up on shore 10 years ago. His mother is the local school teacher, but she's blind and deaf, again, relating back to his father's profession.
I'm confused, you're a liberal yet support Trump? How does that work?
Ha yeah Frank! One thing I notice is that a lot of Trump supporters also, seem angry...go figure~ LOL
Quite easily. He delivers the results I want.
What liberal policies has Trump implemented?
I’m not sure there are many that could be described as “liberal”. Mostly his policies are pragmatic. As I said, he delivers the results I want: wages, jobs, strong economy, deregulation, “fair trade”, peace.
Well, he's filled all those judicial positions with liberal judges, taken a humane approach to the border, strengthened LGBTQ rights legislation, got behind the Paris Climate change agreement, and put higher taxes on the rich to fund spending on welfare programs and education.
What liberal wouldn't love him?
Have you check the deficit lately?
Do you like his character viz. women?
Do you think he is a racist?
Is he really a good business man? He went belly-up numerous times; said in the campaign he was 'the king of debt, and settled out of court for discriminating against blacks. I have more facts if you want them.
How about at least 6 people from his campaign either in jail or otherwise pleaded guilty of wrong doing...
Are those the results a staunch member of the Grand Old Party would support?
You ok with that?
Oh, and I worked for the Government for a bunch of years.
Oh, did Mexico pay for the wall yet?
You might be confusing liberalism with progressivism or statism.
Accord to the transcript the favor was:
Trump then mentions CrowdStrike, but Adam Meyer's, vice president of intelligence at CrowdStrike, is as puzzled as everyone else as to what Trump was talking about. The cyber-security firm found that Russia hacked the DNC server. Trump's own Justice Department confirmed this, but Trump would prefer that there be a conspiracy with a missing server. Only there is no evidence to support his conspiracy theory. Trump then goes on to talk about the "very good prosecutor" who was shut down, suggesting that this was part of the cover up of "this whole situation".
Quoting NOS4A2
What the transcript says is:
That goes far beyond mentioning him in passing. The claim is that Biden stopped the prosecution. That puts him in the middle of "this whole situation".
Quoting NOS4A2
So, Biden is mentioned "only in passing" but you think this is something that should be looked into. Whether or not it should be looked into, and by whom, it does not change the fact that there is an inquiry into Trump. Even if Hunter Biden and those who hired him are guilty of some unnamed impropriety, this does not exonerate Trump. This is nothing more than a childish and inept diversion tactic.
Alright, you tell me what the liberal policy agenda is. Bullet point the priorities you think American liberals would generally get behind and tell me who the most liberal supreme court judges are and why you support them.
Do you only speak in questions?
I said I’m a liberal. I have claimed nothing else.
Nope, I gave you some facts,hold on, I'll give you more in my next post....
Of course corruption should be looked into. Why are you guys dismissing the possible corruption of Biden in favor of the non-crimes Trump allegedly committed? It’s so odd.
Oh god here we go. Observe the one-sided story.
I'm not saying you have. I'm asking for more detail. I'm curious as to what it is about liberalism that appeals to you. We can start with this. Here are the supreme court judges ranked from most liberal to most conservative:
Sonia Sotomayor (-0.521)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (-0.518)
Elena Kagan (-0.302)
Stephen Breyer (-0.280)
John Roberts (0.089)
Samuel Alito (0.317)
Neil Gorsuch (0.486)
Brett Kavanaugh (0.693)
Clarence Thomas (0.725)
Can you explain to me why you support Sotomayor and Ginsburg, for example, more than Kavanaugh and Thomas? What aspects of their liberalism do you particularly identify with?
https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-justices-ideology-52ed3cad-fcff-4467-a336-8bec2e6e36d4.html
The part about liberty. I am also a devout believer in human rights.
It's a specific interpretation of "liberalism" that is popular among mostly young men. The leading figures are people like Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson. It claims to harken back to a "classical" liberalism, as opposed to modern "prorgessivism", which it claims is authoritairan and oppressive.
Essentially, it's the classic right wing mixture of economic liberalism combined with social conservatism. The social consevatism has a more recent baseline though, and it mixes in modern populism in it's supposed opposition to elites (not the economic ones though).
You mentioned deregulation and previously defended the Trump administration's dismantling of LGBT protections. That seems more like libertarianism than liberalism.
They have been conflated but I refuse the label.
Social conservatism? I am socially liberal.
Yes?
First, I have not dismissed "the possible corruption of Biden". The ambiguity regarding which Biden the accusations are aimed at should not be overlooked. What I said was:
The investigation into Trump is underway but already you have determined that Trump did not commit any crimes. Once again:
To be clear, I am referring here not just to Trump but to you.
Can you not google "American liberal" to get the meaning? Is google banned where you are?
Investigations of Trump and impeachment rumblings have been occurring since before Trump was even in office. How long are you allowed to kick the can down that road before I’m allowed to suspect you really have nothing.
Why would I google “American liberal”? I use duck-duck-go.
Oh, ok, gotcha, thanks for that Echarmion! I think I'm remembering some of that...
I don't know why folks can't call it like it is. I mean , I was embarrassed for the country when Clinton and Monica 'hooked-up' in the oval office (do it after hours in a hotel at least).
I think with Trump, the negatives are outweighing the positives; he's not good for our country. I was praying for the guy that he could break free from some of the old political paradigm's that he said he was going to challenge...but he's just part of the problem now/not the solution.
He's part of the Swamp Team.
But your definition of socially liberal is different from that of people you call "progressives". So, what's your take on Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson? Do you perhaps watch certain political Youtubers?
You scrupolously avoid outright stating any of your policy preferences, with the notable exception of your free speech absolutism. But everything I can glean from your behavior matches up more or less exactly with the attitudes of people who follow Ben Shapiro, or again certain Youtube "pundits".
Have you ever used Google?
I’m not in the habit of adopting another’s position, especially from youtubers. I read books.
Anything else you need clarified before your fantasies run rampant?
I used to.
Funnily enough, the insistence that one is an independent thinker is also part of the brand. But I'm not expecting you to give me a straight answer anyways
You are "allowed" to suspect whatever you want, but when you say:
Quoting NOS4A2
you are making a factual, if ambiguous, claim. He is not being accused of non-crimes. An impeachment investigation is into high crimes and misdemeanors. We really do not know the extent of what he has done. That is the purpose of the investigation. What we do know is that he is doing everything he can to keep the truth from coming to light. This alone is enough to raise suspicion that he is trying to hide something.
You’re going to believe what you want anyways.
Then what crimes or misdemeanours is he being accused of? What is the probable cause? In the real world we cannot go about investigating people if we do not have a reason to do so. What is the reason to do so?
You’re going to believe what you want anyways.
I suspect you don’t know at all. Once again, there has to first be a crime until someone can be guilty or not guilty of it.
Once again, that is what the investigation intends to uncover. Following the Trump playbook you want to declare that such an investigation is unnecessary, as if he cannot be found guilty because if he was he would already have been found guilty, now hurry up and declare the case closed lest something be found.
So no crime and no probable cause that he committed a crime. Just an arbitrary impeachment inquiry.
What do you think when the whistleblower and IG give testimony?
Do you think the transcript was watered down much like Nixon did, without the audio tapes?
BTW, why, I forgot to ask you, why didn't Trump give a personal interview/testimony during the Muller report?
Was he scared? He said he would welcome it. Why did he lie (again)?
How do you know that there has been no crime and no probable cause for an investigation? If he did nothing wrong and there is nothing to hide then why stonewall? Mueller was quite clear that he would not indict a sitting president, but that there were serious improprieties that should be investigated by Congress. In addition, several people working for Trump were indicted, tried, found guilty, and sent to jail. Mueller''s testimony was sufficient to lead some who were opposed to impeachment to change their minds. Others remained opposed, but not because they found no evidence of wrongdoing but because of political considerations and the consequences of the Senate refusing to impeach. Many more changed their minds in the last few days when it came to light that Trump, without proper authorization from Congress, withheld military funding to Ukraine to pressure them to investigate his Democratic opponent. The whistleblower's information appears to extend beyond the phone call. Trump tried to prevent him from testifying but the Senate was unanimous in passing a resolution that he must be allowed to testify before Senate and House Intelligence Committees.
I just read the Washington Post. Looks like the whistleblower did not base their concern on that call. There were other calls.....Trump's in trouble now.
When we accuse someone of high crimes and misdemeanors there must be high crimes and misdemeanors with which to accuse him. You cannot just impeach a political figure for no reason!!! What are the high crimes and misdemeanors?
According to the transcript, Trump's call was regarding past activity about matters involving the previous administration. The parts about “pressure” (Ukrainian President just said there was no pressure), election meddling in 2020 (the call regarded the previous election), withholding funding funding (a routine job of the president), are invented whole-cloth.
They’ve not been conflated in the USA, and I believe you’ve claimed to be an American. And it’s not about labeling, it’s about what you value and your moral framework. American liberalism and libertarianism are quite different in these regards. If you’ve expressed your true opinions and beliefs in this topic then you are definitely not an American liberal, but could well be libertarian.
I think we will just have to wait to see how things develop before concluding that Trump is in trouble now. Even if there is ample and damning evidence, unless the Senate decides to take action the consequences remain unclear. It will be up to the voters. If there are enough from the key states who believe he has made America great again, they will ignore or minimize the importance of whatever is uncovered.
There is always the possibility the transcripts were altered. They weren’t even verbatim.
To avoid a perjury trap.
I am not an “American liberal” and have never stated otherwise.
So Republicans are being hypocrites in accusing Democrats of playing political games? They secretly believe that Democrats are right in their claims that Trump ought be impeached but because he's on their "team" they pretend otherwise in public?
No need to state the obvious.
I suspect you know better. One does not first have to be found guilty before an investigation is opened into whether or not he is guilty.
Quoting NOS4A2
Trump has not been impeached and it seems likely that he will not be, but that has little to do with whether or not he is guilty. As has been pointed out, there is plenty of evidence leading to the need for an investigation, but you close your eyes and ears and pretend that an innocent man is going to be impeached "for no reason!!!".
Quoting NOS4A2
Once again, that is something that cannot be established before the investigation into what they may be has been completed. We do not yet have the full story and if Trump has his way we never will. And that in itself is a crime, to wit: obstruction of justice.
Quoting NOS4A2
Are you that naive or simple-minded or just disingenuous? He has to curry Trump's favor. Of course he is not going to contradict him!
Quoting NOS4A2
Again I must ask if you that naive or simple-minded or just disingenuous? It is anything but routine for a president to without military funds allocated by Congress for personal political purposes. If we look at Trump's reasons for doing so we don't get a straight answer from him.
I suspect you don’t know at all. Once again, there has to first be a crime until someone can be guilty or not guilty of it. Are you simple minded or just disingenuous?
An impeachable offense need not be a crime. Whatever it is you think you know, you should know this if you wish to carry on an informed discussion.
There are a lot of crimes someone can be guilty of. Like murder. That's a crime that exists.
Crime, misdemeanors, offence, action, anything. There has to be something Trump may have done in order for him to be guilty or not guilty of it. What is it? You can’t just arbitrarily investigate people you don’t like if you have no reason to believe they have done something wrong. What is it?
[tweet]https://twitter.com/repadamschiff/status/1176874772736749569?s=21[/tweet]
This is pure fantasy.
You are dancing around while trying to ignore the mounting evidence that an investigation is warranted, and more and more it appears to a Saint Vitus dance. Several of us have pointed to reasons why he should be investigated. Since it is evident that you have nothing substantive to add I am not going to continue indulging you.
It seems likely that whatever happens you will attempt to spin it to protect Trump. When he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue no doubt he had those like you in mind.
BTW, why, I forgot to ask you, why didn't Trump give a personal interview/testimony during the Muller report?
To avoid a perjury trap.
Why would you or he think that? I'm confused...
I believe it was Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer, who thought the Russia investigation wasn’t a real investigation. Rather, it was a fishing expedition of sorts, where the investigation itself results in process crimes, like with the jailing of Papadopoulos. He and others worried they were setting such a trap for Trump.
You have merely repeated the claims of Democrats. There’s nothing substantive to that. This transcript, if true, refutes the claims of democrats and their reasons for an impeachment inquiry. So perhaps that’s why we’re back to previous Democrat spin about Mueller investigation, kicking the can back to Russia gate.
A trap, call me naive I don't get it? I mean there were at least six people from his campaign that were found guilty of wrongdoing some of which are in jail.
Was he afraid to tell the truth you think?
From what I read, Trump was willing. No doubt he thinks he can talk his way out of anything. If it is was only his personal lawyers who prevented him from doing so that would be one thing, but if they were not then this raises grave questions of where their loyalty lies - with Trump or with the country. They know that Trump cannot keep his mouth shut, that he is a compulsive liar, and that he would both perjure and betray himself if given the opportunity.
A process crime is an offence against the process. You could go to jail for saying something false, like Papadopoulos, who got some dates wrong.
It’s too risky to be interviewed.
... it's a shame. The guy can't be trusted.
It sounds like if it's risky, then he obviously knew he did wrong.
Unfortunately the constitution is vague when stating the sufficient reasons for impeachment, but it does say “high crimes”, whatever that is. Well, trying to persuade the Ukrainian president to give information about a political opponent is a pretty indecent thing to do, but to call it a “high crime” would be vastly exaggerated.
The constitution of the United States is the one stable thing amidst the messy Trumpism of today. The opposition should focus on Trump’s outrageous policies instead of trying to catch him by bending the law.
That’s a common media talking point, but a non-sequitur of the highest order.
If you're child thought it was too risky to confront you with wrongdoing, what would you think?
Great points. I'm going to make a bold prediction. The house will vote to impeach him, it will go to the Senate and die-off; however, the public sentiment will change such that they will lose all confidence and he will lose re-election.
It will be more or less a protest vote. Sad but true.
If my child’s lawyer advised him not to talk to me because I was investigating him for reasons of which there was no underlying crime, I would think he was pretty smart for playing it carefully.
Why would your child need a lawyer?
So that your question might be analogous and relevant to the topic.
Are you a radical right-winger?
So, you ask what he did wrong to warrant an investigation but disregard the allegations of the very people who are investigating him. But even if you are incapable of seeing the lapse in logic, Mueller is not a Democrat. A fact that Trump and his lap dogs have done everything they can to obscure.
You cover your eyes and ears and claim there is nothing to see or hear.
Your arguments have become more and more tenuous. I would say that you need to step up your game, but it appears that you have already overplayed your hand. In this case I cannot agree with Leiber and Stoller or Peggy Lee - if that's all there is then stop dancing.
I’ve already answered this question.
Did you answer me I don't remember?
If your wife was president and you found out she was paying men off to silence them how would you feel about that?
Oh sorry I remember, I think you used a euphemism for an extremist.
You didn't answer these yet:
Have you check the deficit lately?
Do you like his character viz. women?
Do you think he is a racist?
Is he really a good business man? He went belly-up numerous times; said in the campaign he was 'the king of debt, and settled out of court for discriminating against blacks. I have more facts if you want them.
How about at least 6 people from his campaign either in jail or otherwise pleaded guilty of wrong doing...
Are those the results a staunch member of the Grand Old Party would support?
You ok with that?
No, I’m not disregarding the allegations. We’re talking about the impeachment inquiry, and the allegations of democrats regarding their impeachment inquiry. What does Mueller have to do with it? I already said that if the transcript was true, the allegations are refuted.
You can’t even properly represent my arguments, let alone prove they are tenuous.
Why isn't Mexico paying for the wall?
I did not, I only said I’m not a moderate.
For an independent moderate you sure like to stand on one side.
Have you check the deficit lately?
Do you like his character viz. women?
Do you think he is a racist?
Is he really a good business man? He went belly-up numerous times; said in the campaign he was 'the king of debt, and settled out of court for discriminating against blacks. I have more facts if you want them.
How about at least 6 people from his campaign either in jail or otherwise pleaded guilty of wrong doing...
Are those the results a staunch member of the Grand Old Party would support?
You ok with that?
Why isn't Mexico paying for the wall?
Do you speak in questions? Why don’t you make an argument?
Trump wanted to investigate Google search engine because Google search results turn up nothing but bad news.
You okay with that?
Are you afraid of something?
Like what?
Answering the questions so that the public here can know the truth.
I'll keep asking them, and more questions, until you answer. Please don't be afraid of yourself.
What is this, a job interview? Is this a trial?
Think of it as common questions that the public wants to know.
Would you rather take one at a time?
Let's start with the deficit. How does he compare with other presidents?
Oh you speak for the public now?
Why don’t you just tell me how he compares?
I don't know that's why I'm asking. Didn't you vote for him?
I did vote for him, yes.
I think you know, and your continued attempts at obfuscation only make you look more and more ridiculous.
Quoting NOS4A2
What allegations are refuted if the transcript is true? The transcript, even if unedited, is not the whole of the story. The phone call is only the latest in a long list of questionable behavior. Don't bother asking again what list. Much of it was detailed in the Mueller report, but you seem to be confused as to what the report has to do with any of this. Or perhaps you have just taken another page from the Trump playbook and "deny, deny, deny".
... then please share how he compares? Are you basically saying you didn't do your homework?
“Mueller mueller mueller”, “impeach impeach impeach”.
Dem playbook.
I’m talking about the whistleblower complaint and the allegations made by Pelosi during her impeach speech, which she gave as reasons to start the inquiry.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/24/nancy-pelosi-read-text-impeachment-inquiry-trump/2434986001/
Do your homework and you’ll find the answer to your question.
Are you embarrassed that he's run the deficit up?
Should I be? What’s wrong with a high deficit?
Are you ashamed that Mexico hasn't been paying for the wall and that he sold you a false bill of goods?
Quoting NOS4A2
Is this a proper representation of your arguments?
It has been amusing seeing you flounder around but I have wasted enough time responding to your inept attempts to defend Trump.
I know, for some reason he can't answer my questions.
Maybe he's soul-searching LOL.
When he comes back I've got a bunch of other questions.
Questions questions questions....the public needs answers LOL!!!!!
Look what is suspiciously missing from your quote: the clarification of my argument, which you again dismiss. This is pure deceit.
Yes. Either/or.
And ironically enough that's the problem with this political discussion. When persons stubbornly dichotomize, they paint themselves in a box and don't know how to get out.
Another reason why we need moderates in both our political and religious institutions.
Thank you for asking. (And of course obviously I'm a Christian Existentialist. And am not scared to have taken the leap of faith.)
Which of course begs another question why the Fundamentalists support a guy that has character issues viz. Stormy Daniels ( and women in general).
Moderates only serve to stifle movements of liberty, as in the case of abolition and segregation. MLK’s argument against moderates is forceful enough to remind us that justice, not moderation, is primary if one wants an ethical politics.
Hey you're back, great!
Since you want to talk about racism let's chat a little bit. First of all, why did Trump settle out of court with some tenants who were denied renting his apartments who were black? And why does he make disparaging comments toward minorities?
And regarding moderates, did you support Reagan?
Wow. Unexpected. How did that come to be your favorite?
Quoting 3017amen
They could easily escape by realizing that identity is a role, it's only part of you. There's another amorphous aspect that is free to invest itself in any role.
Some people have a super strong sense of identity. I dont think that's necessarily pathological. Elephants lumber along, dolphins swim. They're both perfect for their environments.
Could you explain more what Christian existentialism means to you?
Quoting 3017amen
There are talk-radio communities that believe Trump is God's chosen one. They're nuts.
Again thank you for asking questions Frank.
Regarding the feeling of identity and being pigeonholed, I agree that essentially (my interpretation) one should free themselves by allowing them selves to have courage. We all have so-called intrinsic fears so I know it's easier said than done. And so in politics and/ or religion it rears its ugly head and manifests itself through anger and frustration. Since in that case the person feels something is just not right with their argument - it becomes a bit disconcerting. Thus the dangers of dichotomizing.
To that end, Kierkegaard talks about living the aesthetic versus ethical or intellectual life. The main takeaway is that both are good. Both have their virtues. And as far as strong personalities not being pathological I agree. As I suggested however, I do think defaulting to either/or in one's thinking would be considered more pathological than not. Much like Eastern philosophy, it's okay to embrace yin and yang, but the art of living is knowing how to integrate those two forces.
As you probably know, Existentialism for the most part had its origins and popularity from the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes. ( There were some 60's Pop music that made it more mainstream- " there is a season turn, turn, turn... .") Much of the prevailing thought process-es are based on the common sensibility of the Golden rule. But more importantly, Faith over reason and religious dogma. Including embracing the virtues of imagination and our sense of wonderment which includes mystery associated with our existence. (And of course our illogical existence relative to our perceptions viz consciousness.)
I'm surely not giving Existentialism the credit it deserves there...
Actually I was pointing out an argument that moderates stifle movements towards freedom.
Trump makes disparaging remarks about everyone. Do you believe minorities are particularity vulnerable to mean words? That seems pretty racist to me.
Those are not hard questions to answer.
Here's a leak of the real transcript.
If you caught your wife paying off her lover in order to silence him, how would you feel about that?
Why does he make disparaging remarks towards women and their vaginas?
1. He lied about when he was contacted, while it was clear he was contacted precisely because of his position as advisor to the Trump campaign. He got the dates wrong but pretty incredible;
2. He knew about the many connections of this professor with Russian government officials but said he was a nobody;
3. He said he had superficial contact with a female Russian before he became campaign advisor to Trump when in reality he tried to leverage that contact to get bring the campaign in contact with Russian officials.
See: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Statement_of_the_offense.filed.pdf
Thank you kindly for that Michael.
Just to test his so-called veracity relating to the pursuit of his [Trump']s concerns viz. Biden, isn't there another mechanism or avenue for which he could pursue his concerns? Another Agency to investigate Biden?
If there is, then this surely adds to the likelihood or high probability that Trump's intention was, to once again, have foreign leaders interfere with our election process.
