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)
Free speech encompasses lies as it does the truth. You cannot hold a government accountable when it decides what can and cannot be said.
Rules and regulations of the internet are rising at a frightening pace.
I disagree.
Quoting NOS4A2
This is a matter of degrees. The german government forbids anyone from lying or equivocating about the Holocaust, for obvious historical reasons. This is a fairly direct restriction of speech, even political speech. It nevertheless doesn't mean the German people cannot hold their government accountable.
Quoting NOS4A2
The topic is a complex one. But I have always been more a "Brave New World" person than a "1984" person. Which is to say I am more worried about soft, algorithm-driven manipulation than about the police state.
It's odd that for all your cynicism about human nature, you ignore the ways people manipulate each other, quite apart from any state apparatus.
The perception is easily understood with celebrities appearing to be overwhelmingly liberal, and so many of the narratives expressing liberal values.
In any case, I’ve yet to see an explanation for why conservatives, with their power position prowess, have failed to dominate these areas.
How did they lose the majority in the House of Representatives in the midterms, for that matter.
Anyone that says anything less than adulatory about Trump gets the same treatment. They're all 'frauds' and 'traitors' and 'treasonous'. There are only a couple of names that I can think of about whom Trump is invariably deferential and respectful - Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un. And the latter, he's 'in love' with. Oh, and Erdowan, the wannabee dictator of Turkey, who only had to pick up the phone to persuade his bootlicking pal in the Whitehouse to do his bidding. Trump takes orders from foreign dictators and then relies on exploiting the hopes of American rubes to stay in power.
CNN
But the gig is almost up.
I think you're dreaming, but I hope you're not. Not that I think a replacement of Trump would make any significant difference to what is transpiring, but at least we wouldn't have to put up with the ceaseless anti-Trump rhetoric.
Yeah, like the only good thing about being cured of a fatal cancer is not having to put up with the chemo any more.
I’ll miss the endless deluge of comedic Trump satire. So much material, so little time left, hopefully.
Nose4 has corrected one misconception I’ve had, that he’s thin-skinned. Sociopathically immune to ridicule perhaps, but not thin-skinned.
I doubt it, but time will tell.
Now that I think about it, conservative speakers, even those as far right as Richard Spencer, routinely visit college campuses to influence young minds. So it’s not like there’s nothing direct and deliberate happening, to some degree.
"As of 2019, 90% of the United States's media is controlled by five media conglomerates: Comcast (via NBCUniversal), Disney, Viacom & CBS (both controlled by National Amusements), and AT&T (via WarnerMedia)" (cite)
The revolutionary leftist takeover of the media, everyone.
I think the real fault lies with the so-called 'conservative media' in the American media landscape. They're the ones promoting foil-hat conspiracy theories about the Deep State and Hillary Clinton running a pedophile network from a pizza shop.
Hopefully, when Trump is forced to resign in disgrace as part of a plea-bargain, it will take the air out of a lot of their balloons.
via internet people
The Washington Post once ran 16 negative stories about Bernie Sanders within 16 hours.
Basically every publication is a joke in their own way. The key is to build a portfolio of trusted journalists and writers across publications.
The DNC rail-roaded Bernie in 2016 (and seem to be doing so again), which was one of the main cinches of Trump's 2016 victory...
And when it became clear that Trump was categorically unfit for office, Pelosi's reaction was to increase the fervor of her 2020 hand-rubbing rather than to consider upholding democratic principles and American values...
Now that she's finally flipped the switch just in time for the 2020 circus, all the damage has already accrued...
I foresaw (and predicted) a mid term impeachment as a massive step toward sanitizing party politics and instigating badly needed reforms (superpacs, gerrymandering, and the electoral college to name a few). "It will be like A Christmas Carol" I thought; a cathartic return to reality and a moral center.
Turns out that pretending your crow meat is a delectable cut of swan actually changes the flavor, and also that if you stand back and give someone enough rope, they just might hang us all...
Artists of any kind are, historically, not known for their conservatism. But I think the "overwhelmingly liberal" messages are only slightly left of center of the mainstream. And if they didn't sell tickets, we wouldn't see them, either.
Quoting praxis
The fact that Republicans are in power in the White House and Senate at all is a sign of their prowess.
In the last 10 presidential elections, Republican candidates won the popular vote 4 times, yet they had 6 terms. Since 1990, they have won the popular vote only once.
There is also a majority support in America for many "left wing" policies such as public healthcare or increased gun control. Yet not only do republicans succeed in blocking such efforts, they also get re-elected regardless.
This will probably be Trumps single greatest failure...
In a better world, Trump would have been thrown under the bus when he refused to unequivocally state that he would concede a lost election. Peaceful transfer of power and all that.
The problem with the Kurds is that it's difficult to see how they could end up in any other situation as long as Erdogan is in power and NATO wants Turkey as an ally. Of course, one could have at least negotiated a settlement instead of just giving Turkey carte blanche. The art of the deal strikes again.
And no, you can't blame Trump for this unilateral decision, with all the unitary executive apologists out there. If there's anything the result of "the system" it is this. It's just surprising it took this long really.
A thread on the Kurds and the history leading to their present predicament could be interesting. As far as I know, the Kurds had been systematically divided and conquered since the end of the Ottoman empire (their homeland exists over the shared borders of Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey). As far as I know they've never held formal political power in any of those modern nations, and have essentially been a second or third class minority. Turkey in particular has always been in conflict with the Kurdish people in some form (especially for their aspirations toward nationhood), of which there is a long a bloody historical record. Three or four years ago I was convinced that the Kurds would finally get a Kurdistan. They were helping the fight against ISIS like no other group, and they were eager and hopeful to have the west as an ally.
And so, in one fell move, Trump may have just completely dashed what would have been the culminating victory of a struggle for freedom that has taken a century to unfold...
Sure, we can blame the Pentagon and intelligence communities who failed to prevent this, or the party who hoisted him into office, or the pundits that keep him going, or the peons that voted for him (in fact we should probably blame them all according to their hand in it).
But what of the blameless toddler in question? If anything will stick, this is it (we may not be able to actually pin it to Trump's own whim, and we almost certainly cant impeach him for it, but I'm betting that this will be remembered as the the most egregious failure of the Trump presidency).
While you're hand-wringing that you can finally stick it to him I fail to see how that's going to help the Kurds.
Quoting Benkei
A stochastic tragedy, with Trump as attractor (@fdrake). I can appreciate that. Still, while in the long run this was of course prefigured by the lethal touch of long-running US foreign policy, I think it makes a strategic sense to lay this at the bloodied feet of Trump. With impeachment in play, anything that turns his allies against him - as it is doing - is worth exploiting.
But yes. This leaves the Kurds exactly where they are. I don't have anything to say - it leaves one speechleess, miserable, and helpless.
Before Trump you knew the US would run its own course, regardless of what other nations thought about it. But you could divine the course by paying attention to US newspapers, comedy and political statements. Under Trump the US became unreliable in trade and environmental policy. We can now also include security and military missions - although the Iran sanctions were already a prelude to it.
If I were to describe the US political system in one word, it would be: unhinged. There's no guiding principle left on which others can rely.
EDIT: actually, that's not entirely true. It's solely about internal US politics and how to retain or gain power. That's the principle that guides the US parties regardless of consequences.
Nothing I can say will help the Kurds. You expect too much.
However, the more expediently and effectively Trump is rebuked or removed, the more expediently we can get an administration that starts overturning these unfathomably bad precedents. Of course, by then it might be too late for the Kurds in Syria and South-East Turkey.
The longer this is allowed to continue, the more likely this is to repeat (Trump has had a chilling effect on America's ability to deter dictators and violent regimes).
The USA as world police has never been an ideal arrangement, but at least,as you say, they had some sort of guiding principle. And now that the chief of world-police can be bribed with mere compliments, is the resulting free-for-all really that surprising?
Quoting Benkei
I would like to understand how you came to this interpretation of my post. I don't understand how centrism could possibly relate to pointing out that abandoning the Kurds is Trump's most severe crime.
I don't get what centrism has to do with either of my posts, let alone how it could be centrism at it's worst.
Quoting Benkei
I was asking rhetorically, given the title of this thread and the fact that all conversation about Trump is ostensibly restricted to this single thread. How long before it's no longer taboo to point out that Trump just betrayed our allies and left them for dead?
That the Kurds don't have their own independent state shows just how divided they are. That the states with Kurdish minorities (Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria) have been able to keep the Kurds in separate camps is quite astonishing.
Besides, in truth they have had a semi-independent state in Iraq, even if they officially have been part of the post-Saddam Iraq.
Hence VagabondSpectre, it's not true that they haven't never held form political power in these countries: Jalal Talabani, head of the Patrioitic Union of Kurdistan, was the President of Iraq for 9 years during 2005 - 2014. Just to give one example.