That’s hilarious.
What would that “something dodgey” be?
I'll let S answer...
"something untrustworthy" would be obvious. (Does that make sense to you?)
Are you going to vote for Trump again? If so, why? Will you do your homework this time, or just blindly vote?
The reason I ask is because you have not been able to answer any of my concerns.
And what would that be?
Did you read the whistle blower's transcripts? Are you not concerned?
There is a whistleblower complaint. I’m not aware of any whistleblower transcript. Where are those?
Oh shucks, Michael was kind enough to post it:
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf
Please let us know if you have concerns(?)
And then I'll ask you some more questions.
Yes that’s not a transcript. It’s a complaint. I have read the whistleblower complaint.
Okay great...thank you. Can you tell us if you have any concerns? And if not, why not.
I have no concerns for a variety of reasons:
1. Presidents have vast constitutional powers.
2. The president’s requests were about previous elections and administrations, not future elections.
3. The allegations against the president have been persistent since the beginning, and persistently wrong or unproven.
4. Investigations into Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election is ongoing. Asking favors regarding cooperation with these investigations seems a matter of prudence, not deceit.
5. The Ukrainian president stated he was not being pushed, despite the claims of the whistleblower.
You find it hilarious to observe the separation of powers and respect foreign sovereignty?
Quoting NOS4A2
Attention readers, this is a false statement. In fact most allegations regarding Trump's behaviour were objectively true, but because intent is harder to establish than the objective facts, and because of constitutional limitations, he has not been formally inducted for any crimes.
No I found the joke hilarious.
A simple counterexample would suffice and I will admit my hasty generalization.
In light of the content of the Whistleblower complaint, the content of which has of course been known to the White House, the decision to release the transcript of the call now makes much more sense.
Because of the sequence of reports, we are invited to read the Whistleblower complaint in light of the transcript (rather than the other way around). This way, it can be made to look as if the transcript represents the maximum extent of any wrongdoing hinted at in the complaint. And since the transcript contains inappropriate, but not obviously criminal behaviour, the defense will concentrate on shifting the limits of appropriate presidential behaviour and obfuscate the intent behind it, as has been done before.
So basically, I suspect the plan is to discredit the complaint as unjustified exaggeration of the transcript.
What was inappropriate in the transcript?
Read the Mueller report. 10 possible instances of obstruction of justice.
I’ve read the Mueller report. “Possible instances” doesn’t count as true or proven.
Trump was accused of firing James Comey because of Comey's role in the investigation. Turns out that was true.
Trump was accused of personally writing a letter in Trump Jr.s name, which contained several false claims. He initially lied about this, then later admitted it.
Of course there is the entire Cohen business, which Trump lied about, only to be contradicted by Rudy Guliani on TV.
Trump fired James Comey on the advice of Sessions and Rosenstein. Given the recent IG report on Comey’s careless behavior, it seems it was the right call.
The rest are media accusations, not rising to any meaningful level of concern.
Trump himself admitted publicly he fired Comey because of his role in the russia investigation.
I guess you concede the other two examples though. So do you admit your hasty generalization?
Let's take one at a time:
1. Presidents have vast constitutional powers.
Powers to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival? You ok with that?
The other two examples are not the type of accusations I was talking about. The media’s whining and word-policing do not quite rise to that level.
Comey deserved to be fired and it was a good thing he was fired.
Investigate corruption. Indeed he has that power and the duty to protect America’s interests.
Agreed. Isn't that why the public should be just as concerned with Trump asking for dirt on a political opponent from a foreign government?
This is a very important question to you: Are you OK with any President doing that? Be honest with us and yourself.
(Arguably, there's not necessarily a right answer-at this point anyway, but this will tell us a little bit how you, his base, or the GOP now thinks ethically.)
It’s not dirt on a political opponent. It’s possible corruption by the previous administration. Corruption is a crime. One of them happens to be political rival, and yes it would damage his campaign if he were to be discovered to be corrupt. Then again it could help him if it is found he is innocent.
I’m suspicious of you always saying “us” as if I’m speaking to a panel. These are your own question, a single individual, so continually saying “us” is quite fallacious.
As to your question, yes I am ok with a president requesting the aid of foreign governments to investigate corruption between the two countries.
Oh yeah, it’s great PR to be accused of a crime and then found innocent. :roll:
I thought the Biden thing was already adjudicated, no? Regardless sure it's not right agreed, but you are not consistent with your logic.
1. Then were you OK with the Mueller report? (At least 6 people from the campaign guilty of wrongdoing some of which are in jail.)
2. Your answer tells me that the GOP is no longer a conservative party. Case in point, I asked you about the deficit which you refused to answer; the GOP used to be fiscal hawk's, but you don't even care. What do you think of Rand Paul? John Kasich? Not extreme enough for you?
But wow, it took courage for you to answer that the way you did. Unfortunately your answer indicates you would endorse any President asking a Foreign Government for political favors.
I hope I'm wrong, but I'm beginning to wonder whether your party has lost its sense of moral and ethical righteousness. Like when Reagan was President. Hence, I dare you to prove me wrong:
If you discovered your wife payed off several men for hush money purposes, would you be ok with that? (And are you ok with the vulgar language Trump uses to refer to women?) Should that be the new normal?
Be honest with us.
Haha, ok then. "Give me examples! No not those examples!"
You also asked this:
Quoting NOS4A2
Using a call, made in your official function as president, to ask a foreign leader to meet with your personal attorney to discuss investigations, the topics of which you also personally specify.
I think the Mueller report was an anti-Trump witch hunt. I’m not ok with it because no one was convicted of the non-crime of Russian collusion for which they were being investigated. It was an unjust fishing expedition.
I don’t care about the GOP nor their political leanings. Completely irrelevant.
That would be a misrepresentation of my argument, a lie. Your assumption, without evidence, is that it was a political favor.
My party? I am unaffiliated to any party.
I didn’t ask for examples of the media word-policing.
The Ukrainian president brought up Guilliani and the investigation. Trump only said he would get Guilliani to call the Ukrainian president.
Here’s the Biden sentence. Where does it mention Guilliani?
“The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son,. that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.”
I'm a little confused with some of those answers, LOL , I'll ask again:
1. If you discovered your wife payed off several men for hush money purposes, would you be ok with that? (And are you ok with the vulgar language Trump uses to refer to women?) Should that be the new normal? If you were a teacher, what would you tell young kids, is that OK?
2. Why were at least 6 people from his campaign convicted of wrong doing?
3. I thought you voted for the GOP/Trump, no? Is there a distinction?
4. Asking a Foreign Government to perform a "favor", which was the word used from the first transcript is ok to you? Rudy G. confirmed that no?
Be honest with us.
I’m an unaffiliated voter. Do you know what that means?
Sorry, your questions are borderline ridiculous, especially if you’re just going to dismiss my answers and reframe the questions with weird and loaded hypotheticals and counterfactuals.
"Whatever facts conflict with my worldview are merely media word-policing"
Quoting NOS4A2
And also that it would be great if the Ukrainian president would talk to Guiliani. But you're right that the Ukrainian President did bring up Guiliani.
Quoting NOS4A2
It doesn't. I don't think it's necessary to repeat "and also speak with Guiliani about that" in every sentence though.
But see, you're already busy doing exactly what I outlined above. Focusing solely on the transcript, and not the things implied by it, while intepreting all of Trumps statements in the most positive light.
So rather than noting that Trump sent his lawyer to Ukraine beforehand, and then followed that up with bringing that topic up again - immediately after Zelenskyy talked about military aid - on an official congratulatory phone call, you merely note that Zelenskyy brought up Guiliani. But according ot the whistleblower complaint, the only reason Zelenskyy immediately thought about Guiliani and mentioned him was that the phone call was only part of a concerted effort.
"I’m an unaffiliated voter. Do you know what that means?"
"Sorry, your questions are borderline ridiculous, especially if you’re just going to dismiss my answers and reframe the questions with weird and loaded hypotheticals and counterfactuals. "
It's Ok, take a deep breath, we are all just trying to get to the truth.
1. Ok, yes I know what that means. Are you a moderate independent like me then?
2. Please try to answer these questions. They are very important particularly for those who may want to vote in 2020:
A. If you discovered your wife payed off several men for hush money purposes, would you be ok with that? (And are you ok with the vulgar language Trump uses to refer to women?) Should that be the new normal? If you were a teacher, what would you tell young kids, is that OK?
B. Why were at least 6 people from his campaign convicted of wrong doing?
C.. Asking a Foreign Government to perform a "favor", which was the word used from the first transcript is ok to you? Rudy G. confirmed that no?
D. Is Mexico paying for the wall yet?
Please be honest with us if you can.
Pure fantasy.
You left out that he specifically said “so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great”. So not only did he not mention Guilliani in relation to Biden, he was speaking about working with the Attorney General.
How will you spin that?
As you might be aware, there is a current investigation into Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election. It is not only appropriate, but prudent to ask the Ukrainian president questions regarding that episode.
I think it's unlikely he'd want Zelenskyy to only talk with Guiliani about the DNC server, but not the Biden investigation. I can think of no reason he'd want Guiliani involved in one investigation, but not in the other. It's not like Guiliani is a technical expert related to one of the topics but not the other.
This is feckless. The title of of the report is: "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election". There was ample evidence of Russian interference. There were convictions based on the investigation, including close associates of Trump. The introduction to V olume II makes clear why Trump was not indicted. Contrary to what Trump claimed, he was not exonerated. To the contrary, the report states:
If it were a witch-hunt they would not have been prevented from reaching the conclusion that he was guilty. Mueller played by the book, providing information and leaving it to others to reach conclusions. That is not how a witch-hunt works. But Trump without any evidence declares it a witch-hunt and you as a true believer repeat his words as if they are an incantation to ward off evil. Never mind what the report actually says, Trump declares it a "witch-hunt", "fake news", "a hoax", "a fishing expedition", and the faithful repeat his words and believe that to be the end of the matter. In the words of your lord and savior: sad.
Again, the Ukrainian president brought up Gulliani.
Trump on Giuliani.
The Ukrainian president brought up Giuliani, expressing that “we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet”
Trump responds, saying he will get Giuliani to call. Nothing about an investigation in regards to Giuliani.
Your night in shining armor, Mueller, waged a massive fishing expedition, and arrested exactly zero Americans for the crimes of Russian collusion to influence the election, any crimes related to helping Russia, which you conspiracy theorists went on about for years.
Ok folks, it's official, he can't answer my questions! The dude can't man-up!!!
Is he scared, I wonder? Would you care to debate me one on one? I think the voters deserve the truth!!
LOL
You won’t respond to my answers. Scared I wonder? Can’t man up?
I challenge you to debate me one on one!!!! Start a thread. You did NOT answer my questions, well ok maybe one. LOL
Put up or shut up LOL
If our resolution is about Donald Trump, it should remain right here. What resolution do you propose?
Because Trump had sent Guiliani to talk with Zelenskyys assisstant beforehand. Or do you think the two just randomly met?
Quoting NOS4A2
Nothing except the entire context of that part of the conversation. As this sentence towards the end illustrates:
" I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it."
But it's par for the course for you to focus on individual sentences in order to obfuscate the actual communication going on.
I wish to uncover the truth about your Donald Trump. The reason is because I want people of this great country to be informed and ready for 2020.
Through our discussion and debate, I predict there will be contradictions, lies, and unethical behavior unbecoming of the Republican Party/Trump. It may even mirror other Presidents like Nixon and Clinton. I will cross over to any and all relevant domains, including the religious-right who also supports him. It will cover all topics of relevant to Philosophy, Psychology and Political Philosophy.
It will also uncover truth about his business dealings, track records as a slum lord, taxes, and ethical behavior unbecoming of what we deserve as a President.
I assert he has not drained the Swamp. He is part of the Swamp.
Can you deal with that tough guy?
That might be an issue. According to Giuliani it was the state dept. that requested he travel to Ukraine. I think if Trump personally requested him to do it, Trump might be in trouble.
Trump’s favor was in regards to Ukrainian meddling in the US elections, crowdstrike. It wasn’t until after the Zelensky brought up Giuliani, expressed hope for a meeting, that Trump mentioned getting Giuliani to call him. That’s the context.
I won’t stop you from doing anything. This thread is for that purpose, and in fact, from the looks of it, you have a vast consensus and monstrous library of yellow journalism to help you.
But I’m not required to participate in any of it. I know you’re going to tell one side of the story and will suppress all evidence to the contrary. You’re going to assume Trump’s motives, and swing away at the little effigy you’ve created. You don’t like the guy; I get it.
Look dude, I prayed for the guy. But he is who he is. I've waited, and have had faith, and have also given him the benefits of doubt. But the guy has disappointed and has fallen short in many areas, and has proven me wrong. He keeps doing the same thing. We deserve better dude.
Does that mean all Presidents are perfect? Of course not. but you won't admit to any wrong doing. And you apparently don't think we do deserve better. So I'm going to challenge that!!!
Hey, you might even learn a little something about the danger's of dichotomizing [your sense of logic] politics.
Again, put up or shut up man!
LOL
What has he fallen short on? He’s not even at the end of his first term.
Is Trump suggesting that leakers should be executed? Certainly sounds like it.
Mueller is hardly my knight in shining armor. He was guided by precedent not law. He assiduously refused to state conclusions. This was certainly to Trump's benefit even if not for his benefit. I am of two minds about this. On the one hand I understand the reasoning behind it, but on the other, by ignoring established custom and indicted Trump he would have been free to state allegations.
Calling it a fishing expedition distorts the facts. If it were a fishing expedition it would be catch and release, but Mueller refused to even make accusations because he thought it unfair to Trump to do so since Trump could not provide a legal defense unless he was indicted.
You cling to the non-legal term "collusion" as if it were a life-savor. Manafort, Gates, Cohen, and other close associates of Trump were found guilty of or admitted to crimes related to Trump's election, including obstruction of justice.
The Mueller report stated that it did not find sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities", but this must be viewed in light of 1) the administrations efforts to suppress information and 2) Mueller's refusal to make accusations that Trump could not defend against since a sitting president could not be indicted. The fact that they did not find sufficient evidence does not mean that they did not find any evidence.
This latest case is much more damning - smoking gun and bleeding corpse. Again, Congressional Republicans have been so corrupted by The Don that they’re defending the indefensible, but impeachment has to be brought against Trump for violating his oath of office. To do otherwise would be to let corruption and criminality stand. Trump has to be brought to account, hopefully removed from office and ultimately jailed for his crimes.
The purview of the investigation was Russian interference in the 2016 election and any other matters that arise from the investigation. Americans were arrested for the “any other matters that arise from the investigation”, unrelated to Russian interference, collusion, spying, influencing the elections. That’s a fishing expedition par excellence. Manafort and gates and Cohen for crimes unrelated to the Trump campaign, and Russia.
I mention collusion because that’s the word that was beaten in our heads. Suspected collusion, possible coordination, whatever you want to call it, is the exact reason the administration spied on Americans, a political campaign, in the lead up to the election. This spying, these now arbitrary show-trials, leaks, the accusations—I repeat, not a single American was charged or indicted on the core conspiracy theory of whether there was any conspiracy or coordination with Russia over the election
Yep I just heard that.
BTW this guy doesn't want to debate me I think he's scared LOL
Come on tough guy are you scared?
Or are you just full of hot air... LOL
I’ve answered many of your questions but you won’t answer one of mine. Scared?
Debate me one on one. And I will make you cry like a baby LOL!!!!
Please, if you want to get started, make a case, whatever, just start.
Yay, ok awesome! I'll start a thread soon. And no worries, if you chicken out I'll understand!
The public needs to know the truth, an expose you and your (Trump's) ideology for what it is LOL!!!
If it involves Donald Trump put it here. We don’t need to poison these boards with trump debates.
No I want to debate you one-on-one and prove that I will beat you !!!
Are you man enough to take the challenge?
They are not unrelated. The problem is that, as the report states and I said above, the relationship could not be legally established by the investigation because of obstruction of justice and the limits of the investigation.
This is why so many have pushed for an impeachment investigation. The constraints under which the Mueller investigation operated no longer apply.
Quoting NOS4A2
And I repeat, this is not evidence of their innocence. Trump has done everything he can to prevent any investigation into his activities. He can call it fishing expedition but it seems highly unlikely that he would try to prevent the investigations if he was not worried about who might get caught.
You might think it is all a hoax, but whether or not it is cannot be determined without an investigation, and, tellingly, you and Trump would like nothing more than to prevent the investigations from proceeding.
One more point: the idea that a sitting president should not be indicted is based on the concern that this would take up too much of his time and energy and prevent him from doing his job. But Trump has and will continue to spend a great deal of time and energy suppressing any and all investigations.
It’s not evidence of their guilt either. Investigations such as Mueller’s are not designed to prove innocence or exonerate anyone; they are to prove guilt. This is simple due process.
Yes, I do not believe in unjust and arbitrary investigations without probable cause, spying on political campaigns, and perpetual investigations for non-crimes. That’s not justice. That’s tyranny.
Mueller was quite clear that he was not going to prove guilt for the very reason that without an indictment there could be no due process, and he had no intention of indicting. He left all that to Congress.
Quoting NOS4A2
It is evident that you do not understand what probable cause means. You are spinning in circles and digging yourself deeper and deeper into the hole you are trying to extricate yourself from. You may think the investigations unjust and arbitrary but saying so does not make it so.
Breaking news I just learned that the White House locked down the transcripts from this Ukraine discussion on a special file server....
Yes, this was discussed in the hearings today. Just another attempt by Trump to obstruct justice under the rubric of executive privilege.
Whatever the results of the investigations and the election, I think we will see explicit limits but on executive power. The Republicans may not go along if Trump is re-elected but certainly will if a Democrat is. They may go along sooner or later anyway because sooner or later a Democrat will be elected president and they certainly do not want a Democrat to be able to do what Trump is doing.
Ha I hear you. That Trumper dude on this thread is in denial of that very thing.
And he's afraid to debate me 1on 1 LOL
Mueller also said this:
“Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty”. He said this in regards to the Russians. The presumption of innocence a bedrock of the American legal system.
What did he say of the President of the United States?
“If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so.”
That’s a perversion of of the presumption of innocence. Mueller’s standard is completely unknown to the American legal system. It’s fake, phoney, a sham. special counsel regulations require the special counsel to follow DOJ rules, which includes the presumption of innocence.
Guys I'm sorry I'm late to the game but I just heard that Trump is suggesting execution of the whistleblower....this is unbelievable.... Can someone bring that quote up for all of us to see, if not I'll find it and try to post it... !!!!!
It is not. You are in over your head. You are throwing around legal terms now without any understanding of what they mean.
I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that’s close to a spy,” Trump told staffers with the United States Mission to the United Nations this morning, according to the New York Times. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right? We used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”
Dude, I know why you don't want it to debate me...Wow . You gotta be embarrassed. What do you tell your children?
How is it not? Show me how far I am in over my head. I don’t mind being corrected.
I’ve given you thousands of opportunities to begin making your case. I don’t know what you’re waiting for.
First you would need to take your head out of your ass.
I've told you before I don't want to be distracted, it's you and me one-on-one so I could beat you and only you!
Let me know when you got the balls to do it, I'll be happy to oblige
Oh and by the way you can still participate in this thread we'll just start another one...
I’ll wait.
Out of respect to the board and mods, here would be best. Begin any time.
Honestly, the sooner the better, but that is up to you. You seem to like the view.
Nope I told you dude, it's you and me, a heavyweight title fight.
I will call it something like ' the 2020 election'...
Either I’m in over my head or not. What was I wrong about?
Start by researching the legal concepts of the presumption of innocence and probable cause.
Trump doesn't even seem to comprehend what he's done - that's the astonishing thing about it. He can't understand that he could have done anything wrong, in his own eyes he's 'perfect'.
But it's the Republicans who really hold his fate in their hands. Several, including Romney, are saying that 'this is serious, it's an impeachable offense'. If that takes root amongst more Republicans and begins to snowball, then things could develop very quickly.
The other sub-plot is Giuliani's activities in the Ukraine. He's blindsided a lot of career diplomats and State Department people crashing around trying to find evidence of a non-existent crime.
It's going to be ugly but hopefully at the end of it, the boil will be lanced and America and the rest of the world can resume normal programming.
The election is not far off. The Republicans need to seriously consider who their candidate for presidency will be.
Ageed I would like to see a moderate Republican in there someone like Kasich....
I'm definitely fine with a moderate Democrat but I'm not feeling Biden...
Man we really need some moderates to step up
Simple due process is that courts establish guilt. Investigations establish the facts and whether or not these facts are sufficient to indict.
Quoting NOS4A2
What nonsense. If the presumption of innocence prevented an investigator from establishing anything other than guilt and innocence, how would they establish the probable cause you're so keen on?
A prosecutor can tell you the degree of suspicion they have. That's not a violation of the presumption of innocence.
You're just pretending not to know what any of us are talking about.
The Attorney General had to step in and issue a verdict because oddly the Special Council wouldn’t do it, which is why Barr wrote “no obstruction” in his letter to Congress. You cannot violate the president’s civil liberties.
He had this to say to Congress in a testimony that very matter,
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/opening-statement-attorney-general-william-p-barr-senate-judiciary-committee
But no, for Mueller worshipers, “not exonerated” is their new burden of proof. All they needed was a little authoritarian claptrap in order to assume guilt.
Why does an investigation "have to" issue a verdict?
Quoting NOS4A2
What is it that you like to say? Ah yes - pure fantasy.
The DOJ is to determine whether crimes have been committed and to prosecute those crimes under the principles of federal prosecution.
It's probably more accurate to say that the DOJ exercises oversight over the different prosecutors, whose job it is to investigate and prosecute possible crimes.