There is no taboo. It's just totally weird to me that your take away is what a failure for trump this is. As if that's what's important.
Why are former GOP allies distancing themselves from him? Are they really concerned about Kurds? Or are they in the pocket of defense contractors? What does this mean for the Kurds?
All things you could've raised in relation to Trump's decision but easily ignored because, my, my, what a (bloody predictable) failure for him. So yeah, the sole focus on him is misplaced from my point of view.
The US has been a force of net ill in the world for a long time now. 9/11 had the effect of unleashing and amplifying that force in a way completely unhinged to any strategic vision other than a kind of need to claw back the decline of American empire with nothing but the weakness of sheer force. Trump was never going to be anything other than yet another multiplier of that nihilism on the international stage. Without the anchor of a Cold War Russia, the US has effectively been in a paranoic state, unable to trust any other world actor and in turn wreaking any trust it might have offered to anyone else. The time to rethink America's international role was at least present already back at the turn of the millennium. What's happened since has been nothing but a rear-guard action to stave off the recognition of degeneration, and great swathes of the world have had to pay the price in blood and misery while the US continues to adjust its spectacles.
It's not about the Kurds.
It's the about the absolute train wreck that is militarily done in the Middle East.
First and foremost, the US is losing totally it's credibility and leadership in the Middle East. The situation was bad when Trump started, but it has become worse. Erdogan and Putin can leer the US anyway they see it fit with Trump. One really should notice how Israel has approached Russia being in Syria. It's the new serious guy in the neighborhood.
And look then at what are so-called "allies" of the US. Heck, Saudi-Arabia, it's main ally, was on the cusp to go to war and invade another smaller US ally with important US military bases. The US is not only lacking leadership in the region, it is showing non-existent leadership with it's allies. Actually Trump has just berated his allies and while in Europe this might not have problems, in the Middle East it creates huge problems.
The thing is the US foreign policy in the Middle East is a total fiasco.
We are far from the time of the Baghdad Pact, the Twin Pillars strategy or the time when the Syrians, Egyptians, Saudis, Moroccans, the Gulf States etc. all fought alongside the US to liberate Kuwait and after that the US heeded their advice NOT to advance further into Iraq.
Any time people do the deciding that causes others to do the dying, it definitely is about those dying. I am in the end a naïve human rights proponent.
That's not to say there aren't larger strategic ramifications.
Quoting ssu
Yeah, arguably another mistake that could've avoided the Iraq war and caused a lot of deaths for those fighting against Saddam and then got gunned down by helicopters.
The advantage of a hegemonic US has been relative peace for North America and Europe, with conflicts being resolved via proxy wars in less stable regions.
There have been signs for a while now that US hegemony is falling apart and we are returning to a multipolar world. Trump is accelerating that process. The major powers succeeding the US are unlikely to have more scruples than the US did, and a multipolar world comes with the danger of more direct military conflict between major powers. I don't really look forward to it.
But states that start wars for their reasons, and usually they don't care so much about those dying.
Quoting Benkei
Yet you likely do also understand how politicians think about these issues.
Trump and the pentagon have been providing the Kurds, manly the SDF, with weapons, training, support and money since the beginning of his presidency. The caliphate is done. The operation is over. Time to bring the Troops home.
Obamacare wasn’t blocked. It also wasn’t repealed and replaced, despite a republican administration and a majority in both the house and senate. Granted the work to dismantle it continues.
Another empty threat?
Parts of it were, and the result was a system that never quite worked correctly.
Quoting praxis
Nevertheless, republicans managed to get elected on a promise of dismantling Obamacare despite the fact that public healthcare has majority support in America. Polling indicates the core Republican voter base has been shrinking for years, yet they are still firmly in power.
It's not a coincidence that repubilcans are at the forefront of efforts like gerrymandering and voter suppression.
The Kurds received funds and supplies because they were useful. It was not an act of generosity. Now that the Kurds are no longer useful, they are being discarded. Nothing new in the history of armed conflict, but is it that the way the US wants to be perceived by potential allies?
Contrast this behavior with Russia's stance towards it's Syrian allies. They made a massive military effort to safe the Assad regime and managed to turn the civil war around. Putin is sending a clear message with Syria and Ukraine. Get on my good side and I'll have your back. Get on my bad side and I cannot guarantee for your safety. What message is Trump sending with his foreign policy? "Whoever I talked to last is correct"?
Seems that someone believes here Trump's line. :grin:
Who cares what the military on the ground say. Who cares what the former secretary for defence said. Believe in Trump: snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, just like Obama did.
Quoting Echarmion
Actually the Russian effort shouldn't be described as massive, it was (is) a small but effective force which worked. And don't forget Iran's military assistance. Russia has also used the occasion to train it's flight crews and test it's new equipment.
Yet the real lesson is about being consistent with your allies. And to be patient and consistent in your foreign politicy and it's objectives, without haphazard changes. Russian Turkish relations are a great example of this. Earlier Turkey shot down a Russian fighter bomber and relations deteriorated for a while. Now Turkey and Russia are friends again. The relationship the US has with Turkey is mildly starting to resemble US-Pakistani relations. Some years ago everyone in the West was looking at Assad collapsing. Not anymore.
Americans on the other don't give a shit at all about their allies. And Israel? To put it bluntly: Israel isn't an ally of the US, the US is a loyal ally of Israel.
Talk of knowing how to handle Trump...
Millions more Americans with health insurance was a correct result.
Quoting Echarmion
It seems to me that both parties have their strengths and weaknesses, or perhaps access to power based on their unique characteristics.
It was also the SDF’s line.
“Syrian Democratic Forces declare total elimination of so-called caliphate and %100 territorial defeat of ISIS," Mustafa Bali, head of the SDF press office, said on Twitter. "On this unique day, we commemorate thousands of martyrs whose efforts made the victory possible.”
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/syrian-kurdish-forces-declare-victory-isis-syria/story?id=61564565
His view is mainly that the US is no longer a police force and that an indefinite military campaign is very expensive. He wants to end endless wars.
Invading Afghanistan and Iraq (the endless wars you are referring to) wasn't a police action. But the criticism isn't really about withdrawing troops, it's about how the troops were withdrawn. You don't think this will reflect badly on the US?
Why should it? If anything the spin of anti-Trumpists and war-hawks will reflect badly on the US.
How long do you suggest the US military remain in that area?
Previous posts have explained this, and you aren't that stupid.
Quoting NOS4A2
Until an agreement has been brokered between Turkey and the Kurds or, failing that, until the Kurds have had time to make arrangements for their defense or withdrawal.
Wow. A 100% defeat. As if insurgencies go away like that.
Just like Obama declared victory over Al Qaeda (in Iraq).
May I remind you of a time when Obama pulled the troops out of Iraq:
That was 2011. Al Qaeda in Iraq had then already morphed into the present ISIS. And in a few years it would overwhelm large parts of Iraq. Of course now it's nearly beaten, but quickly now withdraw away to snatch that defeat in the long run (again).
Quoting NOS4A2
Yeah, just like... Obama.
That's farther than I knew! I'm quite ignorant about many details of middle eastern politics, but as long as I got the gist of it right I'll be content.
This is a thread for general Trump conservation, I wasn't aware I should be limiting myself to "what's important". I already gave my take-away: "In one fell move, Trump may have just completely dashed what would have been the culminating victory of a struggle for freedom that has taken a century to unfold.".
I'm still trying to understand what centrism has to do with my posts, and why you think they're centrism of the worst kind. Is it that by saying "This is Trump's biggest failure", I'm somehow making his other failures seem less grave? As if to say "Trump is A-O-K apart from this one thing"? Should I have used a swear word?
Even if this thread was about the Turkish invasion of Kurdish controlled Syria (as opposed to being explicitly about Trump), I still don't see anything wrong or suspect in pointing out who or what is to blame.
Quoting Benkei
So, instead of pointing out that this is a direct Trump effect, you would rather I point out that his cronies and sycophants are the guilty ones? I should have blamed the industrial-military complex? If you want my speculation about the future of the Kurds you should probably look elsewhere. I've placed three bets over the last three years that they would have a Kurdistan by new-year's. I know too little about it; maybe this betrayal will get the Kurds enough international recognition to get their nation-ball rolling (Turkey will definitely need to be pressured). I'm just guessing though...
The GOP allies are distancing themselves because the outcome is an unambiguous betrayal of epic magnitude. Yes they have donations to worry about, but they also have a reputation to defend, and not all of their constituents are utterly without scruples (is suggesting that #not all republicans and conservatives are amoral, unprincipled,and idiotic bigots also an example of the worst kind of centrism?). Maybe I've read your posts wrong, but it seems like the moral rebuke you're leveraging against me hinges on the fact that I've mentioned Trump in the Trump thread.