It's the job of the courts to determine whether crimes have been committed.
None of that means Barr "had to" step in and deliver a verdict.
What? The point of a court is to administer justice.
Law enforcement such as the DOJ determines whether crimes are committed.
Err, no. That would be a violation of the presumption of innocence. And "Law enforcement" is too broad anyways, since it includes the police, which is not a judicial organ. The DOJ straddles the boundary between executive and judicative.
Quoting NOS4A2
And for criminal courts, that means to determine whether a crime (as defined by the law) has been committed by the accused, for which the accused is guilty.
Uh yeah. The special council was determining whether crimes were being committed, and in fact determined many crimes were committed.
The courts determine innocence and guilt and sentencing.
He determined there was sufficient cause to suspect those crimes were committed, hence the indictments. But a prosecutor can not go further than to indict someone, and being indicted isn't proof you have committed a crime. Similarly, not being indicted isn't proof you haven't.
Under the presumption of innocence, only a court of law can establish definitively whether or not someone has committed a crime.
Quoting NOS4A2
So, a court does not need to determine whether or not a crime has been committed in order to determine innocence and guilt?
I didn’t mean that the special council convicted people of crimes. Only that they were determine whether crimes were being committed, ie conspiracy, obstruction, perjury etc. They can and do conclude that people commit crimes.
Under the presumption of innocence one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Because they could not conclude whether Trump committed a crime, he is still presumed innocent. Instead their standard is “not exonerated”, a fake standard which is inimical to civil liberties.
I am not a lawyer, but neither Mueller or Barr said they should be pursued.
You keep repeating this. The simple fact is, Mueller found ample evidence that crimes had been committed, however was not empowered to bring charges as his office was not able to charge a sitting President. The message from Mueller, as clear as day, was essentially that it was up to Congress to bring charges, which, much to their disgrace, they did not.
However, as of this week, there is now 'smoking gun' evidence of Trump breaking federal electoral law, to wit, seeking assistance from a foreign power for his own political advantage. There is every chance that articles of impeachment will be filed against Trump in October. Of course it is true that the Senate may choose to acquit but nobody should be under any illusion that what Trump has done is not a criminal act.
This is fine as ordinary language use, but it's imprecise.
When a prosecutor determines that a crime has been committed, that means he thinks he has sufficient evidence to indict and prosecute.
You originally claimed that Barr "had to" issue a "verdict", and I still don't see any justification for that claim.
Quoting NOS4A2
He would actually still be presumed innocent even if they indicted him.
Quoting NOS4A2
Who is "they"? Mueller was apparently aware that "not exonerated" is not something he can formally establish, hence he did not use those terms. Trump came up with the claim he had been exonerated, which is false. Presumption of innocence is not the same as being exonerated.
The statement Mueller did make in front of Congress was a careful one, that only referenced his conclusions. Prosecutors can and do conclude whether or not the evidence is so weak, or the counter evidence so strong, that it seems certain that no crime has been committed. In such a case, the subject of the investigation may formally be exonerated, which is merely a public statement, which doesn't have any legal standing and isn't binding, to the effect that there is no reasonable suspicion they committed a crime
In other words, no amount of evidence would have led Mueller to state Trump committed a crime and no amount of evidence would make it possible for prosecutors to indict Trump. But certainly a certain amount of evidence he did not commit a crime, would led him to have stated Trump was innocent unequivocally pursuant to the first paragraph I quoted.
It is then disingenuous to suggest Trump is innocent because Barr and Mueller claim it cannot be pursued. In fact, Mueller even explains the Consitution requires "a process other than the criminal justice sytem" to accuse Trump.
He did not, as the Attorney General ofThe United States concluded. No collusion. No obstruction. Mueller could have concluded Trump committed crimes, but it appears he wanted to give you a little show trial instead, and of course did so until well after the 2018 election.
The campaign finance accusation was sent to the DOJ and roundly dismissed. This is a political ploy and anti-Trumpists are falling for it—again. Investigations into the Russia investigation is almost complete. Investigation into the FISA abuses are almost complete. Hold on to your hat.
There's a problem with this. The accusation of FISA abuse entails that the reigning administration of the time (e.g. Obama's) and law enforcement agencies (e.g. the FBI) cannot necessarily be trusted to operate within the law and will let their political biases drive their decision-making.
And so of course the same can be said about Barr. He's a Republican Trump-appointee, and his decision not to press charges and to exonerate Trump is politically driven bias, as the evidence collected by Mueller does in fact indicate criminal wrongdoing – and perhaps the next administration will conduct their own investigation into DOJ abuses re. the handling of the Mueller investigation.
That’s very true. Hopefully the FISA court and the DOJ gets a massive overhaul.
This is contrary to what Mueller has repeatedly said. See my previous post on the matter directly quoting him. This is also in Volume 2 of the Mueller report, which you claim to have read.
So what reason do you have to assume other reasons than those given in the report and repeated by him multiple times?
I made the same point yesterday. Either NOS is unable to understand it or chooses to ignore it because it undermines his argument. If it is the former than arguing with him will be as pointless as arguing with a child about things she is not able to comprehend. If the latter then the question is who NOS is trying to convince, him or herself or someone else.
I reckon Bernie or Warren will be the Democrat nominee.
But it’s thoroughly consistent with the Attorney general’s judgement on the matter, which I hope you’re aware of.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/opening-statement-attorney-general-william-p-barr-senate-judiciary-committee
You referred to Mueller’s report to maintain that his reasoning was sound. I’m referring to the Attorney General and American law that shows that it’s quite the opposite. No, you cannot indict a sitting president, but the special prosecutor can conclude whether the president committed a crime.
I didn't know if you saw this, but I stumbled upon it reading your other thread. Since you didn't respond to me over there, I thought maybe the 'public' over here could offer some guidance on it. What happened here you think? Are you concerned about this?
A Secret Racist Code
The lawsuit—which Trump Management settled in 1975 with a consent decree, and which they noted at the time did not constitute an admission of wrongdoing—detailed numerous instances of a racial code that Trump-owned buildings allegedly used to indicate if an applicant was black or otherwise “undesirable.”
A super who worked for the Trumps, Thomas Miranda, allegedly told the DOJ that Trump Management staffers had instructed him to “attach a separate sheet of paper to every application submitted by a prospective ‘colored’ renter.”
“Miranda was to write a ‘C’ in order to indicate to management that the prospective renter was ‘colored,’” the DOJ noted in court documents.
Elyse Goldweber, an attorney on the case, claimed Miranda had been reluctant to talk to her and have his name disclosed because “he was afraid that the Trumps would have him ‘knocked off.’” Miranda was also allegedly afraid to reveal to the Trumps that he was Puerto Rican and instead told them he was South American because he thought they “did not want Puerto Ricans living or working in the building,” according to Goldweber’s documentation.
In another instance, Goldweber said, Miranda told another tenant that Trump’s central office did not want him to rent to an Indian man—and that they only agreed to rent to the individual after they found out he had United Nations connections and that a rejection “might cause an unnecessary confrontation.”
NOS, I believe this was settled out of court. It's a shame tax dollars were waisted to litigate it. Swamp in, swamp out I suppose.
Yeah, you’re pretty good at believing accusations without have bothered with the defense.
I am aware that Barr, a Trump appointee, claimed no crime was committed. But then I'm not the one on record in this thread misrepresenting Mueller countless times which was what we were talking about. Can we now agree that it is incorrect to conclude that Mueller established no crime was committed?
Then we can move unto Barr. Before going into the details, maybe you can tell me what you know so far.
Are you aware of the content of the Barr memo? Are you aware of Barr's letter to Congress and what it said? Are you aware of the material differences between his representation of the report in that letter and the facts described in the Mueller report? Are you aware what Mueller himself said about Barr's characterisation?
Once you are capable of answering yes to all those questions what is then your reason for maintaining that we should accept Barr's assessment on face value? And assuming for the sake of argument there are good reasons to accept his assessment (I think his assessment is wrong), why is it not possible and reasonable that other people can come to another assessment? And if that is indeed possible how then would you suggest we move from there to get to some agreement in this thread? (I think there's a straightforward way to move from there but I don't want to lead what should be a dialog too much).
But you do not have to. Barr's comments confirm that there is a binary choice to make - you indict, or you don't. Mueller made that choice - he declined to indict. The reason he gave for this were procedural, and procedural reasons are sufficient.
The idea that Mueller, or any other prosecutor, needs to make his assessment of the facts public when a case cannot proceed for procedural reasons seems to be invented out of whole cloth.
Barr's loyalty to Trump rather than the country and his deceit may bring his down along with Trump. But he is in a unique position and he may still be able to protect the president and himself. It may be that Barr's motivation is his vision of the unitary executive rather than allegiance to Trump the man but since Trump is the president it amounts to the same thing. Perhaps the allegiance only extends to a Republican or conservative president though. In any case, he has shown himself to be partisan rather than the impartial advocate for the United States that the position requires.
What I said was that Mueller was guided by precedent not law and that I understand the reasoning behind it, but by ignoring established custom and indicted Trump he would have been free to state allegations. Apparently such complexity is too much for the limits of your "Trump good those who oppose Trump bad" understanding.
I’ve never stated Mueller establish no crime was committed. I’ve only stated and implied that he did not prove guilt of any crime. But yes we can agree it is incorrect to state that proposition.
I am aware of all of the above.
The Mueller report is a report for the DOJ, the Attorney General William Barr, who had to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime because Mueller refused to.
How did Barr show himself to be partisan? Just more breathless accusations.
Hey Nos, about his character viz racism, did you see this about his dad too? Seems like it's running in the family background.
BTW I'm starting a new thread about impeachment, so if you want to grow some balls, come on over LOL
The article:
Side-by-side photographs on Facebook of President Donald Trump and his father Fred Trump attempt to show a family pattern of white supremacy.
"Donald Trump: A white supremacist...just like dad," reads large text in a post shared by the group Anti-Trump USA on Feb. 25.
On Donald Trump's side, the post highlights his partial quote from a news conference that there were "fine people on both sides" after a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va.
Beneath a photo of Fred Trump, the text states he was "arrested participating in KKK riot" in 1927.
The post contains some elements of truth about Fred Trump: He was arrested that year in connection with a clash between the KKK and police amid a parade in Queens. But the post goes beyond what is known about his actions to say he was "participating."
The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) A spokesman for the White House did not comment for the story.
The arrest
The story of Fred Trump’s arrest at a KKK rally has challenged reporters even before his son entered the 2016 presidential race.
The KKK riot broke out during the May 30, 1927, Memorial Day parade in Jamaica, Queens, N.Y., according to archives from The Brooklyn Daily Eagle.
A week prior, police commissioner Joseph Warren was warned that the Klan intended to parade in hoods and gowns. Warren said they were not issued a permit to have a parade, but a report later said the KKK had permission from the Grand Army of the Republic, a veterans’ organization that had charge of the parade arrangements.
However, on the day of the parade, police were unable to keep at least 1,000 Klansmen from participating. The New York Times stated that "1,000 Klansmen and 100 policemen staged a free-for-all battle in Jamaica."
Fred Trump, then 21, was arrested at the parade along with six others, according to the New York Times. (His address was listed as 175-25 Devonshire Road, Jamaica, which matched the 1930 Census.) However, unlike the other men arrested who faced various charges of assault and disorderly conduct, the Times reported that Trump "was discharged."
We checked other reports of the riot to find more information — and found some discrepancies. A May 31, 1927, Brooklyn Daily Eagle article named six prisoners and all but one, bystander Ralph Losee, were called "avowed Klansmen" by the police. But this article did not mention Trump's name.
You’re just repeating Trump’s lies.
His truths, you mean. You’re lying to yourself.
Compare the Mueller report to Barr's summary.
If you don’t know why or are not willing to share why Barr is partisan, why make the claim?
It is no secret and not hard to see, but if you are going to learn you need to do the work yourself.
More breathless accusations. This is the going rate with anti-Trumpism.
Let’s not forget that John Mitchell, who was AG under Nixon, went to jail.
The release of the 'rough transcript'
Recall that it hasn't been a week yet since the latest crisis blew up. Word got out about the supposed phone call between Trump and Zelensky. So the White House agreed to release a transcript of the call. And amazingly, Trump and others in the White House thought this would clear the matter up - like, 'when we publish this, everyone will see that it's all just a fake story'. When, in fact, it showed that Trump was saying exactly what he had been accused of, he acted surprised, baffled, hurt. 'It was a perfect phone call', he kept saying.
He can't see that he's committed a crime here. He actually doesn't comprehend that what he's done is wrong, even though it's obvious. Which is another reason his presidency is such a nightmare - he genuinely can't tell the difference between facts and lies, truth and fiction. He doesn't just pretend not to, he really can't tell. Scary.
Again a mischaracterisation. Mueller didn't refuse, he believed he was bound by department policy that he wasn't allowed to and that indeed Barr's assessment contravenes this policy. In any case, you didn't answer the question about why you (uncritically) accept Barr's assessment. Why is that?
You do this all the time and it's annoying. You never answer questions.
How can you defend this guy?
Because Ginsberg is going to die and the Supreme court will lean heavily toward the right for generations with one more Trump pick.
Answering questions is not in the interest of spreading pro-Trump propaganda. If he'd answer questions, especially questions about his view on policy questions, his agenda would be obvious and he could no longer pretend to be a rational observer.
Quoting Michael
It's not necessarily about defending Trump, but about keeping Trump in office so he can destroy the political institutions that the alt-right detests. The Bannon strategy.
That is done by making statements of fact. That's all NOS4A2 does, states "the facts" over and over again.
I think that part of the problem is that he runs the government in the same way he ran his business, where such "favors" are common practice. What is to his advantage is to the advantage of his business and so what is his advantage must be to the advantage of the country. As long as he could get money from somewhere, default on debts, declare multiple bankruptcies, and go to foreign countries when no one in the U.S. would lend him money everything was beautiful.
Quoting NOS4A2
Challenging you to compare the Mueller report to Barr's summary is not an accusation. To make it easier compare Mueller's own summary to Barr's and get back to us.
You asked seven questions. I answered many of them. But I never answer questions? Your lies are annoying.
I’m not a lawyer, but Barr’s assessment makes sense: that little problem of proving corrupt intent, especially in an investigation with no underlying crime, is difficult if not impossible. With no evidence of corrupt intent, it doesn’t rise to the level of obstruction. Barr is the top legal advisor in the United States. Excuse me while I defer to his judgement.
So why do you (uncritically) accept Mueller’s judgement? Why do you discount and discredit Barr’s?
I have. So what’s partisan about Barr’s judgement again?
Are they in agreement? Does Barr accurately represent what Mueller said?
Here is one of many comparisons that can be found online:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/mueller-report-william-barr-excerpts.html
According to Barr’s testimony to Congress, Barr talked to Mueller on the phone and asked whether his letter (so-called summary) was inaccurate. Mueller said “No”. Is Mueller wrong?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?459922-1/william-barr-testifies-mueller-report-senate-judiciary-committee&start=2455
Your party may be imploding a little bit:
1. During the campaign Donald Trump promised that Mexico was going to pay for the wall.
2. The US Department of Defense is diverting an estimated $3.6 billion in military construction funds to help build the wall.
3. It appears Donald Trump once again lied to the American people.
Are you concerned? If not, share with the taxpayer your logic?
As I’ve previously stated I’m an unaffiliated voter. Do you know what that means?
Hey, he tried. What more can you ask for?
Fair enough. But it begs more questions:
1. Trump used the Mexican border wall payment promise to help get elected.
2. He was largely unsuccessful at that campaign promise.
3. Donald Trump said he was going to drain the Swamp from such broken promises.
3. Arguably he is now part of the Swamp team.
Honestly does that concern you?
He was largely unsuccessful at getting Mexico to pay for the wall, but through pressure of the Mexican president, the threat of tariffs, he effectively made Mexico into an ally in the illegal immigration crisis. They are cracking down on illegal immigration, using their own resources, and apparently it’s working very well. Thanks, Mexico!
Once again fair enough. But, Trump's deportation numbers are down compared to the previous administration.
What’s wrong with that?
Well to be clearer, most supporters including independent moderates like myself never had an issues with separating families as a deterrent to illegal immigration. The concerns would be two-fold:
1. Last year why didn't he just hold a news conference and explain to the public his rationale for tough love treatment/deterrent, and impart his deep empathy of such treatment. He could have sold it better to the public, but it can't seem to separate public relation skills versus negotiation and diplomacy.
2. Since he sold to the voters he would enforce our immigration laws , it appears contradictory since his deportation numbers are below the previous administrations numbers.
As an apparent libertarian your political views align with the current administration to a large degree. Trump is not truly conservative, liberal, or even libertarian for that matter. The best description of his politics might simply be ‘dictator wannabe’. He’ll do anything to gain power, basically.
Quoting NOS4A2
He lied. We can ask for less empty promises and threats, because it diminishes the office and makes us look like idiots to the rest of the world.
I must say your argument is very persuasive...
It's kind of funny ( and ironic) his base is all against political correctness and you hit the nail on the head accordingly...
Rather than compare the summaries you take Barr's word for it. You are either incapable of or unwilling to see how their accounts differ. Either way there is no point in continuing.
You answered yes that you were aware of several documents and statements yet nothing in your answers reflect actually knowledge of them. That's why I followed up with a substantive question that you now say if because he's the expert on this matter. I already anticipated that with another question: what if reasonable people disagree? Well?
One of the issues that will be addressed is with regard to obstruction of justice. Barr claims that the primary statute does not apply to the president. Whatever the merits of his claim I think we will see legislation proposed on the question of presidential powers and limits. Whether or not such legislation will be passed depends on whether Republicans remain in the majority in the next election and whether the next president will be a Democrat or Republican. A Republican majority will be far more likely to pass such legislation with the prospect of a Democratic president.
Here's the rundown on CrowdStrike. In short, Trump believes that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was actually behind the whole Wikileaks of DNC emails fiasco. And this is straight out of the Kremlin playbook - Russia planted the idea that really, the alleged Russian interference in the Presidential campaign was the work of the Democrats. Then all these Alt-right and Q-ANON nutcases picked it up along with all their other conspiracy theory rubbish. And Trump is desperate to believe it! He so much wanted that to be true, so he can turn the whole Mueller investigation back on the Democrats. So desperate, that he's had Rudy Giuliani charging around the Ukraine trying to find 'evidence' of what was only ever a disinformation campaign in the first place. That's what's lead to this whole situation - hoist by his own petard.
Barr’s letter wasn’t a summary. He went over this in his testimony.
You told me Barr was partisan. I asked how. You said Barr’s “summary” was different. That’s neither proof nor even an argument in regards to Barr’s partisanship. There is no point in continuing with those who can only accuse.
More likely wishful thinking. (I'm right there wishing with you, though :smile: )
I’m not a lawyer, but Barr’s assessment makes sense: that little problem of proving corrupt intent, especially in an investigation with no underlying crime, is difficult if not impossible. With no evidence of corrupt intent, it doesn’t rise to the level of obstruction. Barr is the top legal advisor in the United States. Excuse me while I defer to his judgement.
So why do you (uncritically) accept Mueller’s judgement? Why do you discount and discredit Barr’s?
Someone has to turn this ship around. It looks like Trump is the one doing it.
We’ve had enough of the eloquent lawyers speaking in glittering generalities and pontificating on our shared humanity. All they could do was talk and be politically correct. Meanwhile the rest of the world bled us dry and we became a shell of ourselves. The office was diminished and sold to the highest bidder a long time ago.
There is a DOJ investigation going on to understand the activities of U.S. and foreign intelligence services as well as non-governmental organizations related to the 2016 election and beyond. This investigation is multi-faceted and large in scope. The man heading up that investigation, John Durham, has his sights on Ukraine. The Dems, the CIA, and the deep-state republicans are sweating. This whistleblower charade is their last-ditch effort.
The whistleblower report was gossip, deep-state dinner theater. Zero first hand knowledge. It mentions names that Trump doesn’t, and even cites twitter and the NYT. It’s a CIA charade.
Again, you didn't answer it and are just repeating yourself. What if reasonable people disagree? What then? How do you suggest to resolve this on the particular subject of corrupt intent? And while you're at it, what's the legal standard to impeach? Is corrupt intent required? In other words, is it even relevant?
As to Mueller's judgment; this is just a silly attempt to distract from your lack of arguments. What's Mueller's judgment on this matter again? Oh right, he doesn't have one...
Talk about uncritically accepting a story.
Quoting NOS4A2
This is another of Trump's taking points. I dont expect you actually believe this, but on the off-chance that you do: in what way is America "bled dry"? I thought the economy was doing great?
He's probably not going to be removed, Wayfarer. He has powerful and seasoned allies.
Lindsay Graham has already outlined the strategy. The NRA is consulting. What does the State Dept. have to do with it?
Pretty much.
The Inspector General spoke to the whistleblower's informants and believes them to be credible.
From the letter:
That is by definition a summary. What he presents are not the principle conclusions reached by Mueller. The differences between what Mueller reported and Barr's summary are due either to ineptitude or a deliberate attempt to mislead to protect Trump. I think it is clear that Barr is not inept, so why would he deliberately mislead if he was not partisan?
If reasonable people tell me they disagree, then hopefully they have a reasonable reason as to why they do.
So tell me, why do accept Mueller’s judgement? Why do you discount and discredit Barr’s? I’ve told you why I agree with Barr’s assessment, so why don’t you tell me why don’t?
No, presenting the principle conclusions of an investigation is not a summary of that investigation. Barr stresses the reason’s why in his testimony to Congress.
Reduced taxes for the rich, deregulation, increased military spending, more border fencing... yeah, real groundbreaking stuff.
Quoting NOS4A2
Like the typical Trump supporter, you probably believe that Obama (eloquent lawyer) caused the great recession and it was Trump who turned it around. You're probably unable to acknowledge any of Obama's accomplishments.
To be a Trump supporter is to be unconcerned with truth.
And the results are? Great economy, increased wages, more jobs you can shake a stick at, a stronger border, the end of the caliphate, and the US is no longer the laughing stock of the Middle East, China and Russia. We’re winning.
I liked Obama. I voted for him twice. You can ask me what I believe instead of assuming it. No, the previous administrations pulled us out of the Great Recession by spending our money. That’s not an accomplishment to me.
I wasn't referring to our disagreement on the matter but the fact that Barr and Mueller disagree. You're appealing to authority and it makes me wonder why you think you're incapable of making up your own mind based on the facts as reported in the Mueller report.
As said, Mueller doesn't reach a judgment so it's not what I'm accepting as I already stated in my previous post. I actually read the report, and in the basis of what's relayed in it I disagree with Barr's representation of the "principal conclusions" of it. I don't think he could be considered objective on the matter considering the unsolicited memo taking issue with the entire investigation to begin with. But that's neither here nor there when we can compare the facts of the report with what Barr pretended it said; eg. the facts are there because it's written down.
So I've asked before: Are you aware of the material differences between his representation of the report in that letter and the facts described in the Mueller report? And you said yes, but accept Barr's conclusions while the falsity of them could be readily established.
We are now left with some possible conclusions, none of them very good:
1. You have not, in fact, read the report or the letter or both and lied about it;
2. You have a problem comprehending the English language and erroneously conclude the documents state materially the same thing;
3. You're simply biased and incapable of questioning your own assumptions (did I mention I'm Dutch so I don't have a horse in this race?); or,
4. (I'll help you out here and give it a positive) you think the only worthwhile conclusion was the absence of corrupt intent.
I suspect 1. But let's run with 4. Why did he lie about the principle conclusions of the report? What does it matter what Barr concludes if 1. sitting presidents can't be indicted and 2. corrupt intent is not a requirement for impeachment?
In other words, things don't add up and that's why besides his conclusion being irrelevant I also don't trust his judgment.
I have read both the report and the letter.
As I’ve stated countless times now, I agree with Barr, but not only because he happens to be the top authority in the land, but because I agree with his arguments. I stated the argument I agree with, which you mysteriously leave out in every reply.
That little problem of proving corrupt intent, especially in an investigation with no underlying crime or no interview, is difficult if not impossible. With no evidence of corrupt intent, it doesn’t rise to the level of obstruction. Therefor no obstruction.
Why would you keep avoiding that argument? Some possible conclusions, none of them very good. But I won’t list them because to do so is a massive red herring.
None of which is designed to last. It’s only designed to gain power. We are already beginning to see the signs of decline.
Quoting NOS4A2
True, we’re the laughing stock of the world.
Quoting NOS4A2
I appear to have assumed correctly.
You’re not impressed with increasing the national debt? Then how can you be impressed by Trump?
I've dealt with your "corrupt intent" remark as inconsequential to impeachment at least 2 posts back and again in the last. You're mysteriously dense when arguments fail to agree with your unexamined conclusions.
You've stated the same thing often yes, like a record on repeat, but they are statements not arguments. Which discrepancies have you established between the letter and the report then?
At least Europe.
You responded to my argument with a list of loaded questions, in other words not an argument. You’ve dealt with nothing. What a joke.
That is until you want our protection. Then it’s all grovelling and holding out your hand.
Since Democratic leadership announced the impeachment inquiry there has been a notable uptick in voter favorability towards impeachment. Among all voters the favorability towards impeachment rose 7 points, and increased 5 points among GOP voters, and 6 points among independents. So I'm curious if you still think that a failure to impeach by the Senate will be transformed into a Trump victory come 2020, despite growing support across party lines.
If trying to tease out that you're lying about having read the report and the letter by demanding what factual discrepancies you have established, which everyone knows are there but I'm purposefully not offering up, if a loaded question then guilty as changed. You don't have an argument against the points I'm making. Which discrepancies do the letter and report have?
That said, if it doesn't stick I still think it will be of benefit to Trump during the elections. Plus, I find party loyalty quite extreme in the US, where not voting in a Democrat is more important than the character of a candidate and vice versa.
I always find it enlightening to read Breitbart comments to get a feeling of how others think as well. https://www.breitbart.com/news/rep-adam-schiff-trump-whistleblower-agrees-to-testify-before-congress/
So while a majority of voters probably want impeachment I doubt it matters for the impeachment outcome in a Senate controlled by the Republicans. And then come election time that will be played in favour of the Republicans.
Mueller didn't say that there was no evidence.
It simply came down to the fact that the DOJ policy is that a President can't be indicted.
And it is because a President can't be indicted that he can't be accused.
This is why he brings up the role of Congress.
Sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense. A majority of voters favor impeachment, but when the GOP controlled Senate acquittes him, voters will be spurred to...vote for Trump?
Could not agree more Maw!
Ironically enough I was just making the case for that very thing over the weekend. I think the media is overthinking it.
For instance, let the checks and balances process play out viz impeachment hearings so that the voters can be more informed and better equipped in 2020 regardless of outcome.
Thanks for the good faith here.
[QUOTE]Mueller didn't say that there was no evidence.[/QUOTE]
First, I said there was “no evidence of corrupt intent”, not that there was no evidence. With no evidence of corrupt intent, it doesn’t rise to the level of obstruction. Therefor no obstruction.
From Mueller:
“Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct.”
There could be other possible motives for his conduct, ie. non-corrupt motives. Barr goes into this in his press conference:
“In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.”
[QUOTE]It simply came down to the fact that the DOJ policy is that a President can't be indicted.
[/QUOTE]
Barr’s objection was that Mueller could have, and in fact was obligated to do so, make a decision whether a crime was committed, to assess whether a person’s conduct was a federal offense.
Barr contradicts him in his testimony to congress:
“Now, we first heard that the special counsel’s decision not to decide the obstruction issue at the March 5th meeting when he came over to the department and we were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. And we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this and the basis for this. Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLP opinion he would have found obstruction. He said that in the future the facts of a case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion but this is not such a case. We did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision. And when we pressed him on it, he said that his team was still formulating the explanation.”
Mueller goes into this in the report:
“Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought.”
He declined not to do so because of “fairness concerns” regarding reaching that judgement, eschewing Justice Manual standards.
Barr contradicts Mueller’s “fairness concerns”, and indeed Mueller’s whole charade regarding the intention of his investigation into obstruction (not to indict or conclude that comes have been committed, but “to preserve evidence”), arguing that “we don’t conduct criminal investigations just to collect information and put it out to the public”, that it would in fact be unfair to do so.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?459922-1/william-barr-testifies-mueller-report-senate-judiciary-committee&start=1672#
Is this a question or a threat? It is a perfect example of the way Trump operates. He leaves himself enough room to deny it is a threat but it attempts to shift attention and blame from Trump and paints him as the victim who not only for his own sake but for the sake of the country must be protected from being investigated.
Whether or not we are able to see through this there will be some portion of the people who see this as more evidence that the Democrats are the enemy and must be removed from power and even executed for treason. The question is just how many people will be persuaded or at least confused and how this will play out in the investigation and election.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1178643854737772545?s=21[/tweet]
It is funny that NOS entered this discussion complaining about the hyperbole of those who oppose Trump but does the very thing he accuses others of. Right out of Trump's playbook.
Making Trump a martyr may work, but it serves to further tear apart the country by making those who question Trump's actions "persecutors". More evidence of his willingness to destroy the country to save himself. Republicans love to identify themselves with the party of Lincoln but Lincoln said a house dividend cannot stand. The Republicans have cast their lot with Trump. It remains to be seen whether they will continue to do so. They have clearly demonstrated their willingness to abandon what until recently were the principles of the party. Now they have to decide whether their own political futures lie with remaining loyal to Trump of distancing themselves from him.
Note how Fool neither mentions nor addresses Schiff's lies, the subject of Trump's complaints, but deflects to the way Trump made the accusation. Right out of the Dem playbook.
There is a very good reason I have not mentioned or addressed Schiff's "lies": as most here can see, Schiff's account of the phone call are consistent with the reconstructed transcript released by Trump. We cannot, in fact, say that the reconstructed transcript is consistent with what was actually said since Trump has hidden the actual transcript away.
As far as I can tell, what Trump is objecting to is not the content of the conversation as described by Schiff but what he said about the appropriateness and legality of the conversation. These are two different things that Trump wants to conflate to confuse voters. Trump disagrees with Schiff because on the one hand he thinks that the presidency authorizes him to do or say whatever he wants and so he cannot have done anything wrong, and on the other, because of this, whoever questions the appropriateness and legality of what he said and did acts not only against him but the country, as if they were one and the same. Trump may claim that this is treasonous but it is an empty claim that he will be prevented from pursuing because it is without merit.
His own former homeland security adviser repeatedly told him the conspiracy claims against the Biden's had been debunked and repeatedly Trump seemed to accept this but then turn around and make the accusations all over again. Trump has long known and made use of the fact that the truth does not matter if one's claims can cast doubt on one's opponents. Now in case you are confused or simply wish to defend Trump, he is the difference: Trump and his henchman Giuliani make accusations and occasionally threaten an investigation, but Schiff and the intelligence committees are actively investigating and are determined to get to the truth of the matter. And this, with good reason, troubles Trump.
I actually checked the justice manual, and could find no support for this view.
The section that Mueller refers to in his report reads:
In light of this, Mueller's statement clearly refers to the decision to "commence or recommend federal prosecution". Not to some more general "judgement".
So, given the above, Barr did not "contradict" anything. Barr merely stated an opinion that doesn't seem to have any basis in the justice manual standard.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but Schiff blatantly mischaracterized the phone call in his opening statement to congress.
He said, when describing the phone call, "What is the president's response? Well it reads like a classic organized crime shakedown", and then he proceeds to ad lib the conversation. For example, he says, imitating Trump, "I have a favor I want from you, and I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it, on this and on that."
That's a complete fabrication. Schiff's account of the phone call are not only inconsistent with the transcript, but also includes pure, unadulterated fiction.
Observe for yourself at 3:33:
I'll quote Mueller:
It's all fake! Cuz' we all inhabit a world of... Fake news, fake boobs, fake tanning spray, fake fake fake.
And I just quoted the relevant section of the justice manual. It says that in order to commence prosecution, the prosecutor must "believe" that the persons conduct constitutes a federal crime. Mueller declined to make that assessment and thus declined to prosecute. Nothing in that section, or in any other section as far as I can see, obliges him to nevertheless state his beliefs.
I think that pretty much sums it up. Trump does not believe his own national security agencies or their having gotten to the bottom of "this whole situation". The call did not mention it, but Schiff reports that Giuliani had been to the Ukraine looking for dirt. And we know that he ordered to have funds that were approved to go to help the Ukraine defend itself were withheld. He talks about reciprocity. He asks for a favor. He makes it clear that he wants information on his political opponent Biden and his son. He asks several times for Zelenskyy to talk to Giuliani and Barr. Giuliani is Trump's personal lawyer and has no business discussing matters of national security. Barr reportedly was unaware of the arrangement Trump proposed and was perturbed to have been dragged into it. Given the situation it is as if someone were holding a gun to your head and the police withheld help but instead asked for a favor. There is nothing inconsistent with what Trump said or did. It is clear when he said that it reads like a classic organized crime shakedown that it was not intended to be a verbatim account, but you use this to claim the whole thing was a fabrication.
Was it a fabrication that Trump withheld military aid? Or that he expected reciprocity? Or that he asked for a favor regarding his political opponent?
"It is clear" you're just reiterating Schiff's piffle. According to the transcript, the favor Trump asked for had nothing to do with Biden, but the 2016 election and Ukrainian meddling. Zelensky brought up Giuliani in the hopes that they would be able to meet. It was in fact Barr, not Guiliani, who was brought up in regards to Biden and his son:
The Justice Dept, of which Barr is the Attorney General, is currently investigating Ukraine's meddling in the election.
I will ask again:
Was it a fabrication that Trump withheld military aid? Or that he expected reciprocity? Or that he asked for a favor regarding his political opponent?
With the exception of the first question, which has been independently verified, each question is based on the transcript of the phone call.
Quoting NOS4A2
From the transcript:
The favor involved "a lot of things", the whole situation". The issue of the prosecutor is directly connected to Biden.
Quoting NOS4A2
According to the AP:
More to the point of the impeachment inquiry, Barr's handling of the whistle-blower complaint is in question, as was his handling of the Mueller investigation. I assume you ignored or more likely do not understand what is at issue regarding the theory of a unitary president. It is essential to everything Barr is doing regarding the investigations into Trump.
We would be better off with a pineapple.
Agreed. Anyway, excuse my interjection and please carry on.
A welcome diversion from NOS' incessant need to defend Trump.
By the way - this story about Stephen Barr being roped into the phone call with Zelensky is going to be another major element in the impeachment. Remember that DoJ commissioned a fellow by the name of John C Durham to 'investigate the investigators', right? This is based on Trump's groundless conviction that the Mueller investigation was itself a scam, a fraud, that was somehow started by the Democrats. So we've had the Attorney General involved in a campaign to enlist foreign intelligence to investigate the US intelligence agencies! Think about that: Trump et al trying to 'get dirt' on the FBI and the CIA from foreign politicians (Australia's Scott Morrison among them, it came out today.)
How lunatic is this? Stephen Barr will face jail over this fiasco, and deservedly so. Remember, John Mitchell, Nixon's AG, did jail time for something far less sinister than this.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/icig-statement-whistleblower-complaint/index.html
Are you on drugs?
Gimme some. :razz:
If Nosferatu is overstepping the bounds of reason in his blind support of Trump, I see a few others here doing the same in the opposite direction. Remember "innocent until proven guilty" applies to Trump as much as it does to anyone else.
Of course I am not saying there should be no inquiry to establish whether there are grounds for impeachment, but let's wait to see what the findings are before rushing to ill-considered conclusions.
It's "presumed innocence". That's a big difference and it's a legal concept that requires the jury and judge to uphold the standard of there not being "reasonable doubt". The concept doesn't apply to moral judgments and strictly speaking not to impeachment procedures either.
At this point there's no choice. It's not a matter of expedience, or of 'winning', but the requirement to stand up against obvious criminality in the White House. Let that go, and nothing is worth saving.
It does to me. A lot people think it's a sort of legal proceeding and if he survives impeachment, they can play it as "not guilty" and that will be to his benefit because many will believe it. In other words, the outcome will affect whether voters will continue to think he should be impeached.
I’m glad to see that the presumption of innocence still has some force among people. I was getting worried there for a moment.
I'd say the above quotes from the Mueller report pretty clearly indicate that Trump would have been indicted for obstruction of justice if it hadn't been for DOJ guidelines forbidding such an indictment. That's not an ill-considered conclusion in my book.
Nor do I think it's ill-considered to conclude that Trump tried to pressure Zelensky for political purposes. That's also pretty damning, regardless of the criminality.
I don't think a democracy can allow a president to do either of these things without serious damage to it's institutions. Do you disagree with that?
Quoting StreetlightX
While you're correct about impeachment doing nothing for the underlying social and political problems, there is an institutional dimension to impeachment. The institution of congressional oversight is at risk if administrations continuously expand executive privilege and don't comply with their legal obligations to turn over materials.
This trend needs to be stopped if the instructions are to survive. And impeachment seems to be one of the only tools that actually has bite.
So a President should have 4 years to do whatever he wants and the only remedy to an unfit, potentially criminal President is to hope that he loses reelection?
It might be "shitty politics" but it might nonetheless be right. Impeachment is an option for a reason.
Or are you just saying that in this case Trump has done nothing to warrant an impeachment inquiry?
From a princeton study:
I get the sentiment. The focus on the Mueller investigation as America's saving grace has been annoying, and so is the constant attention to Trump's provocations, drowning out everything else. Nevertheless, the rules must be upheld.
That's the rationale I've seen used by Trump supporters to defend his actions, and even to defend the hypothetical of him having worked with the Russian government to interfere with the election. It's all necessary to protect the United States from the dangers of a liberal/progressive/leftist take-over.
Why on earth would people who believe that Trump should be impeached think that an acquittal by a *GOP controlled senate* absolves him, rather viewing it as yet another example of toxic GOP partisanship and as a response to this flagrant violation of duty, vote him out of office themselves?
I think it very likely that articles of impeachment will be submitted and that the House will vote to impeach. I also think it likely that there will not be a majority in the Senate to vote to dismiss and that there will be a trial. I have not ruled out the possibility that the Senate will find him guilty, but even if they do not the evidence will be sufficient to persuade enough voters who supported him to not vote for him in the election.
Senate Republicans will be constantly monitoring public opinion polls and public sentiment. If it looks as though dismissal of articles of impeachment will threaten their chances of re-election they will vote for a trial. Public opinion will also play a role in the decision to convict but the weight of the evidence will have to be much greater.
The outcome, however, will be less important than what happens in the next election. If the evidence is strong enough and Trump is not convicted this will turn many Republican voters against incumbents who continue to support him and they will loose along with Trump. The party of Trump will end and the the Republican party will be transformed once again, returning to the principles they so quickly abandoned under Trump.
All in all I think it may be very good for the country.
Added: Mitch McConnell said a Senate trial would be unavoidable if the House impeached Trump.
That is probably the rationale for many Trump supporters, but as for my own reasons as to why I defend Trump’s actions, it’s mostly because the accusations of his opponents are not as bad and evil as they make them out to be.
The “Sh*thole” scandal, for example, led to worldwide hand-wringing from politicians all over the globe, a so-called “global outcry”, exceeding the collective outrage over any war, atrocity or actual injustice occurring around around that time.
Uh oh. Looks like the media and the Dems are obstructing justice with their impeachment scandal. I wonder if they’re scared?
Barr personally asked foreign officials to aid inquiry into CIA, FBI activities in 2016
How was Trump’s “Sh*thole” comment not as bad as it was portrayed in the media?
And there are all sorts of frivolous daily headlines that capture our attention and overshadow actual tragedies.
For one, it was true. The countries he mentioned are sh-thole countries, and we can look at any index of freedom, development, quality of life, etc. to confirm this. Second, it was said in private, only to be leaked when a Dem tattle-tale ran and told the press this piece of gossip.
I don’t recall the media claiming it wasn’t true in the sense that these countries have serious problems. Also, it was said in an Oval Office meeting, so not private like an offhand comment at a bar or whatever.
They claimed it was racist, without evidence. This led to a “global backlash” in which countries around the globe got involved. It was a purely sensationalist scandal perpetrated by the Dems and the media.
I suppose the evidence is that the disparaged counties are predominantly black and Norway is predominantly white. Do you know that it wasn’t a racist comment? If so, how do you know that?
I wasn’t the one making the accusation.
You don’t connect the “sh-thole” status of a country to the skin-color of it’s inhabitants, do you?
Nice convo on Jacobin between two lefties, one for, the other somewhat cautious on, impeachment. Sam Moyn, who is on the side of caution, shares my concerns:
"The impeachment hearings could become a kind of referendum on how to diminish the imperial presidency. But my sense is that that’s not going to happen, and it would be much better for the Left to put its claims about endless war and economic inequality to the people and try to figure out how to construct a majority for stopping those things — a majority that I think is out there in the country. Impeachment seems unrelated to that effort.
...The pathologies of the country that led to Trump ought to be the main focus, because Trump inherited a lot of things that the party elites on both sides had constructed, including an imperial presidency with powers at home and abroad, and rising economic inequality, which I think the majority of Americans are concerned about. For that reason, I actually think that the Democrats have a chance to appeal to precisely these issues, and I worry that impeachment will lead them astray."
I have a quick question for you or anyone else regarding putting politically sensitive files on the national security server:
1. The TNet (national security system) has access controls and auditing safeguards.
2. The system keeps track of who created or uploaded files, who looked at them, who modified them and how and who printed them out.
3. The next level-up is called NICE top secrete code-word server. (About only 20 percent of National Security Council staff members are NICE users.)
4. Trump officials put the Ukraine phone call minutes in the NICE code-word system.
My political concern is, if President Trump was concerned with Hillary Clinton's server, is he not doing the same kind of thing?
In other words, he broke another promise; he did not drain the swamp, he's part of the swamp (?).
What am I missing?
Regarding the value of an impeachment inquiry:
It's my understanding that under that process it allows for better access to documents.
And for the 2020 election, it will help the public make an educated decision on some of the facts surrounding that Ukraine deal.
I’m pointing out that you don’t know whether or not it was a racist comment. The impression that it was comes from the facts that I’ve already mentioned, and also, now that I think about it, the fact that individuals emigrate and not counties. People with college degrees might emigrate from one of the disparaged counties and criminals might emigrate from Norway. Given the ignorance he displays on a daily basis, it seems unlikely that Trumps comment was based on actual emigration data about the counties involved.
I sort of get that but:
a. It's against the law: Federal election law, administered by the Federal Election Commission, prohibits contributions, donations and other expenditures by “foreign nationals” in any federal, state or local election as well an exchange of any “thing of value.” ( Most recently, Section 303 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, strengthened the ban on foreign money in U.S. electioneering.)
b. It can obviously encourage abuses that we see like; the good ol' boy system, favors, promise for a promise/quid pro qou, lifting sanctions that might hurt other countries, domestic economic policy impacts/foreign trade negotiations, all sorts of things relating to national security interests.
Again, this is Swamp Team stuff. This guy [President Trump] sold us another false bill of goods. It's frustrating to say the least.
BTW, I'm back in private sector, but I used to work for the Government so I'm not talking out my arse.
It’s fucked up to be sure, but it doesn’t seem like nearly enough.
This eye-glazing legalease is hardly the stuff of mass mobilization.
Quoting frank
Hell yeah I am but this stuff is so anti-political that it has the real potential to sap democratic energies, not invigorate them.