Quoting Benkei
I would really appreciate it if you would explain to me in simple and clear terms how my focus has been misplaced. What sort of things should I have brought up? This is a serious question. If I don't understand how and why you've taken issue, how can I possibly update my understanding or behavior?
My friend, think about this for a minute (it's pretty important stuff so please take a deep breath and give it some honest focus). The Kurds fought ISIS for us. Traditionally, the bonds of individuals and nations that are formed in war are sacred. This is literally an example of one soldier leaving another to die.
So now imagine that America is that cowardly backstabbing soldier. How do you think the rest of the world (let alone the Kurds) are going to feel about this?
Who in their right mind is going to think of America as trustworthy and competent when they're willing to throw their allies to the wolves in sudden bouts of supreme tactical stupidity?
"Bring the troops home" is really fun to say, but when we bring them home too soon or unpredictably, chaos ensues, and then we'll just have to go back 10 years from now. Why keep repeating the exact same mistake? Hype?
Do you really want to make America out to be the evil one by giving Turkey the nod to genocide our allies?
The US has been tentatively withdrawing for nearly a year, during which time the administration has repeatedly called on France and Germany to replace American soldiers. They’ve also worked with actors in the area to take over the operation.
So where are the Europeans? Why have they abandoned the Kurds?
Everyone associated - State Dept, Defense, Congressional Republicans - all slammed it as a disgraceful abandonment of a beleaguered ally. But President I Alone can Solve always knows better than anyone, takes no advice, reads nothing but thinks he knows more than all of them.
It's neither economic, nor strategic, nor moral to retreat from Syria (let alone to give Erdogan the nod to start bombing innocent people). It means prolonged chaos that eventually America will be pulled back into dealing with in around 10 years time, or sooner. Remember Afghanistan and Iraq? What's the idea behind collapsing sovereign "enemy" nations through expensive wars, only to then abandon them before they can be stabilized?
The real issue here though is not pulling out of Syria in and of itself, it is having allowed Turkey to murder our allies. If America cannot protect its allies then it really is good for nothing. Isolationism is not tenable in the globalized world (unless you want to do some farming), so why even pretend that the fates of nations are not intertwined?
So ABC news is not fake?
Interesting thing is that he has not investigated Russian interference any further. Not a dime into that, or stopping that from happening again.
It is an alternate universe.
Turkey is our ally, a member of NATO. They also share a border with Syria. America will be pulled into it only if our troops or interests are threatened.
This doesn't appear to mean all that much.
Perhaps. All the more reason for them to behave,
1) When is a republican democracy (or any lip service to that) considered completely dead?
a) When a president can ask for dirt on a political candidate from a foreign country?
b) When a president can cover this up in classified servers?
c) When a president can openly say it in media interviews?
d) When a president refuses to allow key witnesses to testify to Congress?
2) What SHOULD this impeachment hinge on (if political party wasn't a factor)?
a) Proof of intent of inquiry into Bidens?
b) Quid-pro-quo?
c) Asking foreign country for information on Bidens' affairs in Ukraine?
d) Something else
@Bitter Crank
What's wrong with pointing out Trump failure? I still don't get how it is misguided. There is no order-of-priority in a Trump mega-thread.
Did you imply that I subscribe to the worst kind of misguided centrism because I didn't offer thoughts and prayers? I thought "Apparently Turkey has begun bombing of the Kurds in northern Syria, after Erdogan got the go-ahead from Trump..." spoke for itself.
Quoting Benkei
I think your reaction was misguided...
What would you have me do differently?
But if Trump gave the nod to Erdogan, then they're actually behaving... And if we just stick to isolationism and fail to protect the Kurds, American threats wont be worth a damn.
What if categorically bringing our boys home would create more problems, even for Americans, than it would solve?
News of the minute is that Trump has declared he will fight the impeachment enquiry. His defence is that he did nothing wrong, that the call that lead to the impeachment was ‘perfect’, and that he’s being unfairly harassed by the Democrats. It is possible that he can’t comprehend why what he has done is illegal, but under the circumstances it hardly constitutes a defence as much as an admission.
I agree Trump is impulsive, dangerously so. However, it arguably takes place within an overall strategy.
It's fascism but not as we know it. There are parallels between Trump and UK's Johnson in Brexit.
5 min Ch4 interview related to the fragility of democracy. Yale professor Timothy Snyder :
https://www.channel4.com/news/some-of-todays-politicians-have-learned-propaganda-tricks-from-1930s-fascists-says-yale-professor
Johnson is an amiable buffoon compared to the Donald. But hopefully they will hold hands and ride off into the sunset.
Article de jour on Trump.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/republicans-trump-administration-bailing-ship-impeachment.html
That is how Johnson presents.
Both represent a continuing danger; creating and reinforcing extreme divisions by hate-filled rhetoric.
Riding off into the sunset is for the white-hatted goodies in American westerns.
Fiction. Fake news.
They will no doubt both prosper whatever the future brings...
Yesterday, I was freaking out, thinking 'if Trump survives the impeachment vote and gets re-elected, then surely that is the end of democracy and the beginning of a true dictatorship, because he will truly be able to get away with anything.' I've often said, with Trump, that he illustrates the Nietzschean maxim 'whatever doesn't kill me, makes me stronger', by getting away with things that really ought to put a complete end to his career. He's up'd it and up'd it, each time getting more outrageous, more preposterous - and yet, somehow, 'the base' (including the absurd 'conservative media') manages to say 'yeah, this is normal. The problem is at your end'. And until now, he has gotten away with it - which, along with 'abuse of power' and 'persuading people to believe lies', are his true talents.
But now I'm really confident - for today at least - that this time, the law really is going to catch up with him. Downfall, disgrace, possible felony charges. In which case, he's actually been a vaccine - nothing like Trump will happen again for the foreseeable future. It didn't kill the US, but made it stronger.
Here's hoping. :pray:
What do you think here?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/339794
I was confident that Hillary would have experienced a similar fate that you wish for Trump and it has yet to happen, don't make the same mistake I did by holding my breath.
Quoting Wayfarer
Election 2020?
Quoting Wayfarer
Absolutely!
Quoting Wayfarer
Here's to voting!
People screamed about the same things when Trump first mentioned the withdrawal back in December. So they kicked the can down the road to a later date. That date arrives and here we are again.
I'm not going to vote, even though like you, I'm in a swing state. I just can't vote for Trump because of what he said after Charlottesville. I'm not going to vote for a democrat either, though.
Overall, I think he's been good for the human species. The US needs to back down from the world scene. Standing for democracy in the middle-east was a mistake. The world needs to stop relying on a peace-maker that is $20 trillion in debt.
In spite of what we're seeing now, I think 2020 will be a really close race. More Trump is a good thing.
What did he say after Charlottesville that drew your ire?
Trump isn't actually withdrawing any troops though. He is just pulling them back within Syria to allow Turkey's operation to go forward unimpeded.
You could vote for a third party. Though I'd question why you exclude any democrat on principle.
Quoting frank
It's far too early to make a call on that. It's entirely possible for things to go very badly as a result of the US' erratic foreign policy.
That's not our problem though.
I suppose by "our" you mean Americans? How do you figure?
The US just becomes a reason to reach out to China for military defense.
I dont think China would fuck over the middle east the way the US has, but if so, that's not our problem.
I know Hillary Clinton is hated, but then, guns are loved, and neither makes sense to me. From where I sit, outside America, albeit now with near and dear ones living there, Hillary Clinton never seemed to live up, or down, to these lunatic conspiracy theories about her criminality. Whereas Trump exhales criminality with every breath.
The US is now experiencing a constitutional crisis. I think the only resolution will be that the hard heads in the GOP recognise that Trump’s political career is over and basically fire him. I’m expecting and hoping that will happen soon. Until then, the US political system is on a downward trajectory.
Again, it's not the withdraw that astonishes me, it's that the fact that Trump is set to allow (or set to be unable to prevent) the murder and slaughter of our Kurdish allies, without whom ISIS would likely still exist. We armed the Kurds, they fought and died for us, and now we're going to feed them to Erdogan? Was it all one big lie or trick that they were our allies?
If you can't see why this is, philosophically, a moral/ethical issue of the grandest possible scale, can't you at least see why it is bad strategy? In the simplest possible terms, if the U.S backstabs and abandons the Kurdish people, then other groups across the planet who are watching will likely feel and conclude that America deserves to get fucked in return (whether by political, economic, or militaristic lack of cooperation, opposition, and beyond). At this point you might say "Good, let them try",or something along those lines, but then you'd have to consider how you would be starting down a road toward war with most of the rest of the world (a war the U.S would lose, given that its economic stability depends entirely on the cooperation of a global community). Maybe this topic is fit for another thread, but it seems to be the crux of the argument that says "we should bring our boys home in all cases": Isolationism is no longer a logistical possibility if we wish to keep our current market/commodity/innovation strength and pace.