This is a serious and important point. It is fueled by Trump's paranoia that everyone is as untrustworthy and self-serving as he is and so out to get him. It is self-serving in that it engenders confusion and mistrust in the mind of voters who have been told by Trump that individuals, news outlets, and government agencies that are not "loyal" to him are the enemy.
While it is clear that the Attorney General is supposed to represent the United States and not the president, grave questions have arisen regarding both AG Sessions and Barr. When the AG acts as Trump's personal lawyer the result is de facto obstruction of justice, for nothing the president or his administration does can receive impartial review. It does not matter whether Trump asked Barr to solicit foreign aid to endeavor to undermine the credibility of the Mueller report or Barr asked Trump, it amounts to the same thing - a concerted effort to put Trump's political interests ahead of those of the United States. Trump wants and expects to have his "Roy Cohn", that is, someone who acts in his own interests rather than the interests of the country.
Yep, great point.
If it's illegal then it's illegal and ought be punished, if not by indictment then by impeachment (and then indictment). I think it's crazy to suggest that the powerful shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes just because – what – it might be more prudential, politically speaking, to let it go and focus on other things? The rest of us have to take responsibility for breaking the law, so why not the President too?
It's not like we can't do more than one thing at a time. Remove him from office if it's warranted and address any underlying issues.
I'm sure a big issue with the political system is exactly that the powerful aren't held accountable – hence the success of Trump's "drain the swamp" rhetoric. Your approach just seems to condone this very thing and so will only exacerbate the situation, whereas opening an impeachment inquiry is a step towards addressing this injustice.
Indeed we do! What is at issue is a self-serving president who puts his own interests ahead of those of the country and its allies, of a president who hides the extent of his corruption under the guise of rooting out corruption, of a president oversteps the bounds of executive power.
Quoting StreetlightX
This is not an isolated event. It merely opens the floodgates that will allow an investigation into the extent of his corruption.
Political reality is not so lofty. Efforts to remove Trump like this are far more likely to fan the flames of 'anti-elite' sentiment than quell them - a bunch of law-wonks removing an elected president like Trump right at the moment when people have less trust in institutions than ever? That strikes me as madness. Anyone who thinks politics needs to be played by principles at this particular time is complaining about a leaky tap in a burning building. Trump ought to be destroyed by political mobalization and bold, creative, and daring ideas - not this tinker-toy legal grace.
Everyone knows Trump is a corrupt, bumbling idiot. "More information" is the liberal technocrat's fantasy of political motivation. As if we just need one more effort because the last ones worked out so well. Russia, Corruption, Collusion - all these are excuses to not do things, not motivations to begin them. America needs chemotherapy - long, protracted, and painful, and not this deus ex machina nonsense that no one cares about.
Very well said! Your last post should be a 'sticky'!!!
We're all talking common sense here!
Pompeo:
What are these intimidation tactics? The attempt to dispose potential witnesses. Both Trump and Barr have called some of those potential witnesses spies and Trump has called the whistle-blower a traitor who should be treated as traitors were in the good old days (the latest in his efforts to make America great again).
Trump, contrary to the law, is attempting to find out the identify of the whistle-blower and has declared him or her a "fraud". He received push-back by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, who emphasized the importance of evaluating the credibility of the whistle-blowers claims.
Attempts to thwart and discredit the investigation are likely to back-fire. Two important Republicans, McConnell and Grassley, are clear sighted enough to see that an investigation is necessary. The Republican defense tactic of at the same time faulting Democrats for prejudging the case while prejudging the case exposes their hypocrisy.
Yep I know. It's that mobster/thug mentality that he surrounded himself with growing up. And people fell for that stuff, geese.
We gotta smarten up. It's scary too. Just think how the whistleblower feels. I mean the whistleblower laws are there to protect folks so that they feel encouraged to report suspicious behavior/activity....otherwise we loose that check and balance.
I know I worked in Government...
The anti-elite rhetoric has played itself out. If the elite want to discredit the elite then they discredit themselves. Trump, Barr, Pompeo cannot distinguish themselves from the elite, with the money and power to be considered the elite under the current narrow -minded definition of elitism.
What evidence is there of this? Like, show me the right-leaning think tank peice that says 'maybe we should put our trust back in the elites'. Trump is still the 'their man' of the anti-elites, and the effort to downplay this would be a massive political miscalculation.
You mean the right-leaning think tanks run by highly-educated, politically connected elites?
Really, those who see impeachment as anything other than as an absolute disaster - a disaster made even more disasterous because of its quasi-necessity, forced by the hand of an utter imbicile - are in for a bad time. Any feeling of schadenfreude ought to be tempered by the realization that this will probably make things even worse in the long run.
Talking about fantasy, it seems to me just as fantastical that such a "painful therapy" will be adopted until things have really crashed and burned.
Unfortunately the impeachment inquiry is what you have to do to gain access to documents and educate the public.
The taxpayer has a right to know.
It's a win win. If he survives, it will help make an informed choice for 2020.
If he survives and is re-elected, it might make impeachment much harder in his second term, and consequently allow for even more egregious transgressions. So perhaps more like a risky gamble than a win win.
Yes... I think the Republican voters deserve a better alternative and although not impossible, the impeachment inquiry may be enough to tip the scales in the direction of a Republican primary.. .
Being a modern independent myself, I would certainly consider a moderate Republican ....
https://fortune-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/fortune.com/2019/04/22/republican-presidential-candidates-2020/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#aoh=15699644718972&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Ffortune.com%2F2019%2F04%2F22%2Frepublican-presidential-candidates-2020%2F
Like John Kasich:
"Tariffs are a bad idea. Debt is a bad idea. Family separation is a bad idea. Demonizing immigrants is a bad idea. And breaking down our alliances is bad too,” Kasich told the AP in December.
Today's installment.
That is from this:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/barr-went-to-rome-to-hear-a-secret-tape-from-joseph-mifsud-the-professor-who-helped-ignite-the-russia-probe?ref=home
to this: Today's installment.
Anyway, more to the point - this entire outreach from the Trump administration is meant to 'prove' or 'demonstrate' that the Mueller investigation really was a false flag operation - that it was a conspiracy that was driven by the Democratic National Committee and various 'deep state' forces inside the intelligence community to frame Donald Trump. Trump has been desperate to show that the whole report really was, as he keeps saying, a hoax and a witch hunt. This is why he says that the 'server with Hillary's missing emails' is 'in the Ukraine.' It's really fringe Alt-right nonsense.
It's impossible to know whether he really believes this, or whether he is depending on making his supporters believe it - but I think it's the former. Trump has a very poor grasp of facts and zero ability at self-criticism or self-awareness.
In any case, I think once the full extent of this lunatic quest to discredit the FBI comes out, there will be criminal charges against some of the players. In other words, having gotten through the initial Mueller report, he's found a way to actually get himself sunk by it.
"A source in the Italian Ministry of Justice, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told The Daily Beast that Barr and Durham were played the tape. A second source within the Italian government also confirmed to The Daily Beast that Barr and Durham were shown other evidence the Italians had on Mifsud."
How do we know this is true if the sources will not reveal their identities?
I agree with @StreetlightX that this is something like worrying about the moral character of the captain of the Titanic. It is Trump's overt actions that need to be countered.
I don't think it is remotely feasible that Trump can stand for re-election next year, even if the Senate votes to acquit. And the hard-heads in the GOP must be seeing this. They can't let themselves be held hostage by the so-called 'base' at the expense of selling out every principle that the Republican Party is supposed to stand for. That's why I reckon Trump will be out of office before Christmas - they're going to need some clean air going into 2020.
This disaffection rises to the surface when things get tough and unstable and people begin to feel insecure about the future, and they look to nationalistic, tough-guy conservative leaders who promise to make their countries great again. So, even if Trump goes, someone of the like will probably step in to replace him.
-A double standard being applied to the law of Trump staying in office and near-certainty being unelectable rather than impeaching him.
and...
-Needs talk.
Anyone else notices this?
Well said Wayfarer, well said sir.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/01/politics/new-york-times-trump-shoot-migrants-legs/index.html
*Dangerous imbecile*
Yeah and also the 'Trump is only a symptom'. That's like saying 'a malignant tumour is only a symptom, the underlying problem is that you're alive'.
Quoting Wallows
Typical distraction tactic. Say something outrageous, get everyone enraged and arguing. He does it all the time, should be ignored.
These impeachment hearings are going to be the mother of all s***t fights.
Well if you don't see his flagrant misuse and abuse of the office, and various acts including his attempts to dismantle the Mueller investigation and investigate a political rival with the aid (and bribery) of a foreign government, or more seriously, the systemic creation of concentration camps for people of color, as justifiably impeachable offenses, then I simply don't know what else to tell you.
But for the thousandth fucking time, who cares about GOP voters? I mean god damn, a majority of them support and will vote for Trump even of he's literally standing on their heads crushing their skulls, so no one should give a shit how they will react to an inquiry or a failure to impeach (even though there has been an increased support among GOP voters for an impeachment inquiry).
Insofar as this "tinker-toy legal grace" fails to remove Trump from office, despite exposing additional maliciousness, criminality, incompetence and keeping it at the forefront of the news cycle, creating further public backlash to an already unpopular president while also shifting additional blame onto a GOP controlled senate leads to "political mobilization" that 1) votes Trump out of office (which can occur regardless of the inquiry) and 2) leads to seat gains in the Senate, and perhaps a blue turnover (unlikely without the GOP controlled Senate's compliance in acquitting Trump), then that seems like the ideal, yet certainly not unrealistic, outcome.
And let's face fact, just as there will be (potentially severe) backlash if Trump is removed via impeachment, there will undeniably be backlash and cries of conspiracy of a different name, if he loses the election. The long run is already fucked.
EDIT: Further, a failure to move forward with an impeachment inquiry signals to Trump that he can make additional attempts to illegally undermine political rivals and Democratic candidates potentially shaping the outcome of the election. The failure of the Democrats to start an impeachment inquiry against Trump after the Mueller report was a signal that he could continue to abuse the power of the office for self-gain.
Yep the pundits have used that word 'dangerous' to describe him ever since he was elected, now the reality is coming to pass. I'm watching it now...
Speaking of dangerous, referring to the Ukraine whistleblower he said, and I quote : " You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now."
The dude's got to go, he's embarrassing to our country
The real tragedy is that people have become desensitized to this sort of lunatic thinking of building moats around the border and filling them with alligators, shooting migrants in the legs, Jesus you get the point, I hope.
:pray:
Of course I do. But what has the Trump presidency been but a parade of outrages right from the start? That's part of his shtick - he can get away with anything, so he uses that to say things and do things which no right-thinking public official would ever do, and then he has these hordes of hypnotized zombies ('the base") who follow along saying Trump! Trump! It's like a horrible b-movie nightmare.
Hopefully the impeachment process is going to start to put an end to the whole circus.
I'm sort of conflicted here. Desensitized electorates dont bode well for the future of a nation's democracy, despite it being the only defence mechanism against blatant crazy rhetoric.
Yeah, and because of this, I don't foresee StreetlightX's appeal to (essentially an appeal to humanism) emotions, as ever bringing about foreseeable change, a much-needed change I should add.
Catharsis through protests has been negated by our very own human faculties to happen. I hope I'm wrong about this...
Oh fuck off Wallows, this is not about an 'appeal to emotions', this is about watching supposedly intelligent people delight having politics play out like a real-life Game of Thrones episode, while being contemptuous of the kind of everyday politics of coalition building, cultural change, and idea spreading. Instead, we watch agape as the rich and powerful make moves across a miniature political chess-board while we cheer on the sidelines like the utterly ineffectual political non-players that we are.
To be clear, I'm not specifically against the impeachment proceedings as such. I'm against the fascinated glare that it holds for so many, I'm against the celebratory note that accompanies the many discussions around it, and I'm against the wholesale substitution of legal mechanisms for the democratic exercise of power(s) as a primary mechanism for political change.
I should have been more explicit. An appeal to emotions is the only appropriate response to the dehumanization of people of color along with the apparent gross desensitization of our sensibilities.
To an extent. What I meant was that we should not ignore and passively let the standards of the US presidency be lowered into oblivion by becoming desensitized to the outrageous comments of a clearly disturbed man-child.
Sure, I certainly agree with that - although I do want to point out that in this specific case of legal mechanisms, i.e. the impeachment inquiry against Trump, was only able to be carried out - required a democratic exercise of power viz., the "blue wave" midterm 2018 election which enabled the Democratic Party to gain a majority control of the House.
"Social valorization of affects basically means that we pay the plaintiff with her own money: oh, but your feelings are so precious, you are so precious! The more you feel, the more precious you are. This is a typical neoliberal maneuver, which transforms even our traumatic experiences into possible social capital. If we can capitalize on our affects, we will limit out protests to declarations of these affects — say, declarations of suffering — rather than becoming active agents of social change. I’m of course not saying that suffering shouldn’t be expressed and talked about, but that this should not “freeze” the subject into the figure of the victim. The revolt should be precisely about refusing to be a victim, rejecting the position of the victim on all possible levels.
Valorization of affectivity and feelings appears at the precise point when some problem — injustice, say — would demand a more radical systemic revision as to its causes and perpetuation. This would also involve naming — not only some people but also social and economic inequalities that we long stopped naming and questioning"
Really? I think you're conflating managed affect for affect that becomes a volition towards some effective change. Perhaps this is where we differ on the issue.
I don't know what this means.
Affect can become a volition if it is adverse to the individual or organism. Like pain... outrage... or sensibility? Then change is demanded, like not putting your hand in the fire or electing business leaders who think they can manage their continued power through instilling a sense of apathy and desensitization towards the very institutions that were meant to allow for change(?)
Do you agree with this?
Ok, so I rest my case. You contend that it's common knowledge between us that Trump is a crook. Yeah, no shit!
But, my point seems to have been swept under the rug or rather you have impeded an understanding of this new phenomenon in the American political process.
Here you say; but, this is the new normal, or something like politics at play, nothing new here.
But, the sheer amount of lies, crazy comments, and batshittery have emboldened everything that American democracy never really ever stood for. Furthermore, if we accept this as the new normal (which I have been blabbering about arising due to becoming desensitized towards this new phenomenon), is a strong factor in understanding how he is getting away with all said comments about shooting migrants in the legs, building moats on the border, and filling said "moats" with alligators and snakes.
Does that make any sense to you?
"If your highest value is the preservation of American institutions, the avoidance of “dysfunction,” the discourse of norm erosion makes sense. If it’s democracy, not so much. Sometimes democracy requires the shattering of norms and institutions. Democracy, we might even say, is a permanent project of norm erosion, forever shattering the norms of hierarchy and domination and the political forms that aid and abet them."
What we need is the right destruction of normality, not a preservation of it.
So when Mike Pompeo doesn't comply with a subpoena to testify to Congress, that's ok because democracy is about "right destruction of normality?" Now the debate is what is "right destruction" of course.
That would be a start.
Didn't answer the first question :D.
Wow, this takes me back a bit.
Continued struggle, strife, and eternal mobilization really come to mind.
Yes, but does the first question pass muster?
(Not necessarily bad things in isolation)
If you want a democracy you'd better get used to it.
You should. They're your neighbours so you'd better work it out.
We’re not looking to elect a pope, or someone to sing us lullabies. Those days are over. The idea of president as father-figure has proven to be a charade with someone like Trump in office.
Love him or hate him he managed to accomplish whatever in his addled mind he set out to do.
But, I'm really liking the eternal mobilization theme that cropped up...
"Many of the worst things Trump will do and has done are not through norm erosion but through the normal operations and institutions, even constitutional values, that liberals hold dear. So, for example, it's not by Trump intimidating or assaulting the courts and the rule of law (as many have feared) that the travel ban is being upheld and legitimized; it's through the Court doing what the Court does—interpreting the Constitution, applying precedent (including a precedent about executive power that the Obama administration, represented by none other than Elena Kagan, argued for in Court), and the rest—that the travel ban has been consolidated." (via Corey Robin).
It's like people like to portray Trump as norm eroding so as to better hide just how fucked up 'normal' is from the very beginning. Everytime someone talks about Trump's latest media gaffe and not his latest court appointment, they're part of the problem.
This betrays an immense naivete on contemporary American politics as I've outlined multiple times elsewhere in this thread.
The current financial year has so far seen more than 800,000 people detained on the southern US border - already twice the total for 2018.[/b][/quote]
Source
This is demagoguery. Another example of Trump's willingness to tear apart the country to save himself.
This is the formation of his strategy - it is not an obstruction of justice to refuse to comply with Congress when the House is acting illegally. But many people do not understand the constitutionality of impeachment and so he employs his most effective weapon, fear. Fear that this threatens their guns and their god and their security.
Except it is not just Trump. Peter Navarro, Mr. Trump’s trade adviser, on Fox Business Network, compared the Democrats to Soviet-era secret police and their effort to an “attempted coup d’état.”
I think his head is reaching his intestines at this point.
*In the next episode of the Twilight Zone, we learn that his head can reach his stomach!*
*Folks his head is so deep down his ass, that we don't know where things start and where they end!*
Oh. They're playing to militia-types. "It's a Soviet takeover! Just like in 1955!"
Do you think this will work for or against Trump?
Many American leaders consult their guts, but not like that. I recently saw The Thing. You're not helping my sanity by bring up head/intestines.
The extreme paranoia of The Thing is being enacted in real life Frank... If my sanity is in check I believe he wanted foreign intelligence agencies to give him dirt on US intelligence agencies. You can't make up this shit.
The American head bites it's own neck in half.
Ahhhhhhh!
Not just militia-types. Note Trump's inclusion of religion, as if impeaching him is somehow a threat to religious freedom. There is obviously no logical connection but Evangelicals and some others believe that their religious freedoms are threatened and Trump is their protector. So, a threat to Trump is viewed as a threat to their religious freedom.
Either way this goes, it is turning out to be the biggest scandal in modern American politics
I think the above is spam that shouldn't be allowed.
Of course, your Trump mind-reading is within the realm of acceptable discourse, I imagine.
Noted. But there might as well be someone to give the 'official' line here. Engage or not to the extent you think it's worthwhile.
That’s a great analysis.
Legitimate criticism has been replaced by word-policing and routine snobbery. This does not draw anyone to their cause save for, well, censors and snobs.
Antitrumpism is a wholly reactionary movement in the sense that it defends the established order. I can imagine a time when the so-called “left” might have championed the president taking on the CIA, but now it’s the other way about.
Ok. I just don't like people being taken in by a troller. Can you at least change his status to "suspected troll"?
From a mod point of view, it's just a political debate and we don't have any official dog in the fight. If you think anyone is guilty of trolling though, please make a case to us by PM rather than in the discussion. Thanks.
More like a Machiavellian-let them eat cake lover.
I’m just making a comment on the passing outrage, Frank. Your public tattling is virtue-signalling.
It's been commented on repeatedly. Michael knows. It was that one pre-recorded post I objected to. Per usual, you're maximally obtuse.
What do you mean by 'pre-recorded'?
Quoting frank
Damn, and this is me in a good mood. :)
I'm glad you're in a good mood. You're still obtuse.
I don't agree. Trump believes there is a "deep-state" conspiracy. His administration seems to accept it as truth. Senior White House policy adviser Stephen Miller is claiming that the whistle-blower is a deep state operative.
My point is not to lend credibility to such accusations but rather to point out that it is essential to both the Trump administration's actions and its defense of those actions.
The problem with conspiracy claims is that any attempt to investigate them that does not corroborate them becomes part of the conspiracy.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out with Giuliani's testimony before the House.
Oh make no mistake. Trump is an abomination, but he is an abomination birthed by an equally abominable system. The only relevant question is how to be smart in dismantling his agenda and putting a stop to its perpetuation. You're right though that to see some elements of the left pin their hopes on the CIA was (is?) an incredibly bizarre spectacle. That said, what passes for alot of the American left is simply alot of limp liberalism, whom one suspects would have little problem with Trump if only he was more polite and 'presidential' about it all. Always worth remembering that Barack "drone strike" Obama had a far more effective deportation regime than anything Trump has managed to muster up so far.
Ok. But I think you would agree that the majority of Trump supporters are a little more sensible than that. But maybe I just get your answer first. Do you think our troll is more than a mouthpiece for forces seeking to create mistrust and division?
Do you think our troll is typical of Trump supporters?
I believe a dem could easily win if they ran on policy instead of anti-Trumpism, political correctness and identity politics. The problem is, in my mind, the political triangulation of the party over the previous decades has hollowed out any chance at a competing platform, essentially blurring the two parties into a one-party behemoth.
What can I do to waylay your suspicions and conspiracy theories, Frank? The sooner I can end your gossip and backbiting the better.
Back off, or I'll sick the deep state on you. The NSA is watching your bathroom as we speak.
I think we need to make a distinction between Trump supporters and those who voted for Trump. His staunchest supporters are likely to believe whatever he says. In addition, conspiracy theories are very popular, and in this case play into another popular theme - good versus evil. So I think that what may seem sensible is for them no match for the battle against the Evil Empire. And since the state is so deep, the suspicion can extend to any and all who are critical of Trump.
Ha.
Come on. We’re adults. Let me extend an olive branch.
There are a lot of people who are going to vote for Trump. They're not lunatics. They just think that overall, he's done a good job. They especially like the state of the economy. Many of them believe that, for all his faults, he's better than a Democrat who represents a corrupt establishment.
They realize that he says stupid things and doesn't show well on the global stage, but they really don't care about that.
They're just normal people. His base is something else. It includes white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
Do you know any of the normal ones I'm talking about?
I agree, but what I was addressing is the deep state conspiracy accusations and your question about how believable the voters will think they are.
As to "normal people" voting for Trump because the Democrats are corrupt, I don't think that will play so well in 2020. It may be, however, that they are more concerned with their own financial well-being and believe that they will be better off with Trump. Timing is crucial here. If the economic downturn happens sooner rather than later they may blame Trump.
Consider it from Trump’s point of view: the spying on his campaign, the spies embedded in his campaign, the bias of the investigators in the FBI, the incessant leaks, the Russian collusion hoax, the whistleblower being CIA, the OP-Ed in the NYT.
There are forces at work within the state apparatus who explicitly “vowed to thwart parts of [Trump’s] agenda and his worst inclinations”, as admitted by a member of the resistance.
I Am a Part of the Resistance inside the Trump Admin
Yes, from his point of view it is spying, biased investigators in the FBI, a Russian "hoax". How dare anyone attempt to shed light on his questionable activities!
But in your point of view it is, what exactly?
An attempt to shift focus from what Trump said and did by discrediting those who report on what he said and did.
What I mean is, what do you call the spying on his political campaign, the incessant leaks, the Russian collusion narrative, the self-described "resistance" in his campaign, the CIA whistleblower? Concerned officials, maybe? Duty-bound public servants with American interests at heart?
This is a loaded question. I do not call reporting on what he said and did spying. Trump and his lap dog Barr may say otherwise but that don't make it so.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, that does seem to be the case. I know of no credible evidence to the contrary, just unsubstantiated allegations.
That's fair. Use whatever euphemism you please. The facts are that a covert counterintelligence investigation by the FBI, the CIA and the NSA targeted several individuals connected to the Trump campaign, obtaining phone records, surveilling them and embedding informants around the campaign. At no point did they warn Trump or the campaign that Russia was seeking to influence them. Sure, use whatever euphemism you want, but that's spying by definition.
It looks like their concerns, no matter how well intentioned you pretend them to be, were wrong.
The facts are first, that you need to learn what the term counterintelligence means, and second, that the duty of intelligence agencies and their members are not to the president but to the country. The latter point is fundamental to this whole mess. When a president acts in ways that jeopardize the security of the country the duty and obligation of its intelligence agents is to report it. When a president acts in ways that raise questions that are matters of national security there is a duty and obligation to investigate.
The spying operation began before he was president. Instead of protecting Americans, they spied on them, and worse, it was the outgoing administration spying on the incoming administration. So yes, use whatever euphemisms, platitudes and glittering generalities you like to explain all that away, but the conclusions of that investigation aren't out yet. We'll see.
Well then, what you are talking about are unconfirmed allegations, but you do not refer to it as allegations of spying but spying, as if the conclusions of that investigation that aren't out yet don't matter since you have already drawn you own conclusions.
In any case, even it the allegations are true, even if Trump's microwave oven was spying on him, this has no bearing on whether or not Trump did what he is being accused of doing.
Well I'll be damned. Next they'll be wantin' to take away our slaves! I'll go to war before that happens!
These are in fact confirmed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence regarding their probe into Russian Active Measures.
The same committee found no evidence that meetings between Trump associates reflected collusion, coordination or conspiracy with the Russians.
https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/hrpt1110/CRPT-115hrpt1110.pdf
This has a massive bearing on these accusations.
You, echoing Trump, call it a "Russian hoax" and yet the document you cite states in the preface that:
Instead of dumping a 350 page document on us identify the statements in the report that support your allegations. Where does it expose the nefarious deep state?
I will ask again since in typical fashion you ignore questions posed to you: how does any of this relate to the impeachment investigation?
I never claimed the document exposes the deep state. What I claimed was, "The facts are that a covert counterintelligence investigation by the FBI, the CIA and the NSA targeted several individuals connected to the Trump campaign, obtaining phone records, surveilling them and embedding informants around the campaign. At no point did they warn Trump or the campaign that Russia was seeking to influence them."
The modus operandi is the same: selective leaks, frivolous and unjust investigations, the CIA are involved.
But you did raise the possibility of the deep state and it is an essential part of Trump's allegations of spying on him and it is supposed to have operatives in FBI, the CIA and the NSA. Claims of the deep state are being used to attempt to discredit the whistle-blower. As you know, both the Inspector General and Director of National Intelligence found the allegations credible. Perhaps they too are part of the deep state?
What specifically does the report cite say about spying on Trump? Does it use the term 'spy'? Why would the FBI, the CIA and the NSA spy on him?
Quoting NOS4A2
This does not answer the question. The question is how all this relates to the specific allegations, allegations which Trump substantiated when he released a version of the phone transcript?
Let's start here: putting aside the question of whether it is an impeachable offense, do you agree that it was inappropriate to withhold military aid that was approved by Congress and ask for a favor that involved asking a foreign nation to "look into" his political opponent?
I did raise the possibility, yes. The whistleblower is CIA, according to the NYT. The whistleblower’s complaint is hearsay, appears to be written by lawyers, and riddled with inaccuracies and assumed motives.
He did not substantiate the allegations.
The favor was in regards to the 2016 election and to the activities during past administration, and it correlates to the ongoing DOJ investigation into the 2016 election, which is currently centered around Ukraine. The motives described by the whistle blower are assumed without evidence, and I would argue refuted by the transcript.
GOP talking points and alt-right misinformation.
Quoting NOS4A2
From the transcript provided by the White House
[quote=Donald Trump]There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.[/quote]
Quoting NOS4A2
The claims of the whistleblower are completely substantiated by the transcript.
You're simply proving the case that Trump supporters are incapable of comprehending simple facts.
You are repeating the Republican talking points, and overlooking the obvious: the whistleblower complaint is within the legal guidelines, is credible, and worthy of investigation. Trump should not be impeached solely on the basis of the complaint, but if the investigation confirms Trump's behavior crossed the legal line, then it will be appropriate to impeach. Alternatively, if the administration makes it impossible to investigate, then this would constitute illegal obstruction and this would be impeachable.
Surely you at least notice the administration's hypocrisy regarding investigations. On the one hand, they argue Hunter Biden should be investigated despite there being no evidence of his having committed a crime, but because of the circumstances of a VP's son being hired for a well-paying job. And yet we have a credible report of actual wrongdoing by Trump, that clearly warrants investigation, and it gets labelled a "witch hunt". Steven Miller said the American people have a right to know the truth about Biden. Don't we also have a right to know about Trump?
This is despite the fact that it's spelled out in black and white. It shows the power of the Trump disinformation campaign.
At first the Administration tried to suppress the whistleblower report from reaching Congress but were ultimately unsuccessful in so doing.
Shortly afterwards, Trump authorised a release of a transcript of the call, confident that it would exonerate him. IN fact it did the opposite, confirming that he had indeed solicited assistance from a foreign power for domestic political advantage. In the next few days, it became apparent that Trump had been directing many such efforts, implicating the Secretary of State among others in support of a debunked conspiracy theory involving Ukraine framing Russia, and somehow coming into possession of a file server allegedly belonging to Hillary Clinton.
Trump's only answer to this to date has been a blizzard of lies, threats, accusations and falsehoods, some of which constitute impeachable offenses in their own right. But the hundred ton gun of impeachment is being wheeled into place, subpoenas being issued to key witnesses and the process is continuing apace.
The whistleblower complaint alleges Trump “sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid.”
Quote the so-called pressure. Show me anything regarding the 2020 election in the transcript. You’re making it up, or worse, pretending DNC dinner-theater are facts. More proof that anti-Trumpists are dupes.
As I'm sure you're well aware, I can and have had multiple conversations with people I've disagreed with, on this very forum and elsewhere, on political topics such as immigration, abortion, wealth inequality, healthcare etc., but that's ultimately irrelevant when faced with the fact that a political party has tied itself, Gordian-like, to morally untenable positions regarding immigration, healthcare, abortion, and attitudes towards the rich and the poor. There is is no "common ground" no "middle position" to adjudicate with people who are content to have their immigrant neighbors ripped from their families and sent to strange countries to die, have children separated, likely indefinitely, from their parents and placed in inhumane conditions. There is no "middle ground" to be found with people who believe that abortion should be banned or severely restricted, or that it is morally acceptable that people can go bankrupt from healthcare or simply die because of an inability to pay for it. And it's certainly not acceptable to cordially engage with a fellow citizen who is part of a party that has a 91% approval rating for a man that, it has recently been discovered, inquired if the US could "shoot migrants in the legs" to deter them from entering the states.
Of course, the GOP has engaging in power politics for decades - increasingly so in the last ten years - and yet it's always the Left or liberals that are admonished for not reaching across the aisle, as if that's a winning strategy in these increasingly polarize ideological times. Sorry, I personally find it morally abhorrent to work with a nascent Nazi party.
He did. You can read the transcript.
I did read it. No pressure on the transcript, no pressure according to Ukrainian president, nothing regarding the 2020 or future elections election, the favor he asked about was in regards to the 2016 election, both the transcript and whistleblower complaint were declassified and made public. It appears all you’ve done is assumed motives, without evidence.
I think Stephen Miller has his hand up your ass and you're his ventriloquist's dummy.
The insults are as soft as Schiff’s chin. It’s no wonder you guys move your mouth like him.
The thing is, he really does seem to believe this conspiracy theory - that the DNC and Ukraine conspired with Italian agents AND the FBI AND the CIA to frame the Russians and hang it on Trump. Giuliani is going on about how the DNC 'framed' Trump. It's beyond preposterous. How can you possibly run the government when the Chief Executive is basically subverting the agencies in support of lunatic fringe theories? And in so doing he's stoking conflict between the AG, the Secretary of State, their own departments and the whole intelligence community.
And yet, you're fine with Trump doing exactly that with regard to Biden.
Regarding Trump's offenses, we also have the whistleblower report, which provides the damning context. This is certainly not proof, but it is more than adequate cause to investigate further.
I've found it terrifying how much trump reminds me of Hitler. And he's whipping his supporters up into an irrational frenzy of hatred and anger. And yes, as you noted, we're seeing Nazi-like tactics used on those he considers "inferior races." Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth: he's a cold-blooded, reptilian-brained psychopath.
Nice. You've reduced the identity of about half of the population to a few social stances and declared you'll never talk to them. How's that working out for you? Convinced anyone to vote Democrat yet by shaming them for being Republican?
Keep up the useless work and clap yourself on the back for being so righteously ineffectual.
EDIT: For what it's worth. Engaging is not the same as convincing. If you don't listen to others, they certainly won't listen to you.
I think it's pretty abhorrent to compare Trump with Hitler, really. Hitler could be characterised as an evil genius, Trump will never be a genius, and the kind of evil he embodies arises more from ignorance than malevolence, as such. I think he's a lot more like Mr Magoo.
Although not so benevolent, and probably, in the long run, not so lucky, either.
All perfectly normal, of course.
Working out pretty good since only 24% of Americans consider themselves Republicans, not "half of the population". Either way, I'm obviously generalizing, certainly not every Republican voter feels the same way - but to circle back my original point, why should political representatives care what this segment of the population - particularly those who do believe in what I've outlined - think about impeachment? They shouldn't. Instead they should convince and mobilize both Democratic voters and left leaning independent, not those who vote for or sympathize with a Nazi party.
I agree. A true pathology would absolve him of responsibility.
Quoting StreetlightX
Rather than getting into the question of what is normal in its various senses I think it is more productive to focus on what is, as a minimum, acceptable behavior for the president.
The character of a person should be given much consideration when deciding who would be a suitable president. When expediency is prized and character ignored we end up with someone like Trump. When public spiritedness is regarded as a quaint notion that plays no part in political realities we end up with someone who is avaricious, self-serving, and vindictive, we end up with Trump.
Don't care about any of this, at all, in the slightest. 'Character' is another distraction made for dupes. Consider instead giving a shit about the relaxing of factory line speeds for pig slaughterhouses, put into place just over a week ago. Consider instead the roughly 85 various policy rollbacks on environmental protections undertaken by his administration so far, including the clean water protections just under a month ago. Consider instead the appointment of the roughly 150 lifetime tenure judges that will transform the US judiciary in unfathomable ways. Or consider the relaxation of the Johnston amendments that enabled Churches to play far bigger roles in political life than they could before. Or the relaxation of the Dodd-Frank regulations put in place to stop another financial crisis. Or the concentration camps. And a thousand other things. By comparison, I couldn't give a fuck about Trump's character, and neither should anyone else.
Chew on this shit: https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/10/3/20895389/warrens-plan-for-workers and not Trump's 'behaviour'. Jesus what fucking useless thing to worry oneself about.
---
Perhaps a new rule when talking about Trump might be a good idea: if someone can't talk about Trump without at the same time talking about Muller, Russia, Putin, Ukraine, Biden, 'fascism', Giuliani, Pompeo, Hitler, whistle-blowers, Trump's media gaffes, or his use of language, then one should probably shut the fuck up.
Do you not see the disconnect? If Trump's interests were not limited to self-interest he would give a shit about such things and would not roll back regulations regarding work conditions and the environment, and would not support the move to determine the make up of the judiciary along ideological lines. It is his character that determines what he does.
Here's the reason he's got the uncritical support of the GOP. He's the perfect distraction while shit is happening.
Oh my God please never talk about politics again, people like you are why Trump can get away with what he does.
This makes no sense. It should be evident from my posts in this topic that I strongly oppose Trump and what he does. Everything he does is determined by his character. The same is true for the rest of us.
Do you think that Warren's reform platform is independent of her character? Would she propose such things if they did not reflect her values, public spiritedness, and regard for others? Would her promises mean anything if she lacked honesty and integrity?
I think he'd find the way to be prominent in any world we dropped him in, with some luck.
Neither the “whistleblower” or IG Atkinson saw the transcript of the call. It’s all gossip. It’s inadequate.
Yes, the character of the regime. I agree with Plato regarding the degeneration of democracy and tyranny. It is only in such a condition that someone like Trump could be elected.
But modern American democracy is not the same as ancient democracy. It is a mixed regime and may be able to correct its course. If, as some say, Trump is just a symptom then it is a symptom that has its own causal consequences. One sign for hopefulness is the faction at Fox News over the impeachment inquiry. If Fox is an important opinion maker and opinions at Fox differ then, without a consistent, unified message some will give more weight to those who report the news rather than to those who spin it and the difference will become more obvious.
The importance of the impeachment is something that will become more apparent as things develop, not simply with regard to extent of the corruption of this administration but with regard to larger questions of governance and political philosophy.
If your political system is a representative democracy, the character of the people you elect matters. It might actually be the most important thing. You don't elect representatives to micromanage every one of their decisions. You elect them so they will make the right decisions in your name.
American as apple pie. Unfortunately he also represents much of what people hate about America: the reality tv, the pro-wrestling, the beauty pageant, the fast food, the fast and loose talk.
To snobs, he is an embarrassment to the world. When he spoke at the UN a while back and those present let out a laugh, we were told “the world is laughing at Trump”, as if the political elite in the UN general assembly, some of whom are tinpot dictators, represented the world. It was routine snobbery.
But I hope that’s turning around, According to Gallup, “Trump's better ratings on issues than on character distinguish him from Bush and Obama, who were both rated significantly better on character than on issues.” Perhaps “character” isn’t such a selling point any longer, especially when rough work is to be done,
https://news.gallup.com/poll/257819/trump-character-ratings-improved-weakness.aspx
You don’t need to be a snob to laugh at buffoonery, and his level of buffoonery in not normal.
Just what is it that you think character entails and why do you think it does not matter?
We can call it personality, or integrity, or anything else if you're interested in semantics. What matter is electing people that you can actually trust to act in the common interest, rather than their own or that of their party.
What is this, a hallmark card?
I suppose you're an adherent of direct democracy then?
And once this happens all anyone can talk about is useless shit like affections and feelings: embarrasment, laughter, shame, whatever. The only thing worse than a Trump supporter is a Trump opponent whose political literacy extends as far as 'this is not normal'. They ought to be first against the wall when the shit hits the fan. At least Trump supporters have a keener instinct for things that actually matter.
So I conclude that the "shoot em in the legs" comment didn't bother you, nor what happened to all the detained children left in their own soiled clothes for days on end. Sounds like a concentration camp to me.
This is 1000% correct. But imagine having a leader who you know is a fundamentally good person. I had that: Barack Obama. There's nothing like it.
It's not whether you win or lose. It's how you play the game.
What was it about Trump that reminds you of Hitler? Was it the holocaust or hatred of Jews?
The problem is any old snake can act like a good person. Meanwhile, while you were enraptured by his game play, he waged a war on whistleblowers and the press.
Would you care to substantiate this claim in some way?
1. Totalitarian personality, tremendous anger manangement problem.
2. He believes everything that comes out of his own mouth: malignant narcissism and dissociation from reality.
3. He believes he has the right to control the whole world.
4. He's a total racist who'd like to shoot border crossers and feed them to crocodiles.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Worse. He was responsible for Syria's implosion and he knows it. He was still a good man.
You forgot to add:
5. Seemingly supports far-rightwing Fascism by promoting pollical violence.
I was the same way about Obama. But, for me at least, It seems easier to excuse someone’s errors if you believe them to be a good person. That’s dangerous, especially in a leader. I’ve come around to Arthur Miller’s idea that a leader must be willing to kill for us if necessary. A person like that seems to me to exclude good men.
In other words, Trump’s psychology reminds you of Hitler’s psychology. That’s poor comparison in my book, especially since one was guilty of genocide, and the other guilty of nothing of the sort.
Can’t say I ever tried.
It's fundamentally the same psychology. I know lots of folks are quite happy having a sociopath with no self-control in the white house.
Darn!!! I did forget that!! I was trying not to use the word fascist so as not to rile the fascist-leaning members of this forum. :-}
LOL, yes I wanted to ask his thoughts and comparison relative to endorsement of pollical violence...
No, it’s not. There is no comparison any more than a vegetarian is like Hitler because he didn’t eat meat.
Be my guest.
The more I look at this the more nonsensical it appears. You say that the shit's gonna hit the fan, presumably because of the Trump administration, yet you claim that Trump supporters have keener instincts for things that actually matter and that these keen instincts are better than someone lacking political literacy. What the hell??
You are confusing character and personality. One can present a persona but one's character is, as the etymology of the word makes clear something very different. It is what marks a person for what they are.
Quoting StreetlightX
It was of fundamental importance for Aristotle's Politics and Nicomachean Ethics.
Quoting StreetlightX
Machiavelli teaches political leaders:
Machiavelli's subtly is easily and often overlooked. It is only political leaders who are good who needs to be taught not to be good. Political leaders who are bad must learn how not to use that knowledge, that is, how not to be bad. According to necessity means what is necessary to be and remain a prince. This is not what is it is commonly assumed to be. It is not advocating self-interest, for he takes that as a given. It is about satisfying the people's own self-interests, the desire for freedom, peace, and prosperity.
In other words, Machiavelli teaches how not to be good in order to do good.
In his Discourse on Livy Machiavelli says:
One would do well to learn that the discussion of political character of leaders is not to be found in gossip magazines, TV reality shows, and children's fairytales, but in reading the classics of political philosophy.
You sidestepped my points: 1) It is inadequate as a sole basis to impeach, but -like any credible whistleblower report- it warrants investigating further. 2) it ia hypocrytical to suggest Biden should be investigated based solely on circumstances, while claiming investigating a whistleblower report is a "witch hunt."
Everything about Trump bothers me, he’s an aberration and a thoroughly dreadful person. But Hitler, he ain’t.
This is a complete non-sequitur. Why would caring about the character of the people you entrust with power destroy your ability to engage in politics? Putting the right people in power is part of politics.
This is why I asked whether or not you are in favor of some system of complete direct democracy, because otherwise your insistence that who is in power doesn't matter makes zero sense.
Quoting StreetlightX
That's just nonsense. I have no idea where you get that from, certainly not from anything I wrote.
Quoting StreetlightX
Again, I don't see how this follows. Perhaps you could make a structured argument for all these claims.
Quoting StreetlightX
And that just looks to me like an ad-hominem.
The complaint is inadequate for investigation is what I meant, and for the reasons I stated.
This has nothing to do with vegetarianism; you'd like to trivialize my description of what the two have in common, but your comment is irrelevant to my argument.
I'm still awaiting a comment regarding the obvious hypocrisy: there was no evidence of a crime by Biden, so are you decrying that investigation as well? Do you agree with Miller that we have a "right to know" about Biden? If so, we why do we not have the right to know about Trump?
Whistleblower law? Which law would that be?
Hearsay is generally inadmissible for a variety of reasons, and those reasons apply to this hearsay.
Apparently not true.
https://abovethelaw.com/2019/09/trump-impeachment-hearsay/
I'd compare it to a hostage situation, no?
But "how Trump is" is not the problem; what he (really the GOP) is doing is the problem. And as @StreetlightX pointed out focusing on how Trump is distracts form seeing what is being done (not just by Him but in His name!) and trying to counteract it.
Quoting Janus
Totally disagree with SLX on this but am choosing not to argue. The most spineless, gutless and reprehensible thing is that the GOP has allowed themselves to be f****ed over by this man and still don't have the guts to stand up against it.
Anyway - I will restrict my input here to what I see as newsworthy developments.
Obviously it suits their purposes very nicely. With all the focus on Trump's antics they can get away with murder. That's what's really going on in my view.
Are you "choosing not to argue" or are you having trouble finding arguments?
The former. I've made my views clear on this matter.
What exactly does Trump uniquely allow them to get away with? Something that they couldn’t get away with when Bush was in office, for example.
Quoting StreetlightX
Not saying none of this would have been implemented without the focus being on Trump, his pussy-grabbing, his constant lies, the Mueller report, the Russians, collusion, etc., etc.; with most of the outrage being focused on Trump, other things that seem comparatively insignificant may be slipped in under the radar.
So, as we all know, Trump constantly rails against the 'fake media' in which he lumps NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, and many other mainstream media outlets.