Remember when Trump came out and said "Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated"? Full blown isolationism runs along the same foolish "we'll just make a great deal" angle that Trump campaigned on. How can Trump make great deals when he very obviously does not understand these games? "i know more about ISIS than the generals do, Believe me". Did you believe that? He claims to more about everything than everyone; unmatched wisdom... An official with knowledge of the Ergodan call said Trump "got rolled" and "has no spine". Do you think Trump made a great deal? Or do you think Erdogan is about to invest in yet more American-laughing-stock?
I am glad he is backing down from the world scene as well I just wonder how much chaos will come with us pulling back. If Turkey is any example I am afraid of who or what ideology will fill the void.
To be clear, the withdrawal is about 50 US soldiers. That's it. The rest of the 950 or so still remain in Syria, just not on the Northern border. So while I said previously that I was somewhat torn (precisely because I agree that the US ought to simply leave where possible), I no longer have such qualms. This was Trump being played by a foreign leader, and it's going to kill what used to be US allies because of it. 50 troops out of a thousand is not anything like a backing down from the world scene, however much that would be nice.
I understand it not making sense to you as at times it doesn't make sense to me either. Similar to the logic of when your car goes into a skid, turning your wheels into the direction of the skid will recover your control.
Quoting Wayfarer
The only real difference to me is that Trump speaks with no filter, which admittedly has its faults but at least I know he is being honest. I will never be able to say that about Hillary going back to her being First Lady and the dismissal of sexual allegations against her husband and the hatred was spawned in me with her bs of the tragedy of Benghazi.
Quoting Wayfarer
What do you mean by a "constitutional crisis"? Do you mean a monumental crisis? Or do you see our US Constitution in crisis? If it is the latter, please expound upon what you see as the "crisis".
As far as the tragectory of our "political system"? I don't see it headed in a downward spiral, in fact I think we are witnessing the strength of our governing, living Constitution.
I heard the number of troops being withdrawn is 90 not 50. And as far as "That's it"? It's more than 0 and to those fortunate 50 or 90 troops families? It means the world to them. Let's not lose sight of the importance of the single soldier at home, regardless of the size of the presence on the battlefield.
The tragedy unfolding in our departure is not lost on me and my heart breaks for everyone caught in the middle of this nightmare. I am not looking to get into a "suffering" contest of who will suffer more. I am looking to support a responsible way out.
It’s a front page story on practically every journal of record today. The crisis is that the President has declared that he will not recognize the constitutionally-mandated investigation that is being carried out in response to the ‘whistleblower’ account of his alleged criminal acts. He is basically saying the Congress has no authority to conduct the investigation. Even Nixon didn’t do that, and what Trump is accused of is much worse than what Nixon resigned over. So it’s an impasse - a crisis. He’s essentially declaring himself above the law.
Ok but this aint it.
You would be, if the impeachment process wasn’t being stymied. As it is....
What Maw said. And this isn't a 'suffering contest'. That implies some kind of game. This isn't a game. People. Will. Die. Your allies will die. Don't obfuscate that with gaming metaphors to make yourself feel better.
Being the closest thing to God in the area of foreign policy comes with responsibility. In these circumstances, the tragedy is entirely lost. To withdraw is to literally abandon your friends because there is work and risk involved to have their back.
I dont think it will be much worse than it has been.
Not sure how to interpret this. You realize that he’s not what you’d call an honest man, don’t you?
We shouldn’t conflate the PKK, a terrorist organization , with the Kurds, an ethnic group. Turkey’s enemy in this operation is former, not the latter.
There are two competing stories going on here, as usual.
So think about it from the other side. There was a separatist uprising for the past few years in southern Turkey along the Syrian border and beyond. According to Pompeo, it’s a terrorist threat. The Turkish offensive is against this threat. If we are to believe Pompeo, American soldiers were in danger. Trump gave no green light or go ahead to Turkey, only to pull American soldiers out of the area.
Considering this, Leaving American soldiers in the area to help Kurdish separatists fight off a Turkish invasion would be a horrible mistake.
Sure this affair has the potential to be disastrous, but the world is watching.
You're not that naïve, so I guess you're now also spreading propaganda for Erdogan? I would have guessed you'd be against someone with an Islamist agenda.
Quoting NOS4A2
The conflict between the Turkish central government and the Kurds is older than "a few years". And it was Erdogan's government that escalated it for political gain (it worked, too).
Quoting NOS4A2
What danger would that have been?
Quoting NOS4A2
Which is, of course, the same thing.
Quoting NOS4A2
What do you mean "help"? The soldiers only prevented the Turkish military from shelling the area due to the danger of friendly fire. They were entirely a blocking force, not intended to fight anyone.
So what's the "horrible mistake" here?
Quoting praxis
I think he refers to the stance that it's better to have a politician that is openly lying than one who is secretly lying. Essentially, a bunch of the American population has become so cynical about politics, or perhaps humanity in general, that they think everyone is a lying, racist, sexist asshole, they're just all hiding it. Since Trump isn't, he is therefore more honest.
The point is that it is a legitimate impeachment proceeding. It’s not a matter of opinion or individual judgement. It is being conducted exactly according to the constitutional requirements given the circumstances; but it is typical of this administration to lie about it, to cast doubt on the legitimacy of a legitimate process. And ‘the base’ will believe this to be the case.
It comes as no surprise that the news headline follows the same narrative that has been asserted since President Trump won the 2016 election. I don't anticipate that changing, not until the next election in 2020.
As far as the assertion that our country is experiencing a "constitutional crisis"? I just don't see how the Constitution is at an "impasse".
Our country is divided today and much like a blended family, there are going to be times of popularity for one side or the other. That is what I see happening with our current political climate. We will get through this"impasse" coming out stronger and wiser than when we got in. Hopefully having learned the lesson are current mistakes are teaching us.
Fair enough.
What is?
Don't ride on Maw's coattails, especially when his response is without suggesting solutions.
What is the solution?
Quoting StreetlightX
Fer ducks sake Streetlight, the very suggestion that I view death as some kind of "game", after knowing me over a decade leaves me speechless. My point is that the death of any human is one too many.
It is a move not without concern.
I realize he is no Angel but not an "honest" man? Compared to whom?
Trump
Obama
Of course this requires some trust in politifact, which you may not have.
Millions and millions of Kurds live in Turkey and call it their home. Turkey has not been kind to the Kurds, sure, but they are not the enemy in this battle, despite your propaganda.
The PKK is a terrorist organization, at least according to Turkey, NATO, the EU, the US, and UK.
It’s not so simple. I’m speaking about the current rebellion at the southern border.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish–Turkish_conflict_(2015–present)
This is a far-left rebellion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples%27_United_Revolutionary_Movement
This isn’t our conflict, and we cannot align with terrorist forces as they attack our ally.
The consequence of American soldiers being killed in this Turkey-PKK spat would be worse than Benghazi, with far worse geopolitical implications.
Are we still talking about a broader isolationism, or Turkey's problem with its border?
To a problem wholly precipitated by a weak, ignorant, president who, probably with little to no understanding of the strategic situation in Syria, rolled over like bitch after Turkey's president - incidentally a hugely corrupt autocrat-in-the-making (the kind of friends that Trump keeps) - made a single phone call, against any advice from his own military and intelligence service - and his own party no less - and whose subsequent actions even have US special forces stationed in Syria feeling ashamed of themselves? I dunno, maybe a bullet to his fucking head would be nice. In lieu of that, maybe taking a stand against an Islamist nationalist like Erdogan and supporting US allies with a minimal - almost nominal - investment of troops in order to prevent already occurring civilian deaths that might well displace nearly 300,000 people as a result, while at the same time probably precipitating the release of ISIS prisoners?
Fucking coward of a president. Even Israel - Netanyahu specifically - thinks this is horrible.
I trust very little of either man.
I think the US pulling back on the world scene is necessary and might I add STRONGLY suggested by almost every allied country represented here at TPF for years and some for over a decade.
Turkeys problem with it's border is well known amongst its residents, including members here in the forum and I wonder why they are not being looked to for help the way the USA has been.
I do wonder what the word on the street is there about the USA pulling back. Is it simply to watch and critique without offering to take the lead?
The "problem" did not begin with this President, he is trying to solve the"problem".
So before we go any further, let us first establish that the drawdown is not the "problem" but rather an attempt to end a war. The "problem" shifts with each administration and this one is not immune to that process.
Don't know. Part of isolationism is not caring until there's a need to nuke somebody.
By enabling a literal military invasion? Sorry Tiff, this is too stupid.
Nobel ideal but perpetual war is not something that this administration is in support of. Given that knowledge, how do you suggest us pulling out?
Is that their idea or ours? I mean is that where we are headed? Pulling out until there is a threat of a nuke?