And one of the consequences is that he implicitly trusts the Alt-Right media, like Brietbart, Fox (the commentators, not the news team) and god knows what other third-rate internet yellow press.
So they're the ones who are cooking up and circulating all this bullshit conspiracy theory about Clinton's email server being in Ukraine. And Trump just falls for it, hook line and sinker. He just KNOWS that this is what was REALLY behind the whole Mueller thing. Knows it. And he's infuriated because (1) people don't believe him and (2) he can't find the definitive proof. So he's got this massive workforce, including the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, and Rudy "Batshit Crazy" Giuliani, enrolled in trying to find the evidence of the scam that he KNOWS led to the Mueller enquiry. He thinks Alexander Downer, Australian diplomat in London, was in on it! And the FBI! And the CIA! It's tinfoil hat stuff.
This is what is going to bring him down, as it's all based on lies, and he can't bullshit his way out of it.
https://nyti.ms/2AFJ3Un
If Trump is impeached then Mike Pence will assume his office. Is he accusing the Vice President of a clandestine attempt to usurp the presidency?! Oh wait, I forgot that when your supporters have a keen instinct for what’s important you don’t need to make sense.
So you got nothing, in other words.
Sure, but something halfway reasonable must come to mind, no?
:rofl:
Trump is out there putting people in cages and Plutocrtizing the cabinet and someome thinks the most appropriate response is to extensively cite milennia old dead people on virtue ethics and the subtleties of Machiavelli. It's almost like you want Trump to win. The US burning down might not be such a bad thing after all. It'd take a bunch of political incompetants with it.
But then Australia would be China's butthole. Is that really what you want?
This is an interesting analysis, echoing our own conversation here:
What seems to be the issue? It's pretty clear that a great deal of Trump's opponents have been uniquely useless at actually opposing anything whatsoever, insofar as their efforts continue to centre upon utterly unpolitical - that is to say, unactionable - vectors of resistance. Trump is stacking the courts and destorying the environment and apparently quoting a bit of Aristotle is supposed to count as making things better. It's pathetic. Most of this thread, which stacked to the brim with useless bullshit like the Muller investigation and wranging over Russia and Ukraine, is also pathetic.
Relying on the US to do anything at this point would be folly. A nation in the throws of decline that would quite easily throw us to Chinese wolves. Not that our own political leaders are doing much better, mind you.
Dictatorship it is, then. Actually Chinese culture is fucking awesome, as I'm sure you know.
https://wapo.st/2LH2XVl
In the meantime, people are apparently shocked that Republicans are holding the line on impeachment. Like - exactly what did you expect? Why are people continually surprised by the depths of depravity among Trump and his supporters? How do you remain this fucking naive almost three years in?
That takes character, to jump in and intervene, make a political difference. Trump did it, he's got character. The reasons for doing it define the character, good or bad.
Yep.
"Democrats are playing Trump’s game. Trump has no policy agenda. He’s incompetent at improving the lives of American citizens, even his own voters. But he’s good at one thing: waging reality TV personality wars against coastal elites. So now over the next few months he gets to have a personality war against Nancy Pelosi and Jerrold Nadler.
The Democrats are having a pretty exciting and substantive presidential primary season. This is what democracy is supposed to look like. Why they would want to distract from that is beyond reason. Trump vs. Nadler is exactly the contrast Trump wants to elevate.
This process will increase public cynicism. Impeachment would be an uplifting exercise if we had sober leaders who could put party affiliation aside and impartially weigh the evidence. It would be workable if Congress enjoyed broad public affection and legitimacy. We don’t live in that world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/opinion/impeachment-trump-mistake.html
I was responding to your claims about character. Far from being the stuff of gossip magazines, TV reality shows, and children's fairytales, it is an essential part of political philosophy and practice.
Concern for character does not preclude opposition to what Trump does, which, of course, is based on his character. Do you think he would put people in cages and make wealth the criterion for holding political power if he had any regard for anyone but himself?
It is not simply a matter of Trump's character but of the character of whoever it is we vote into office. Suppose candidate X puts forth policy proposals that you agree with, but X is not trustworthy and his actions raise serious questions about whether he has any intention of doing what he proposes to. Will you vote for him because you like the policies he is running on?
Not interested in hypotheticals. We don't live in theory-land. More distraction. More useless discussion.
Really? Did moral outrage have nothing to do with ending the Vietnam war? Do you think it is moral indifference that fuels efforts to reverse reproductive laws and attempts to make law based on religious beliefs? Do you think significant changes in environmental protection will be the result of moral indifference?
I refer you to the majority of the discussion around Trump, which is almost singularly devoid of policy or process, of which this thread and it's participants are exemplary.
A feeble dodge.
Streetlight thinks we ought to change the topic of the thread to discuss politics rather than character. But we're the peanut gallery here, and we like to think we're judging the politician's character, not the politician's policies. There's no fun in the latter.
I think it is a false dichotomy.
Your understanding of morality seems to be as impoverished as your understanding of character. The irony is that you object to Trump's putting children in cages, but that is not a morally neutral objection and the decision to do so is directly related to his amoral character. If morality is irrelevant than why are you not indifferent to people fucking dying?
Imagine thinking immigration policy is a result of either charatcter or morality.
The midterms proved to be a significant and effective opposition, and it even seemed reactive to the ‘personality’ of the Trump administration, with a record number of women elected, and a Muslim woman as well.
Quoting StreetlightX
The conservative agenda, which it could be argued has been largely successful despite Trump. Perhaps Trump cost them the midterms loss, as well as other things like failing to repeal and replace Obamacare, etc. Perhaps he is more of a liability to their agenda then an asset.
The most effective 'reactions' to Trump to my mind have been precisely those who have not merely re-acted but acted to change the conversation entirely. Medicare for all, the green new deal, labour reform - substantial policy agendas which have shifted the conversation away from Trump's diva-nature and onto things that will actually have an effect on people's lives.
Only the lowest common denominators talk about 'character' - it's what those with nothing to say speak about. They're the deplorables of the anti-Trump train, political rednecks who like to stew in their apparent moral superiority rather than actually talk about anything that has any bearing on the lives of ordinary people.
Anyone with half a brain understood Trump's 'character' from day zero. The adage that insanity is doing or saying the same thing over and over agin and expecting anything to change applies nowhere better to those who find themselves continually 'morally outraged' by Trump. For three years they've been having that same, unchanging conversation, and that it continually steers back to this pearl clutching ('did u see what he said this time?' *gasp/faints*) that tells us nothing new is an indictment on the total impotence of most of the Trump 'resistance'.
Policy proposals “that will actually have an effect on people's lives.” Hmm, and more effectively than gaining a majority in the house, no less. Conservatives are using these proposals to motivate their party, you realize.
Quoting StreetlightX
If you were to substitute “morality” with “religion” in this statement I could agree. Otherwise, it could use some explaining.
Awesome. Good. Yes. The more these themes dominate the conversation, the more the left claims the very terms of debate, the better off the US will be.
Quoting praxis
Politics is about the exercise of power. Morality erases considerations of power. As one of my favourite writers put it - morality is dead politics. Morality elevated to political principle issues in injustice, always. This is not the place for this discussion though.
I think that's highly questionable though. You're only going to be distracted if you didn't care about the policies beforehand. And if that's the case, what exactly would arouse your interest absent the distraction?
There is also the question of what exactly we should be doing that we're not because of the distraction.
Quoting StreetlightX
I don't think it's all that singular. People are interested in personal drama. If it wasn't Trump's personal drama, it would be someone else's. Of course, the constant drama is part of the strategy with Trump. But I think you're overlooking one aspect of the strategy: It only works because people are willing to tolerate this kind of behaviour from a president. If everyone thought it was a moral outrage, Trump would have long since been abandoned by his party. And that is true for a lot of the dirty tactics the republicans use to stay in power.
'Ifs' are of no use to anyone. Especially since as a 'strategy', it has quite obviously been - and will continue to be - a marked failure. In fact more than a failure, banking on 'moral outrage' at this point would count as outright maliciousness and strategic support for Trump, if I did not believe instead in the infinite capacity of human stupidity.
Oh I agree with that. I just don't agree we shouldn't care about the character of the people we elect. I think that the trend towards only looking at a narrow band of policy questions - who will do what for immigration, jobs, families etc. - has truned politicians into wishing wells. Whoever has the best promises wins. I think this is an important factor in the ability of populists to tap into the disillusionment of the working class. If instead we looked at their actual voting history, their industry affiliations, their record on factual questions, we might have avoided a couple of contemporary catastrophes in terms of people in power.
[I] "Federal law establishes a unique process for disclosures made to OSC. This process is intended to protect the confidentiality of the whistleblower and ensure that the alleged wrongdoing is investigated and, where necessary, corrected."[/i]
It is long established procedure to allow second hand information in whistleblower reports. The Republican lie that this was a recent change is exposed Here
This isn't a question of principles, this is one of strategy. It is the obsessional concern with Trump's character that is, when not naive, actively harmful to alleviating the worst of his administration's maleficence. You don't fight a black hole by pointing out over and over again that it sucks.
So - how can it be OK for the GOP to support a President, who stands on the White House lawn, and invites collaboration from the Chinese Communist Party against the Democratic Party? In what parallel world would that be justifiable?
It is not a matter of it being the result of character or morality but of the fact that they factor into one's own views on what that policy should be. Someone who has little or no regard for the plight of others will favor policies that keep them out. Someone who is xenophobic will favor policies that keep them out. Someone who believes that we should help those is need will favor policies that allow them entry.
A factor is not the whole of the matter. There are other considerations as well - security, economic impact, overpopulation, and so on. It is about the relative weight one gives to these competing factors.
But some are not capable of doing this. They are incapable of or have limited capacity for reasoned deliberation. They are governed by fear or hatred or anger or sentiment or ideology or self-certainty.
I’m suggesting that opponents are worried what Trump will find.
I would report this but hey you are a moderator, go figure :brow:
Ah, what the hell...
Sensible and civil as ever :up:
But I'm quite serious. That's the banal rubbish that the personalization and moralization of politics leads to. "Bad people do Bad things. Trump does bad things. He is a bad person. He should stop doing bad things; We should be angry at the Bad man who does Bad Things". It's political reasoning for the Disney channel. Like, if that's the extent of one's political acumen, you may as well join his rallies for all the good one does.
Not that it's anyone's fault. Thinking politically is hard, and most people have been specifically trained not to. Raised on a steady diet of personality politics, people are shit at thinking politically, and this includes almost everyone here.
Already done.
Not that it will make much difference.
Edit : Well, it seems that the post I flagged up has been deleted.
But will it make a difference to the underlying attitude...
I can express my thoughts on these matters all I want, Timmy, like everyone else. The problem is not that I can’t do so, it’s that you don’t want to hear it. Grow some skin, pal, you’re completely threadbare.
This has nothing to do with anything I actually said, but your response is a fine example of the problem of reasoned deliberation that I did address.
The post has now been deleted. But glad you kept it as an example.
Quoting Fooloso4
How about: "When things are put into water, things become wet"; or, "when shapes are round, they have no sharp edges". When story time at the Disney channel is over, maybe someone can say something about Trump that isn't an infantile platitude passed off as 'reasoned deliberation'.
Right. So how do we fight a black hole? And is it always the right choice to be purely pragmatic when it comes to politics or is there a place for principle?
Quoting NOS4A2
I am curious, how are motives established, in your opinion?
I’m not a lawyer so I cannot say with certainty, but certainly we do not establish motives by taking his political opponent’s word for it. He made his motives explicit countless times now, and the transcript gives force to it.
No political donations required. All funded by the US government itself. Diabolical, huh?
I wouldn’t say he’s innocent. Clearly someone is lying, and that person may be Trump.
No he's innocent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/04/schiffs-false-claim-his-committee-had-not-spoken-whistleblower/
On the one hand you claim that character and morality are of no importance and on the other when it is pointed out how they are factors in policy deliberation you claim that it is obvious.
You can continue floundering and covering it up with insults and noise but I am done.
You create a fucking star. At least one of the things this means is that you depersonalize politics, entirely. If you find yourself talking about Trump's personality, stop, because you're making things worse. If you find yourself indulging in Russian plots and Ukrainian subterfuges, stop, because you're making things worse still. If you find yourself treating politics like a Game of Thrones episode (What has Pompeo said now? Which secret document was leaked today?), stop, because you're a fucking cancer on a polity and you ought to be cut out like the tumour you are. If it's not something that can be changed - if it's not something open to the action of political agency - then shut. the. fuck. up. because you may as well be blabbering on about the latest Entertainment Weekly gossip rag.
What's happening in the courts? What has ICE been doing? Which regulatory rollbacks have been passed today, and what effects have they had? Is Warren's industrial relations labour package something worth supporting and discussing among friends and colleagues? Does it look like Roe is going to survive the next sitting term of the supreme court? Is your discussion democratic? Or is it about a bunch of millionaires in high places playing in the shady corridors of power? If it's the latter, give up your rights now, because you don't deserve them.
They are of no importance because they are obvious. Trump's depravity is a political fact. It's an emblazoned sign with goddamn sparklers shooting out it's every orifice. Pointing it out over and over again expecting something new to happen is wishing upon Aladdin's genie. Personality politics is not 'sophisticated'. It's a death rattle of people unable to talk about anything of differential significance.
I have yet to be bitten. In fact that ol’ dog is working night and day to make the reasons I voted for him a reality. That’s all that I ask for in a president. I don’t require, nor do I want, the public relations and political correctness of former times to cloak what goes on in Washington. I reject the public/private views of former politicians.
I think your fears are warranted. But I have yet to be persuaded about his “badness”. I do worry about his lack of principle and his tendency to pragmatism, but am fairly certain he loves his country and the people in it.
I'm just like you. I don't care if he's from outer space. I just want to go back to the 1960s where I very well may belong.
This doesn’t help, and saying this isn’t the place is no excuse. Who’s the writer you mention? I’ll look it up myself. A search for “morality is dead politics” didn’t lead to an author.
Hey, many of Trump’s opponents still pretend it’s the 60’s, so you’re not completely alone.
How so?
Edit: Sorry, the phrase is in Politics and the Imagination, specifically in the essay 'Moralism and Realpolitik'.
Identity politics (and by close extension, anti-Trumpism) is, in my view, a consolation prize for those who missed the civil rights era.
You're probably right. I'm very opposed to people pretending it's the 1960s because that stands in the way of objective progress on actually going back to the 1960s.
I have a job at GM waiting for me. I can't deal with all this global warming, which, let's face it, has Ukrainian involvement.
I'm in favor of nuking everything from Moscow on eastward. Arent you?
I suspect you would welcome the end of the earth so long as it meant Trump’s impeachment. Schadenfreude is strong enough for that.
I am not concerned about my own self-interest as I am about the country. I would argue it is the last beacon of liberty on this planet.
The storm is well needed, at least to wash away the pests and parasites now bleeding the American experiment dry.
That's great you feel that way Nosferatu. Sadly, the facts aren't on your side on the issue as to whether Trump is a net good or detriment to upholding American ideals about governance and foreign policy.
You might as well bash me for being an independent or Democrat and not a libertarian or some such nonsense.
The facts aren’t on your side. We won’t know whether Trump’s presidency is a net good until his term(s) are over. History might tell us, as anti-Trumpists presume, that his term is an aberration. I happen to suspect it will be the other way about.
I’m not going to bash you.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6454114/Volker-Prepared-Remarks.pdf
So the Washington Post is not fake news?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/ukraine-text-messages-volker.html
Thanks. I've started reading some Geuss and like it a lot. So far, the gist seems to be that 'politics is not applied ethics' because there is no universal ethics that can be applied.
When you say, "When politics is confused with morality, people fucking die. Morality is for those who can't think.," what I think you mean is that people who hold to a moral framework unquestioningly can be easily manipulated. Trump may be a good example of this. It doesn't appear to make sense, for example, that Trump has captured the amount of support from Evangelicals that he has, being the 'bad person' that he is. However, Trump supports issues that are important to Evangelicals, such as being anti-abortion. Does Trump actually care about abortion or is it merely a means to an end for him? Do Evangelicals actually care if he cares? I doubt it. So where is the true morality in any of this? Nowhere.
Liberals have their own sort of carrots and hypocrisies, of course.
Quoting NOS4A2
Provide some facts that support the notion that Trump is upholding American ideals. Be sure to state the ideals he is upholding.
Why would I provide facts for something I have never argued?
In the introduction to "Outside Ethics" he says the essays are bound by:
That particular way of thinking is one that is timeless and universal. His particular way of thinking about what is important in human life is historical or genealogical.
You must not have read the post from Wallows before you responded to it. There is ample evidence that Trump is a detriment to American values, and yet you indicated it's unknown if history will deem him a net good or net bad TO AMERICAN VALUES (that is the implication of the context).
To what American values is Trump a detriment to?
I believe it is you who makes the fundamental error, to be more precise, the fundamental attribution error, the assumption that what Trump does reflects who he is.
?
Isn't what you actually do define what you are?
No?
So now it's something else.
This is partly what I mean when I say that Trump supporters are generally far better attuned to the things that matter: they grasp - however cynically and nihilistically - the importance of power. They understand - in a way liberals are laregely clueless about - the instrumentalities of politics entirely unsubordinated to moral injunctions, even if they use the latter in service of the former. This is partly why the perpetual confusion of Trump opponents over how such an alliance between him and evangelicals is possible is itself so exasperating.
When Trump supporters are treated as dupes - again, a debilitating personalization of politics - and not as eagle-eyed clear about what they are doing, the only idiots here are aghast liberals who, in thinking themselves superior and immune to being hoodwinked, are the only clueless ones in the room. Without a proper understanding of power, Trump opponents will flounder and even play right into the hands of all they apparently hate. Treating the political as a space of morals and individuals is fatal, absolute suicide.
I'm a bit fascinated now by asymmetrical warfare. I consider what the evangelicals and Trump-supporters in general are doing asymmetrical warfare as anything Trump does to them gets a pass, but if a Democrat like Obama did any ounce of what Trump did, he would have been impeached long ago. That kind of unjust double standard is the odious part. A strong democracy where all that matters is the majority who have power is indeed not a strong one after all. I disagree with this idea that it's just playing better politics. If that's the case, why even have a democracy? This corruption can work under any format and corrodes the idea of living up to any ideals. There is a difference between cynicism of human tendencies and then indulging them as what should be the case.
They were muttering impeachment when he wore a tan suit to the press briefing. Imagine the outrage if he’d stood on the White House lawn and called on China to investigate Mitt Romney. I just shows what stinking hypocrites those Republican senators and white evangelicals are.
The difficulty is fighting lies by legal means. If you get into the ring with someone who will kick you in the balls and gouge your eyes out while you have to play by gentlemen’s rules, then you’d better have some pretty good moves.
Being that this is mainly a political battle over what is considered an Abuse of Power, it is up to both parties to a) come to an agreement of what that means and b) interpret facts using the same methodologies. Well, prior to trump it would have been more than an outrage if a president was openly asking help from a foreign country to help win an election. Nixon only used domestic spies, for example.
Now, people might get confused here. Nixon's crime was not that burglers broke into some random hotel room. They broke in on political opponents to the president. Even then, it may be argued Nixon was unaware of the original break-in. Rather, it was the cover-up that he got caught up in that was found out. Unlike today, JUST a cover-up of an attempt to spy on political enemies was eventually seen by Nixon's own party (the Republicans) as worthy of impeachment (and thus Nixon resigned). However, today, Trump not only covered up an attempt to get dirt on an enemy, it is clear in the transcripts that indeed, he asked a foreign government to help dig up dirt on a political opponent. That in itself is an Abuse of Power. As far as I see it, you don't even have to prove "quid pro quo" (which actually seems to have been the case too) to prove this was an Abuse of Power. But with asymmetrical warfare, the party in power does not hold its own party to any standard (or pay lip service to it, even if they themselves don't care), so that this clear Abuse of Power is overlooked or the standard is raised to an unbelievably narrow standard. High Crimes and Misdemeanors as I see it, are not the same as actual crimes, but is a term used for officials in power who corrode the very system they are in charge of.
Trump will look right into the camera and lie - and enough people will believe him to enable him to keep going. But in this case, with the acknowledged utterance ‘I want you to do us favour’, he’s been caught dead to rights. Let’s just hope the machinery of law can produce the knockout blow. I’m still hopeful it will.
Well, that is basically what my last post was trying to say..
Quoting Wayfarer
I agree very much. What I meant by political battle is, at the end of the day Congress will have to get over its own partisanship and even perhaps their own constituency to hold up the Constitution as anything but a joke right now. If this matter isn't resolved properly, indeed the message is some people are above the law. To not recognize this as an Abuse of Power, and one that is worthy of impeachment means there is no rule of law and that all that matters is the party in power.
Because to 'play politics' is to 'play democracy'. There's nothing democratic about the 'odious' focus on the backroom deals and personalities of the rich and powerful. The issues are to change the conditions under which truth, lies, and significance circulate in society. the If you don't address those conditions, no amount of dewey-eyed nostalgia for a time when there were Good People will do anything. Systemic problems require systemic solutions, not shitty psycho-individual tinkering. The latter is simply complicity - you may as well be a Trump supporter.
Well, I did say a lot more than what you decided to quote. How would you take from what I wrote, that I wouldn't be for systematic solutions? And what systematic solutions are we proposing? Limit campaign money contributions (Super PACs)? Congressional term limits? Less signatures to get on the ballot? Electoral college abolition? Equal election funding? Promote third-parties?