Isn't NK's objective to develop a delivery system to be able to nuke it's neighbors?
I appreciate your suggestion that my understanding is lacking, as opposed to suggesting that I see death as a game, for that is not who I am.
How do we not enable a military invasion?
In some sense I hope and pray that there are soldiers on the field that will refuse to "stand down" in the same way I wish there would have been support for our Ambassador in Benghazi, from soldiers who were stationed close enough to offer air support, and would have refused to stand down. But my hope and prayers solve nothing.
This particular withdrawal was to save the lives of American soldiers, to get them out of harms way, at least according to Mike Pompeo and officials at the pentagon. The spin about future alliances, soldiers feelings, and optics is all nonsense.
So you are okay with perpetual war? What is the solution Maw, when doing nothing is not an option ?
It's uncharted waters, so America will do it the way we always do things: fall ass backwards into it. I think adjustments in wealth and power are on the horizon. It will unfold according to its own inner logic.
What bothers me is the way a few words from an American president can fuel a rebellion that ends up creating a cultural meltdown. I didn't understand that that could happen until Syria. That needs to change. The US and Europe have exported much of their culture to Asia, Africa, and the middle east, but we aren't going to export democracy. Trying to do that just creates disasters.
Somebody who understands that needs to take charge of global peace. I don't think that's ever going to be us. It's too much in our flesh and bones to believe that democracy is fundamentally right and anything else is violence against human nature. That's what I see, anyway.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I think NK's objective is to do whatever they have to do to maintain their own internal freak-out mode which supports their dictatorship. NK is China's problem.
The target are Kurdish forces wishing to establish their own state.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes. The YPG isn't though. Of course Turkey correctly identifies a strong Kurdish presence in the region as a threat. That doesn't mean the Kurds are entirely in the wrong either. In reality there are usually nuances.
Quoting NOS4A2
Which is nothing other than the continuation of a decades long struggle. It's indeed not so simple.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's a nationalist movement. Left wing ideas have little to do with it. It just so happens that if grew out of left-wing militas.
Quoting NOS4A2
So, what about all the aligning the US did before Erdogan's call? Care to point out at which point YPG forces attacked Turkey?
Quoting NOS4A2
But of course they wouldn't have been killed, because Turkey wouldn't have attacked.
Quoting NOS4A2
What about the possibility that what Pompeo says is nonsense?
1) The United States today is an unreliable ally that should not to be trusted.
Many Americans themselves believe in a fallacy that that foreigners are typically against them. Many of these Americans also go so far with their criticism of their own state and it's foreign policy that they don't see anything good in it and hence are open to quite blatant anti-US propaganda. Now criticism is healthy, but only up to a level, being overly critical isn't anymore realistic. To view US policy as only as this perpetual machine sucking resources to the military-industrial complex and nothing else is simply naive and ignorant. What is also evident is that many Americans simply either don't care or are totally ignorant about anything else than their domestic viewpoint, which creates a self-centered biased view of the World. As if there wouldn't be a good side to US involvement in World affairs. As if countries wouldn't create problems even without US involvement. This self centered viewpoint makes many Americans think that absolutely everything revolves around them and hence they lack the ability to understand that in the eyes of foreigners they are just one player in the big game. If the US as a superpower leaves, it simply creates a vacuum that will be filled by others. And this vacuum creates competition, which then can turn ugly. Is really Middle East divided by the Russian-Iranian alliance and the unholy Israeli-Saudi camp really better?
2) The United States lacks a coherent foreign policy and is open haphazard turnarounds.
This lack of long term planning and basically utter lack of understanding (or care about) that others have their own agendas creates an environment where the US just goes from bad to a worse situation, usually without total lack of understanding how it makes things worse. Prime example of this is it's old ally Pakistan, which the US has simply pushed into the arms of China. And US-Turkish relations can go the way of US-Pakistani relations. Turkey has demanded for years to make an own security area and it's NATO allies simply haven't given it the chance... until now. Will this improve US Turkish relations? Not likely: the Turkish military incursion will be condemned. This likely won't change even when Trump leaves the office as US domestic politics is such in a state of inflamed vitriol and inability.
3) President Trump is easily influenced and his poor leadership has consequences
This is most obvious from his decision to put a family member with absolutely no abilities to handle the situation, but just leave the door open for even more blatant corruption than before. But this isn't at all important for Trump supporters, of course. Someone might fantasize that when Trump cannot do much he won't create bigger problems, but long term consequences can be dramatic.
Trump's Syria Fiasco is part of Putin's To-Do List
And all the while, Trump supporters parrot on about 'patriotism' and 'America first'.
that's because he considers himself, and behaves exactly like, a monarch rather than a constitutionally-appointed public official. And that is why it is imperative that he is removed from office.
Indeed...fascism and narcissism comes to mind too...
"The desire to remove U.S. troops from Middle East wars is laudable, and shared by many of those criticizing Trump this week. But ... Trump’s announcement was less that he is bringing the troops home than that he is ordering those troops not to stand in the way as Turkey wipes out the Kurdish allies they have been working with to fight ISIS.
What Trump’s action did do was effectively blow up months of intensive negotiations to avert a Turkish offensive by establishing a safe zone that would be monitored by joint U.S.-Turkish patrols, between Kurdish-controlled territory and the border. The tentative deal reached in August required the Kurds to remove fortifications from the border, meaning that not only did the U.S. invite Turkey to attack its allies—it persuaded those allies to remove their own defenses before doing so.
...If Trump is serious about lessening U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, he has missed some clear opportunities. The president’s views on America’s role in Syria have focused entirely on military power. The idea that the U.S. could be exercising its influence with something other than bombs never seems to enter the calculation. The administration has shown little inclination to engage in a sustained way with diplomacy in Syria, effectively letting Russia, Iran, and Turkey take the lead.."
(cite)
This is the tragedy. A lot of Trump supporters think that President Trump, their shall we say God Emperor, is making great and welcome decisions against a 'wretched Washington bureaucracy' hell bent on retaining the status quo. He isn't. Let's take the Russia policy as a whole for starters.
Many Trump supporters start with the following idea:
I have nothing against Russia so the US shouldn't have anything against Russia, hence Trump is doing great by improving relations with Russia. And any criticism of this (Trump and Russia) is just the empty rant of the Democrats because they cannot admit that Trump won fair and square.
This attitude above clearly shows the blissful ignorance about a) Russia and it's agenda and b) the self-centeredness of Trump supporters, who typically think that everything is about US domestic politics. No other discourse can even exist!
First and foremost, current Russian leadership sees the US as an enemy. It also has to have the US as an enemy to justify the domestic political crackdown and for the reason for Putin to hold on to power. Russia's official military doctrine states as it's most pressing and largest military threat the actions of the United States, mainly the enlargement of the US lead alliance. Russian leadership wants Russia to be a Great Power and wants to have influence over other countries. If it can lure the US to withdraw from it's Superpower position, it can fill that void created by the US. It has no illusion that the US military has other ideas than Trump and with Democrats in power US foreign policy would return to normal. Russia does not think about international relations as like a normal country that "everybody would be better if we had warmer relations". It genuinely sees it as a competitive field where one's gain is another one's loss. It's insecurity is structural and deeply historical for the country. One should realize that this isn't just a response to US actions, but something also independent of US actions. A country lead by a KGB agent is different than a normal democracy.
But all of the above doesn't matter for the Trump supporter. Nope, for him (or her) it's the annoying democrats (desperately trying to get Trump impeached), it's the military industrial complex, the neocons and the Washington foreign policy blob that is the reason why Russia is acting as it is. If the US would change it's behaviour, Russia would naturally behave differently. Hence Trump is making great openings!!!
I was talking about Obama.
The worst case scenario coming out of the impeachment inquiry is that Congress moves the Articles of Impeachment, but that the Senate acquits, and Trump goes on to win a second term. This will provide carte blanche for Trump to cast aside all pretense of being bound by the Constitution and to assume absolute power. I wouldn't have thought there was a chance of this happening, but considering the depth of the capitulation of the Republican Party to Trump's corruption it is a possibility. And if that were to happen then God help us.
Probably just tons more crazy tweets and a big fat recession.
A scary scenario indeed. But not for those who would say it is God's Will.
That will probably happen anyway. Win or lose.
Unfettered absolute power is something else altogether...
None of which would matter, if he wasn’t President.
Hey Benkei!
It speaks to whether he's fit for the office. I think the wolves are circling. He might be firing his attorney now since his associates just got busted for campaign violations, again.
They're not guesses.
[quote=Nancy Pelosi]I always think he’s projecting. When he says, ‘She’s not the speaker of the House,’ what he really means is, ‘I shouldn’t be president of the United States. ’ When he says that Adam Schiff should resign, what he really means is, ‘I, Donald Trump, should resign.’ [/quote]
From here. That's from someone who has seen him up close, and I think it's spot on.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/11/less-24-hours-after-saying-time-bring-em-home-trump-orders-1800-us-troops-saudi
His actions do. His mindset, to the extent this cannot be inferred from his actions, are wild guesses. Even psychiatrists will not venture to diagnose someone on his public behaviour or speech so why should we entertain any of it as true when someone does it here in the forum?
Quoting StreetlightX
Prince Mohamed Bin Assasin calls him up, and says, 'hey Pres, we need a hand here'
God did it. That simply explains a lot of what's going on. So it must be true.
5h
Inductive reasoning.
When a crisis at the border first starts, we're lucky if there are Democrats to deal with it. Put Hillary Clinton in charge of finding out if there are homes across the nation who are willing to host refugees until they can appear before judges. (And there were, btw.) Does this risk sending a message to Central and South America that everybody is welcome? Yes. But it's the right thing to do, so.
After that, when all resources are exhausted and we have to get diabolical about it because we really have no choice, we're lucky if we have a Republican in charge because they're good at that.
Please use the quote function. Just highlight text and press the quote button.
Republicans are good at running a tight governmental ship where nothing goes over budget?
I understand the cleverness you thought you were getting at, but it's based on the myth that republicans are efficient at what they just keep saying they are efficient at, and when you start to implicitly accept not simply myths but myths that are empirically false as part of your thought process, you have a garbage-in-garbage-out analytical framework.
You would still want a sane person motivated to do what's right in charge, even if times are tough ... probably you'd want it even more in tough times.
Completely agree, boethius is amazing.
Trump has thus managed to hand control over the situation entirely to Russia, Iran and their allies. In addition to supplying them with a new ally, the Kurds.
What a great job.
Is it possible that the American alliance with the Kurds may have been partly about fostering western values in the region?
I'm asking genuinely. I'm not a Trump defender. Just looking at the situation mechanically.
It was just a meme, a joke, a gag, a parody.
For those that don’t know, this meme was shown at a pro-trump event—not on the stage, mind you, but on a screen streaming Trump memes nearby. The press has used this as an example of Trump inciting violence against the media (while saying nothing of the churchgoers underneath the super-imposed logos).
It's possible. I wonder if they're interested in peace though. Both don't seem particularly concerned with how they reach their goals.
That said, I'd not be against leaving building an organic peace to regional actors. That's not really what either the US or Russia are doing though. And it'd take a lot more of an international framework.
I am not sure how much the American engagement was about "fostering western values". I am not in principle against fostering western values. Some western values are pretty rad. Fostering them takes patience and a light touch, though.
Yeah shooting 'Black Lives Matter', or media organizations, which have been threatened and attacked, isn't some innocuous parady or gag. There is no doubting that a vocal segment of MAGA supporters fantasize about massacring perceived enemies.
Did you complain about the original movie? The Christians being shot in their place of worship? Or did you realize it wasn’t real?
Or was it only when they haphazardly superimposed CNN’s logo in there?
We are talking about a video, created for a Trump conference and shown at one of his resorts, which glorifies the President of the United States murdering political opponents. You seriously don't think that's vile? Is that where your brain is at?
What monsters!! No, I do not agree at all.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/americanp2019/status/1183603985778917378?s=21[/tweet]
I think it's just that we're horrified by the way they achieve peace. If we go looking for allies in the region, of course we'll find them, just as Russia and Assad would find allies in the US or the UK if they had the power to intrude. But by intruding in the US, Russia would be ripping open old wounds, and then: surprise! the US falls apart. "It's just like those people to turn on each other" the Russians would say.
Aside from the occasional civil war and mob protest, Americans actually get along really well (because we're left alone to discover our own balance.)
Quoting Echarmion
There's nothing like a Norwegian peace-maker to settle things down. But some conflicts have to play out. Putting it off doesn't solve anything. Or does it?
Quoting Echarmion
The Iraq war was about democratizing the middle east. Bush's strategists made that clear. What followed was one three-stooges style error after another, giving rise to ISIS and then the cherry on top was Obama's apparent promise to Syrian rebels that the US would give them aid.
Years later. Holy fuck. Yes, American engagement was largely about fostering western values such as exhausting your energy in democratic bickering rather than in blowing up world trade centers.
I am extremely offended by the urge to censorship, which I imagine you clutching, like pearls, whenever your feelings get the best of you. That urge is the same one that reached it’s manifestation and zenith in Nazi germany. You might want to loosen your clutch, at least a little bit, because we know where it all leads.
You: wow how dare you make a comparison between what is occurring at the border with Nazi concentration camps
Also You: censoring a video depicting the president murdering political opponents is basically Nazi Germany
Why lie? I would never say that.
Yes, I’m aware that you’re trying to connect me, speciously, to the demonization of Jews in Nazi Germany. I was merely turning it back on you. Does it scare you that you possess the same urges?
Neither has freedom from slavery ever been total, but the persistence of slavery is an not argument against freedom. But you know better.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1183747201496993792?s=21[/tweet]
Muah ha ha haaaaa!
*twiddles super-villain hands together*
[tweet]https://twitter.com/jsidman/status/1182679091155230721?s=19[/tweet]
Next you’re going to tell us video games cause violence.
Are you so brain-dead that you can't admit this type of stochastic terrorism by the president and his supporters is bad?
No, what’s bad is surreptitiously taking a picture of someone’s t-shirt and spreading it among the uncritical masses on twitter for political gain.
Well, why shouldn't we be?
Quoting frank
Eh, I don't know. Germany was invaded by 3 powers, split into two countries for 45 years, and yet still came out as a mostly coherent country. Sure prolonged struggle can rip a country apart, but the problem in the Middle East is that there is no shared history of being in a nation-state at all.
There was never a natural progression of institutions that led to the formation of the modern states. Instead, the state boundaries were imposed, and then meddled with by foreign powers. Not a great starting point.
Quoting frank
But who knows which conflicts have to play out? Sometimes violence cannot be avoided, I'd agree. Plenty of historical developments are difficult to imagine without violence. But these things are usually only clear with hindsight, and ususally quite a lot of it.
I don't really see a conflict that "has to" play out in the middle east. There is plenty of religious strife, and plenty of regional jostling for power, with a fair bit of proxy war thrown in. Situations that "require" violence are, I think, ones where you have a very stable, but dysfunctional system, and that system cannot be overcome apart from simply tearing it down. But there has been a lot of change in the middle east. I don't see the equivalent of a "cleansing fire" somehow changing the basic problem - a bunch of weak states being jostled around by a few stronger states, which themselves are jostled around by mahor players.
Quoting frank
No doubt it was a collossal failure. But I don't think this is because the region is somehow not "fit" for western values. I think it was simply the wrong approach. I think the strategists simply did not recognise how different, say, Iraqi society is. Western Europe and the US are uniquely individualistic, with comparatively very weak family ties and a long history of a rule of law. You cannot simply implant these things into another culture. You have to let them grow.
Prior to British colonization, India did not look all that much different than the middle east does now. There was no unified indian state. There were a bunch of small states with different religions. Yet after independence, India became a successfull democratic state. There, western values "worked".
We’re in a permanent Coup
Political gain, eh?
How about being a concerned citizen?
Shit is wild.
About a t-shirt?
I don't know. Should we tolerate the intolerant?
No, we should not tolerate the intolerant.
Then why lynch journalists or at least tacitly approve of such an action/state of affairs?
Clearly wearing a t-shirt is not lynching a journalist. There is only one intolerant person in the photo, and it is the person holding the camera.
Are you on crack?
You had to add “lynching a journalist” to make it sound like the guy was being intolerant.
Maybe you didn't get the reference... Are you from the US? Southern states perhaps?
I get the reference, yes. Are you unable to tolerate his t-shirt?
Sure, I can. But, I don't want to sit next to him on my flight to Hawaii.
Lol, that’s at least fair.
Ditto. I seem to have grown sick of gratuitous violence in action films sometimes in the last couple of years.
I also feel that this story isn't news. I actually kinda agree with Nosferatu. It's not really worse than the original movie.
You could even interpret it in a subversive way given the context of the scene in the movie.
Zing!
Tim, your great writing is betrayed the moment you try to come up with an insult. What a shame.
I loled.
Germany and Japan were special projects by post-WW2 USA. Americans blamed WW2 on France and Britain. Instead of fostering stability in Germany post-WW1, they did the opposite and then stood by while Germany imploded. It was important not to let that happen a second time.
My question was whether the middle east needs continuing parental control, or can the kids figure it out on their own? What would be the case for continued intervention?
Quoting Echarmion
So India was broken before the British took over? Really?
That's because Trumpism is a cuit.