Anyways, even with all these systematic changes- hell, even with very exact wording of what Abuse of Power entails or High Crimes or Misdemeaners.. My main claim that the party that is in power can do what they want as long as they don't hold themselves to standards. In the US Constitution as it stands, only Congress can impeach and basically remove the President from office. As a congressman, you can either find any escape route to keep the person in your party in power, or you can try to be as fair as possible when looking at matters of abusing power. One great litmus test is, "Would I allow this to go on if someone from the other party did this?". That is one really big test they can use. I guarantee 95% of Republicans would be calling for impeachment if this was seen to be the case with a Democrat. As someone mentioned earlier, Obama wore a tan suit and got lambasted. What else can you say? This is asymmetrical warfare. How do you propose to combat this type of entrenched power politics?
And? What is anyone supposed to do about this? This is as banal a claim a 'bad people do bad things (and they shouldn't)', or our idiot contributor above who figured that 'xenophobes will act in xenophobic ways' counted as a 'sophisticated' point. I simply don't care about any of these political inert points: it allows no way forward, they are politically disabling and only lend themselves to people enjoying the feeling of their own moral superiority. It's like Wayfarer who keeps asking 'how could the GOP be so hypocritical?' as though he expected any answer of substance. But it's a rhetorical question - he knows it, everyone who reads it knows it - so the only thing it is a statement of masturbatory political commentary. It's a psychological feel-good mechanism and nothing more.
In a word: truisms are unhelpful and counterproductive.
Why wouldn't there be an answer of substance?
Quoting StreetlightX
The first step in change is recognizing what is fucked up.. It looks like he is just trying to get people to recognize what is fucked up..
But to my previous point, what do you suppose to do systematically, as you were stating? Right now, I don't see much else except outrage at Wayfarer's outrage. That in itself can be called masturbatory.. maybe masturbatory squared even!
Of the little Raymond Geuss that I read today, the notion that there’s such a stark duality between being ‘eagle-eyed clear’ and being ‘hoodwinked’ seem entirely alien. I do believe that Trump, and those like him, know what they’re doing, in terms of attaining power. I don’t believe that Trump’s interests and the vast majority of his supporters interests ultimately align.
For those like Streetlight x, it is obvious that a system that produces Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump is totally shit. But next to bad policy, Trump is the first that acts like a total asshole.
I disagree, however, that character is entirely irrelevant. People with character would resist the worst extremes the system would allow. Which, although not a solution to any systemic problem, would dampen some of the consequences.
As I said to someone else, if, at this point, you're still trying to convince people that things are fucked up, the only person living under a rock is you. The only idiot in the room is you.
Quoting schopenhauer1
My proposals are largely negative: don't individualize politics. Don't psychologize politics. Look to things that will have mass effects on how people engage with the world around them; if you're not discussing something in social terms, it's probably not worth very much. If you're not looking at how power is operating (who is doing what to whom for whose benefit?), then you're doing more mystifying than helping. Don't allow yourself to be caught up in drama: if you find yourself talking about conspiracy theories and shady deals (Russia! Collusion! Backroom deals!) then you're part of the problem.
Nixon comes to mind here..But notice he actually had the decency to LEAVE office once he saw the tapes come out and that other Republicans were now on board that this was bad. So two things going on.. First you had a more/less appropriate response (resignation) as Congress was starting to lean towards president being unfit to stay in office. Second, you actually had other Republicans recognizing the cover-up as a bad thing, warranting the drafting of impeachment charges.
Notice, both of these things may not happen this time.
As far as systematic changes, again, what are we proposing? I mentioned a list of stuff earlier in response to Streetlight X, but he didn't actually respond with concrete ideas. I'm all for systemic change. However, at the end of the day, the people running are just not great people, and we have the worst of the worst.
I mean this kind of talk reminds me of Trump.. "The only idiot is you". Just insults.. How is that contributing to something better? Maybe you unconsciously agree with Trump's methods.
Quoting StreetlightX
I mean this is very vague stuff.. In fact, it's almost as vague as what you are accusing me of when stating how things are screwed up right now in Congress. Actually, I gave much more detail at least in how things are screwed up and shared a particular angle on the situation. In a way I agree, if what you mean is politics is really everything we do socially. We have to learn that it is all connected. Even being by yourself in an apartment is connected. Man is a political animal and thus every engagement is really involving with social institutions, social values, social ways of life. But how about real concrete examples?
There are HOAs, community meetings, town hall meetings, party meetings, meetups, homeless initiatives, and various civic channels. I mean, potentially people could join these and feel more connected and participatory in their neighborhood. Often people consider life to be more discrete- worklife, family life (maybe involving some civic stuff as an example to kids and such?), but mostly personal entertainment.. Work, entertainment. Every couple years there may be an election, and that is often the extent of most people's politics outside of reading some articles or headlines.
1. Unlimited cash for political advertisement
2. A winner takes all system
3. Political appointment of judges
4. Disconnect between rich politicians and normal people means normal people's problems aren't taken care of (an issue in most Western democracies, just that Congressmen in the US are filthy rich)
I can get on board with all of those.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1180245134363025415?s=21[/tweet]
Better yet, he’s doing a better job than any gang of technocrats and lawyers we’ve ever come up with.
Trump Officials’ Texts Show Push to Tie “Investigation” to Future of U.S.-Ukraine Relationship
“Corruption” Is the GOP’s Code for Smearing Democrats
Deal with it.
But will he get convicted and removed? Doubtful
Off the top of my head, the most obvious example that comes to mind is the change in conversations initiated by Sanders and people like AOC. The fact that Americans an talk about socialism as a serious contender in the political field - I think that's huge. Sanders in particular has done more to normalise and legitimise socialism in the states than most of those who have been on the left in decades. There were few things more awesome than seeing the conversation that cropped up after AOC proposed 70% taxes on the wealthy a while back. Or else just the impetus behind the Green New Deal and the promise of institutional change that that offers. And Medicare for all is basically not a question of 'if', but of 'how much exactly' among the democrats now.
Or else I think of the revival of strikes - both in the field of climate (the recent climate strikes) and in the field of work (thinking of the various teacher's strikes) that the largely positive responses to them by many quarters. Warren's proposal to strengthen unions by instituting sector-bargaining instead of workplace bargaining is, I think incredible point of conversation, and one that should be embraced by many.
One of the hard things about this is that much of this is opportunistic: you need a sense of what the Greeks called kairos, seizing the right time, intervening at the right moments, if you're in the right position. The conversations we have prepare the ground, they enable those who are in a position (not usually people like you and me) to tap into something existing and take it from there. 'We' can't change the funding rules for governments, but we can talk about it and put it on the agenda until it becomes impossible to ignore.
Your response is surprisingly more idealistic, optimistic, and less esoteric than I thought, which is good.
Quoting StreetlightX
I can agree with most of these positions you bring up, if I'm discussing everyday politics mode. I agree that Sanders has brought socialism into the mainstream (of the left) in the US- something that would have been political suicide in the 80s and 90s. It would have gotten some people literally blacklisted in the 50s and early 60s :).
Quoting StreetlightX
I see that this is actually very much in line with what happens already (civil rights movement, anti-war movement, progressive era in regards to labor laws/anti-monopoly laws and income tax).
Now moving this out to the abstract again, what do you see as the individual's relation to politics/political systems? Communism for example has an idea that people need to free themselves from the evils of exploitation, thus man is always somehow in some sort of shared labor. What are the assumptions of democratic-socialist economies of the individual and their place in the system as a whole? What is the metaphysical status of the self/individual in the "soft" socialist position (as opposed to hardcore communist let's say) and/or the current US system?
The kettle calling the pot black is now officially presidential?
That stuff isn't going to appeal to anyone with a mental age of more than 12. So, yes, it will be very effective among his fan base.
Sidenote: I think Street has a point. Don't let frustration at Trump do your anger for you. Emotional relief in this context is a distraction. Besides, he'll always win the battle of cartoons.
Much better than the robotic, public relations rhetoric they dream up in focus groups. That stuff is meant to placate, or put to sleep, whichever comes first.
If you imagine the choices for political debate to be limited to infantile cartoons vs robotic PR rhetoric then... that's what I would expect. But never mind, you're playing your part in the Punch and Judy show impeccably and you're welcome to it.
If the US is handing over hundreds of millions dollars in financial aid to Ukraine, he asks, why is it wrong for Trump to ask them for a favour?
"Mueller went nowhere and this will go nowhere," says Blockus, who voted for Trump in 2016. "Trump was a great businessman. He won't allow himself to get his hands caught."
Dave, a retired state trooper who asks for his surname not to be published, says: "I want all the dirt out there and I'll make my decision."
The registered Democrat voted for Trump and has no regrets. "I think he's doing a great job as president: he's pissing both parties off."
Such bad political strategy.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/amid-impeachment-talk-trump-voters-see-cynicism-for-all-as-safest-bet-20191005-p52xv0.html
I think it’s a great strategy.
The US has essentially been a uni-party state since Clinton, who utilized “political triangulation” to siphon votes from republicans, blurring the lines between left and right in the United States. In other words, it was no longer about principle or ideology, but achieving power.
Trump’s very presence and his contrast to previous politicians has forced many to think about politics again (some, it seems, for the first time in their lives), leading to a stronger left and right on the American political field.
I would ask how Trumps divisiveness has proved to be a successful strategy, given the significant failures his administration has had, such as with healthcare, the midterms, border wall funding, etc, but you have a tendency to not substantiate your claims. Probably because they’re just trolls.
Any republican president could cut taxes for the wealthy, deregulate, slash public programs, and drive up the deficit.
Perhaps the Republican Party would be more successful with a different leader. Maybe Trump is more of a liability than an asset, and his best contribution was merely getting elected, allowing their agenda access to fulfillment.
This, though, is entirely right. Trump has been an incredible force of galvanization, for the right and left alike. The left certainly has alot to thank him for. Zizek was right, imo, of seeing a Trump presidency as a far better prospect for the left than a Clinton one, even though he got railroaded by the left for it.
Sure, we've seen (somewhat) similar political dialectics arise during the Bush administration from the Left, the Obama administration from the Right, and now again from the Left thanks to a Trump presidency and GOP controlled government, albeit the Left now, due to the 2008 recession and the palpable critique of Capitalism it generated, is more vigorous and tenacious than in many decades past. However, I remain unconvinced that a Trump presidency has been, in hindsight, 'desirable' for the Left, given the substantive damage done by the Trump administration, and more generally, a GOP controlled government to the lives of people. The conceptual tools for critiquing Capitalism remain as relevant as ever (if not more so than in decades past), with or without Trump.
Gone for all money, I think. They've him dead to rights on this case, smoking gun and bloodied corpse ( see here for the latest) - and all he can do is bluster, threaten and swear. Congress will certainly impeach, and already there are significant numbers of Republican senators expressing doubts. I fully expect him to resign or be removed office, but then, I’ve been expecting that from the outset.
True. The damage done will not have been redeemed, whatever follows. It's probably unfair to expect an 'on the balance' assessment - but, I'll look to what silver linings there might be.
At the very least, we need someone in office who sees the threat posed by global warming and will stop doing everything in his power to accelerate it.
Quoting StreetlightX
That "force", is a force of division. Whether a divisive force within a people is better than a unifying force within a people depends on one's attitude towards the people.
I prefer a divisive force. Unity belongs in the single-party, zero politics systems of absolute monarchies and dictatorships, where unity is mandatory and enforced.
The importance of this cannot be overstated...
Cooperation for mutual benefit would not require force in a truly unified society, so all you appear to saying is that you either don’t believe such unity is possible or that you simply prefer divisiveness. If you prefer divisiveness, perhaps it’s because, like Trump, it’s an ingrained habit and you can’t live any other way.
The “conservative” party is by nature less receptive to change, is un-progressive, so how can it be that they appreciate “altering the landscape” better than progressives?
The point, I think, was to point out the power in the consequences of the narrative. Which terms are used to talk about which things makes all the difference in the world when it comes to how people feel and/or think about those things...
Bernie=Socialism=not American=bad
You get the picture.
Not only do I believe a “truly unified” society is not possible, it is not preferable, especially when it comes to politics.
Right, I was trying to suggest that it’s cohesive by nature, and therefore resistant to alteration.
If nothing else, you lack imagination.
I would ask why you believe an uncooperative society is preferable but... that would require an explanation.
I agree that the Republican narrative is resistant to change. I do not attribute that resistance to it's cohesiveness.
An example: earlier StreetlightX suggested it was a good thing that the Right was demonizing (Venezuela, anyone?) progress proposals like the Green New Deal. As I see it, this is fuel for further entrenching their beliefs and attitudes. It’s not changing their attitudes. Are they pretending to be manipulated or are they actually being manipulated?
Trump supporters believe that ‘big government’ is bad (don’t ask them why), so any move towards privatization or deregulation is good.
The broader the better, and clearly facts don’t get in the way.
To quite the contrary, the only thing that all Trump supporters have in common is that they are Trump supporters.
Could the typical Trump supporter reasonably explain why small government is more beneficial than a larger one? Or why fossil fuel is a better investment than renewable? Or how the benefits of spending tens of billions on a boarder wall outweighs the cost? Etc.
I think that to a large degree it amounts to sheer tribalism. And I doubt they even realize how important the tribe is to them.
It would be such a reality check (catharsis, redemption?) and a testament to American political sanity if Sanders gets elected.
You've flippantly dismissed out of hand and/or derided everything I've explained, so I'm not sure you deserve one.
It’s just words, don’t be such a snowflake.
I think you deserve to make sensible claims, and thinking through your senselessness is a good first step to getting what you deserve.
I'm not at all certain how you would ground such an objection.
All who claim knowledge of what's important are crystal clear about what's important to them(at the time of speaking). I see no reason whatsoever to deny that simply because a person is a Trump supporter.
What's the difference between invoking executive privilege and abusing it?
[According to Le Bon]...a group is extraordinarily credulous and open to influence, it has no critical faculty, and the improbable does not exist for it. It thinks in images...It respects force and can only be slightly influenced by kindness, which it regards merely as a form of weakness...A group...is subject to the truly magical power of words; they can evoke the most formidable tempests in the group mind...' Reason and arguments are incapable of combating certain words or formulas'...Groups have never thirsted after truth. They demand illusions and cannot do without them. They constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real; they are almost as strongly influenced by what is untrue as by what is true. They have an evident tendency not to distinguish between the two...[Le Bon] ascribes both to the ideas and to the leaders a mysterious and irresistible power which he calls 'prestige'. Prestige is a sort of domination exercised over us by an individual...It entirely paralyzes our critical faculty, and fills us with astonishment and respect. It would seem to arouse a feeling like that of fascination in hypnosis..."
I'm curious...
When it comes to establishing the standard, the metric, the criterion for what counts as a clear cut case of an American president abusing the executive powers granted to the office of the presidency...
When it comes to what constitutes being an abuse of power...
Will we demand an originalist interpretation of the Constitution?
I do.
let’s hear it.
Have you read the Mueller report? Have you read the transcripts of the Mueller testimony? Have you watched the video footage?
You never answered the question. Will you demand an originalist interpretation?
I demand to hear your originalist interpretation of abuse of power.
StreetlightX made the claim, not any Trump supporters that I know of.
So, because you know of no Trump supporters who are certain(crystal clear) of what's important, there are none?
That claim is true(or not) regardless of Street. If Street claims that Trump supporters are crystal clear about what's important, then I would have to agree. That standard(being crystal clear about what's important) is determined, established, and met exclusively by what they believe at any specific time. I do think it needs further quantification/qualification.
The general objection I'm levying is the personal devaluation/degradation of Trump and/or 'Trump supporters' as a means to affect/effect the necessary changes.
There are better ways to shed much broader light upon the situation at hand. Some of those ways can and do affect/effect significant change not only in the minds of some Trump voters, but also in the minds of many others who yet to have seriously considered the past forty or so years of American legislation and it's effects/affects.
The point is that the right understands that politics is about power - taking control of institutions, putting 'their man' or men in positions to exert that power, legislating, using the courts, etc. They understand that politics is not a matter of mere knowledge, it isn't some kind of shallow epistemic game where 'getting the knowledge right' will transform things on its own, nor some kind of axiological effort where if only everybody thought 'correctly' things would magically fall into place.
Jerry Falwell exemplified this in one of his tweets a little while ago: "Conservatives & Christians need to stop electing ‘nice guys’. They might make great Christian leaders but the US needs street fighters like @realDonaldTrump at every level of government". There are entire swathes of Trump critics who would be quite satisfied if they got themselves a 'nice guy', someone who 'acts presidential', and who adheres with dignified airs to 'norms'. They can all go fuck off.
It is one thing to recognise the Machiavellian nature of politics. It is quite another to run on a platform of Machiavellianism. One cannot serve one's principles without power, but if power is the only principle then one is a slave to a black hole indeed. Politics is made of power, but it is not about power. Only princes are addressed, not democrats.
That itself is a misunderstanding. As you seem to have taken Thrasymachus' position on justice, 'might is right', you would probably benefit from a more thorough reading of "The Republic". :"Power" can only be attributed to the will of the individual, and that's why the person who is capable of doing the most good is also capable of doing the most bad. Politics, in its true nature, involves one of these, and not the other. The idea that a party can hold power is a form of nonsense which Plato reduces to nothing other than 'mob rules'.
All true. An understanding of power doesn't lead to any particular manner of its wielding in one way or another - but it does help a great deal in leading to its wielding at all. I'm just arguing that we cannot afford to be naive about this stuff, and that if we do, we're not merely ineffective, but counter-effective - we make things worse.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1181172459325800448?s=21[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1181172467676565505?s=21[/tweet]
This will sound terribly obvious but it appears to be the case that the Left is just as adept at taking control of institutions, getting their leaders in positions of power, etc.
I am too and for the same reasons. I mean the move does suit Trump’s isolationist stance, but we do owe the Kurds a great deal. I do think the Middle East should be policed by those closest to it, but we’ve spent so much time there that pulling out would create quite the vacuum.
News to me.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1181232251390042118?s=21[/tweet]
Regarding power positions, the Left has supposedly taken higher education, the arts and entertainment industry, most news networks.
How did the Right fumble those positions?
That’s very true. The reach and influence of the left is profoundly large. I’m not sure how they can lose, but they often do. It makes me wonder if the power of propaganda and indoctrination is vastly overstated in a world of decentralized information.
That’s funny, coming from a Trump supporter. It’s all about branding and speaking to a specific audience. Trump is good at that, but he’s a one trick pony with minority support who’s “strategy” seems to now only be growing opposition. This despite a good economy. That’s remarkable.
What a clown.
It’s like the Russian influence canard. Facebook ads and twitter bots can influence the American public far better than the entire liberal media complex, academia, Hollywood, Washington and Silicon Valley combined,
Two points. First, most of the 'leftism' espoused by these institutions is a kind of effete liberalism that has little if not nothing to do with mass mobilization and democratic participation, concerned far more with crafting feel-good stories than actually challenging anything of the status quo. Second, you just need to follow the money: arts, entertainment, and news are mostly run by billionaire classes funding millionaire patrons, much of which is hugely anti-competitive and reeks at every point with the waft of privilege. If these are the bastions of the left, then the left is truly dead. Higher education is not too different, with universities increasingly run as for-profit vocational training institutions even as they remain largely committed to freedom and diversity of research. And this to say nothing about the function of higher education - in the US at least - as plunging students and their families into crippling debt right at the beginning of their adult lives. Mark Fisher's writings on the bureaucratization of higher-education ought to dispel any sense in which the left has any kind of control here.
These places constitute the zombie left, one mostly utterly enchained to the most brutal workings of capital, reproducing at every level the current state of affairs. And what little leftism is there is largely entirely ineffectual, reduced to woketivism that has been perfectly integrated into advertising and marketing. They nonetheless serve as a nice foil to the right, who have always despised the intellectual and the artistic, if merely on principle, regardless of what comes out of those institutions.
The intelligence community seems to think that it was influential to some degree. Trump has proved to be a destabilizing force and accommodating to Russia in many instances, so, worth the effort, apparently.
The question was how did the Right fumble those positions if they’re so much better at taking and maintaining positions of power. To me it suggests that the picture you’ve painted is largely fictional.
Or maybe your conception of how this all comes together is false.
The result is a crusade against “fake news”, which found credence in the EU and elsewhere. This is something the Chinese did to justify censorship of the internet.
In your response to my question you generally claim that the Left doesn’t take advantage of these positions for various reasons or that they don’t actually hold them. This doesn’t address why the Right doesn’t hold them, and demonstrate their skill at taking and maintaining positions of power. No one is going to buy that conservatives ‘despise the intellectual and the artistic’, if that’s supposed to be a reason.
Regarding Mark Fisher's writings, at a glance you seem to be suggesting that Liberals are somehow anti-capitalist or anti-rational?
People can be easily mislead about what’s important, by appealing to base impulses, if not other methods. If this were not true then advertising and salesmanship would be completely ineffectual.
I agree that this could use further elucidation.
If we're talking the US, specifically, the Republicans have been very good at using the weaknesses of the US democratic system to their advantage. They don't really win popular votes anymore, but they do win seats.
Quoting NOS4A2
Slippery slope fallacy? Fake news are hugely problematic for a democracy, since they make it difficut to implement policies based on facts.
It's not really "the left" holding these positions. Academia may, in general, be more left-leaning than other sectors of the economy, but that's not a new phenomenon. What looks like "the left" holding power is actually just the mainstream having shifted to the left, especially on social issues.
The idea that main stream media and the entertainment industry have been taken over by "the left" is actually somewhat laughable. It could only look that way if you were way over on the right.
Fake news, lies, satire, misinformation, propaganda etc. are natural features of democracy. Censorship is problematic for democracy, given that free speech is fundamental to it.
I disagree about misinformation and propaganda being natural features of a democracy. Quite the opposite. The whole point of democracy is to hold the government accountable to it's subjects. That cannot work if those subjects don't receive accurate information. Lies are not protected speech.
Unless a government institutes a comprehensive lockdown of the internet like China's great firewall, censorship isn't really a threat.