HuffPost reported that one of his recent tweets ended 'impeach the Pres.' It didn't seem sarcastic or rhetorical, just a bald statement. And I'm starting to think he really does have a political death wish - that he himself knows he's not up to the job, but he can't ever admit it, either to himself or anyone else. So instead he will just do things that guarantee his removal from office, but all the while putting up the pretense of 'poor persecuted me'.
Another thing - even it's true that the Senate would vote to acquit Trump, I don't see how it's remotely conceivable that he could run again after what's been published already. I think his Presidency is irreparably shattered by what's coming out through this enquiry and the sooner the GOP recognises it and demands his resignation, the better off everyone will be. Personally I think it's a matter of days.
True that! I think we will see a lot of' 'protest vote' choice/lesser of two evils kind of rationale at the voting booth, assuming he's not removed. Kind of like what a lot of Trumper's did in 2016 against Hillary. Problem is, many won't admit it...
Whut? :rofl:
Somehow, I find the letter almost endearing. At least it's an initiative for peace, if one that sounds like it was written by a schoolboy.
Sometimes anti Trump people really stop listening and live in their own reality. Just like Trump himself.
I'm not sure what you're objecting to - I've just watched the exchange in question.
The reporter said: "let's be clear, what you described is a quid pro quo".
Mulvaney replied: "we do that all the time with foreign policy"
Isn't this precisely what Trump's being accused of doing?
That is the epitome of being intolerant.
Mulvaney is making the case that a quid pro quo in foreign policy isn't abnormal; and it isn't. He didn't say "get over it" with regard to the specific case of Trump asking for an investigation in the Democratic server in return for money but to "get over" the fact that (national) politics will affect foreign policy. He referred to McKinney who was "really upset about the political influence on foreign policy". I think there's nothing wrong with a quid pro quo per se.
Let's say Congress had allocated money to Turkey to be paid out in a certain moment and yet Erdogan had a US national locked up. Should Trump spend the money or hold it until the US national is released? I'd hope he'd do the latter. It's about what the quid pro quo is used for, some goals are acceptable, others aren't.
Mulvaney did admit quid pro quo with regard to the investigation of the Democratic server. I don't think that's the impeachable offence though; the impeachable one is asking them to investigate a possible opposing Presidential candidate (at least his son).
What’s abnormal about it in this case it its motivation, which is personal benefit and political gain, not furtherance of the interests of the state. It’s plainly illegal, there’s no question about that. The only question is whether the machinery of government can actually rein in Trump’s aberrant behaviour. I'm hoping, and expecting, that it will.
It seems clear to me that he did. From the same exchange:
Mulvaney: "Did he mention to me in past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely, no question about that. But that's it. That's why we held up the money."
Of course, I never said it wasn't. But CCN is misrepresenting what Mulvaney said.
Quoting ChrisH
The "get over it" comment refers to McKinney's reason to be upset. I don't see how you can hear and read this any other way. What do you think "it" refers to in that sentence?
He's saying McKinney should not be upset by the kind of quid pro quo that's the subject of the impeachment investigation because it's commonplace.
Look, Trump's quid pro quo was unacceptable but we don't need to "prove" it by reading things into what people say that they in fact didn't say.
The WH message had previously been that there was no quid pro quo. Trump already confirmed that he asked Ukraine to investigate the Biden's, so Mulvaney's message didn't mean much.
There isnt a coherent message coming from the WH. Trump is just daring congress to do anything about his actions. He's able to do that because of the fierce allegiance of his base.
This vaguely ties back to the "deplorable" thread. Trump's base is holding the country hostage and forcing us all to choke on Trump's corruption.
Why? I guess there are probably a lot of individual reasons for it. Anger, mistrust, malice looking for a legitimate target. Whatever.
These are the reasons the administration held back the money.
-Lindsey Graham. 1998
:up:
Lindsey basically became Trump's gimp-slave as soon as he got the nomination IIRC. He thinks of himself as principled, so it will be interesting to see how long it takes him to turn hypocrite yet again this go-round. (AFAIK, Lindsey as been speaking out against Trump since the Erdogan call revelations)
I don't know if I've ever read anything quite so absurd as this letter...
It was interesting to see Trump direct Graham's attention to his constituents as he asserted his authority.
I was just thinking about the oddity of Trump's behaviour and policies towards Ukraine and Russia. Adam Shiff basically called Trump a traitor without using the term. The behaviour he described fits the definition of treason.
Here's a question...
Are their any Trump actions, words, and/or policies that are clearly counter to Putin? There are plenty which could be construed and/or misconstrued as being directly out of the 'Putin playbook'.
Now, supporters are faced with the reality exposed by this administration. There have been policy decisions consistent with accepted principle and values ... some but by no means all. There has been behavior that would normally be considered unacceptable, and supporters have struggled to balance their own opinions.
Many are at a loss when considering the thousands of tweets and statements to the media.
For an objective view, it's perhaps insightful to consider an external perspective. Someone on Quora asked “Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?” Here's one somewhat humorous response ...
________________________
"A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.
For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.
So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.
Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever.
I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.
But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.
Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.
And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.
There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.
Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.
Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.
And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.
Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.
He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.
There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.
So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.
This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.
... He makes Nixon look trustworthy ...."
That's how it looks from the outside for at least one observer.
__________________________________
It appears that our traditional values of honesty and truth, of respect for others, of kindness and compassion and integrity, all are sidelined. His supporters are left with a choice between loyalty to the individual or a good conscience.
Can we reach some measure of objectivity?
A separate issue on the near horizon, of course, is the 2020 election and the direction we will take as a nation. We will again be faced with a choice between two ....
https://nyti.ms/2J69xTt
Quoting Old Brian
There's an argument that Trumpism has some of the characteristics of a cult, and that cult followers are generally immune to persuasion.
Right on schedule...
The administration’s policies, sanctions and arms deals are contra Putin.
On the Record
I’d be weary of the growing neo-McCarthyism now plaguing the political scene. I think I was accused of being Russian (among other things) in this very thread. The spectre of a Russian influence in American politics is increasingly dangerous and pernicious. Democratic primary candidates, such as Tulsi Gabbard, are now being accused of being Russian assets.
Everyone is a Russian Asset
Thanks. Have to look into that a bit further. I'll get back with you.
:smile:
Like a rambling incoherent child.
Your president has been busted breaking the law and will soon face impeachment, and his only defense is lies and insults.
If it could be established that Trump actually withheld funds for Ukraine to influence them to investigate Biden, would you agree that is worthy of impeachment and removal?
I feel certain that most rank and file Republicans would actually be OK with Trump doing this (i.e. they would still oppose impeachment), so I'm curious about your position on it.
StreetlightX, I owe you an explanation of my delay in responding to our move by our President, to remove the 28 US soldiers from the position in which the Kurds had fought alongside us, leaving them to be slaughtered.
My son had the chance to talk to an Air Force Officer, one of his Professors, who has served active duty since before 9/11 what he thought about what our President did and how he did it.
I was not present for the conversation and the Professor did not answer directly but gave a summary of what the serving men and women thought which was "What he did was a dick move. Period."
And my son added that I have to understand, that it is safe to say that those currently serving and his fellow classmates, who will serve are Patriots to some degree and when the administration makes any move, they are the ones that have to carry the orders out, without the luxury of debating it.
So he left me with the question: do you think it is morally right to leave today, those who fought alongside you, only to die tomorrow as a result of your actions?
I am processing, searching for the role morality plays in a military operation and I am having a hard time finding it.
There's 4000 years of history about the morality of war and when a war is just and when it is fought in a just way. If morality plays no role in military operation then what were the Nuremberg trials about?
I’m not a republican, but if it was established that the sole reason Trump withheld funds was for political dirt for an election I would say it was worthy enough for impeachment.
Do you agree that there is some evidence to suggest he might have been doing this impeachable thing?
If he was withholding aid money until he was assured that the Ukrainian leadership was going to work with current DOJ investigations, such as the Durham investigation, or to root out general corruption, of which Biden may or may not have been involved, then he is merely doing his job.
If he withheld money for the purposes of finding political dirt so as to help him in the next election, yes I think that could perhaps rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, and therefor an impeachable offense.
There is plenty evidence of the former, zero evidence of the latter.
Not that I really want to defend her. It just seems a bit inconsistent coming from you.
"“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign".
That constitutes evidence.
The fact that Trump actually withheld the funds is consistent with Taylor's inference, so it constitutes circumstantial evidence.
I'm not claiming these are sufficient to convict, but how can you claim "zero" evidence?
Because he's a Trump propaganda noise machine. The evidence is all over the news and everyone knows what's going on.
It's all part of the alt-right agitprop. At worst, Clinton was annoying.
Bill Taylor’s fears are evidence of Trump’s criminality? That does not constitute evidence of anything, except perhaps Taylor’s assumptions and fears.
If that constitutes evidence, then what about Sunderland’s response to that text, which is suspiciously missing from your analysis?
You are to Clinton what @NOS4A2 is to Trump, utterly and blindly uncritical. Your only saving grace is you talk less about her than he does about him.
:brow: Are you serious? You could start with this: https://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ . Close to one-third of every statement recorded was a lie. But I really only wanted to point out how you and the other side mirror each other but can't see it.
Quoting tim wood
Yes, Trump is a rude scumbag. The rest were polite ones.
..."And some, I assume, were good people".
In fact the 'moral equivalence' stance turns a blind eye to the unprecedented degree of corruption and criminality exhibited by Trump. It's an example of how Trump's 'whataboutism' has leached into the media landscape such that even purportedly detached observers now solemnly recite it as accepted fact.
You should direct that to Trump's resident spin-doctor. I don't have a dog in the fight. (I'd only remark that not being a worse liar than Trump is an achievement shared by 99.9% of the human race, including by frequent liars like Clinton.)
Why was it being spearheaded by Rudy? He's not a government official. According to the envoy to Ukraine's testimony, this requirement to commit to an investigation wasn't directed through the official channels.
And the requirement wasn't just to carry out an investigation or root out corruption: "But President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference". Certainly seems to be concerned with damaging optics of a political rival.
Well, neither do I, but you barked. :-)
I'm not bothering with trump trolls.
Well, I'm off back to my kennel now before I get Trump discussion rabies and start foaming at the mouth. :zip:
According to Rudy he was doing it in his capacity as a defense lawyer, and it wasn’t, as I once assumed, in the capacity of the government. Rudy had given his findings to the state department through the proper channels back in March.
...According to Tim Morrison, as described by Taylor. Of course, there is no such CNN interview.
Yes, it's evidence, because he was in position to know what was going on.
[Quote]If that constitutes evidence, then what about Sunderland’s response to that text, which is suspiciously missing from your analysis?[/quote]
I think you mean Sondland. Sure, taken at face value, Sondland's response is evidence to the contrary. I didn't mention that because I was simply challenging your claim of "zero" evidence of quid pro quo. Contrary evidence does not erase the existence of the positive evidence.
Regardless, we know that Sondland was not actually expressing his own opinion (Sondland admitted this in his testimony), so this erases its exculpatory value. And we also have Taylor's full testimony- do you even deny THIS as evidence against Trump?!
When I said “zero evidence” I was saying it in regards to your question earlier, and my explicit answer:
“If he withheld money for the purposes of finding political dirt so as to help him in the next election, yes I think that could perhaps rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors”
Show me a statement or policy or anything that references finding political dirt for the purposes of influencing an election, or anything to do with the next election and political dirt. If you find that the evidence of what he has been accused of will go from zero to one.
Yes - point was that really shitty people - including HRC - know this all too well. This doesn't make them shitty people, its just the means by which they achieve power. But its not that insisting morals play a role is naive - morals always 'play a role' - but that you simply can't play politics as a morality game.
Trump's close relatives held a meeting with the explicit intent of doing just that.
Do you really believe that Trump knew nothing?
:meh:
What else could politics be if not doing what ought be done?
Maybe I'm missing something because I haven't been following all the posts here, but what would you call Sanders' political ascension?
:wink:
Point taken.
A demonstrably wise, prudent, and admirable politician who has been nearly perfect throughout his time, sometimes when he was the only "nay". Someone who knows what the underlying problems are and is of outstanding moral character while informing people of those problems and how they arose.
I would call that "long overdue"...
Knew about what?
Read the Mueller report.
Read my posts. I was not speaking about the Mueller report.
I know that. You're talking about current events. I'm pointing you towards solid evidence of the exact same thing in past.
Sorry, I don’t get the point.
I gave you - or pointed you towards - exactly that.
There was no point. It was an answer. What's the point in asking for evidence of an illegal activity when there's already evidence for it? Do you not know this?
That’s false. You pointed me to a previous event, regarding a different person, from a previous investigation, in which no one was found guilty of the “illegal reasons” you allege. Do your false allegations rise to the level of sanity and sincerity you assume from others?
Sanders is a profoundly political operator. By this I mean that he's not just offering to tinker a little bit with the system here and there, patching up holes, as it were, in a technocratic manner a la Warren (or the rest of the democratic field, for that matter). His platform is an attempt to pitch power against power: the power of a mass of the socious against those the few who accrue benefit to themselves. He stakes a position in a field and arrays people for and against it. Which is another way of saying that Sanders isn't an 'issues' candidate, tackling this problem here, that problem there. His approch is properly politicaI, seeking to transform the relations of power in society. As such, I see him as offering a unified approach in which the issues tackled are derivative of this larger political program. I see him playing politics as politics, more than anyone else in the democratic lineup. And it bloody works and people love it.
What is false? Which statement?
The issue isn't about his "findings". The issue is that Rudy – a private citizen – was using irregular channels to prompt Ukrainian officials to commit to particular demands from Trump so as to receive Congress-appointed foreign aid. That's not how these things should work. These demands should be have been made through the proper channels – via the relevant government officials, which in this case would presumably have been the envoy to Ukraine, William Taylor, and certainly not by Trump's personal lawyer.
Everything about this will be according to someone. I doubt there's video footage of these events. But the testimony before Congress of a long-standing government official should carry some weight, particularly as there doesn't seem to be any reason for him to be lying – and the previous release of text messages related to the situation and the whistleblower's account are corroborating evidence.
Whether or not the interview happened is irrelevant. What's relevant is if the demand was made. Asking Ukraine to investigate corruption is one thing, but asking a foreign President to publicly announce that he is investigating one's political rival is something else entirely, and suggestive that one is concerned more with domestic political issues that are of personal benefit than with a foreign policy that promotes U.S. interests.
Pointing you towards evidence you ask for says nothing else.
:wink:
Read the Mueller report. Watch the sworn testimony.
You don't understand the concept of "evidence". With your absurdly narrow view of evidence, no white collar crimes could ever be prosecuted.
By the way, it seems that substantial evidence has just been provided by the acting ambassador to Ukraine.
Not just any private citizen, but the defense lawyer of the president of the United States, who (perhaps ironically) at the time was under investigation for a number of years because of a piece of political dirt, sourced from Russia, payed for by the DNC. Defense lawyers can gather evidence of their own, which he did, and handed it to the relevant authorities, which he did.
But we don’t know his testimony before Congress. We don’t know any of their testimonies before Congress. We are not allowed to see the testimonies from any of the government officials because Schiff is running a secret court and is classifying all documents.
Yesterday it was a quid pro quo on a telephone call, now it is a CNN interview that never happened. Frankly I don’t care what any of this “suggests” to the same people who suggested Russian collusion for the past 3 years.
This has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Rudy is a private citizen and so shouldn't be conducting foreign policy. He shouldn't be going around the official channel – in this case the work being done by the envoy to Ukraine, William Taylor – and telling the Ukrainian government what they need to do to receive foreign aid from the United States.
Here's the opening statement that I'm referring to.
There was a long-standing effort to have the President of Ukraine publicly announce an investigation into Biden. Most of it was done behind the scenes as explained in the above opening statement, with Trump's phone call just one more instance of this effort. As part of this effort the President of Ukraine committed to a CNN interview – after speaking with Sondland.
But then two days later, which happened to be two days after the House announced that they were opening investigations into the withholding of aid to Ukraine and the accusations that Trump and Rudy were compelling Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden, and just hours before the House were due to vote on an amendment to a defense spending bill that would have prevented Trump from such actions in the future, the aid was released – probably as an attempt at damage control – and so the President of Ukraine was no longer compelled to carry out the interview.
I didn't suggest that. If you look back at my past posts on the matter I only suggested obstruction of justice and the Trump Tower meeting violating campaign finance laws, and Mueller's report would seem to verify my judgement.
And if you don’t think that compelling Ukraine’s President to publicly announce an investigation into Biden is Trump looking after Trump then I don’t trust your opinion on the matter. It’s wilful ignorance at best.
He isn’t conducting foreign policy. He’s defending his client, according to him.
An opening statement is a far cry from a congressional testimony. Take it at face value all you wish, but It’s simply not enough.
This conspiracy theory is based on hearsay, while those with direct knowledge of the interactions say quite the opposite. How do you get around that?
Politico
I think they’re wrong to storm the deposition, but right that this should be done in the open.
Which is hilarious, given that there are Republicans on the committee and so in the room already.
Also this from Trey Gowdy in 2015:
Although it’s not really hilarious. They brought phones into the SCIF. That’s a national security issue.
Presumably there’a a reason it’s being held in the SCIF, and aren’t there legitimate reasons to limit who can go in? Or is it open to all Congress?
Those reasons are explicit somewhere, but to paraphrase it had to do with national security, the integrity of the proceedings, and other glittering generalities.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/whitehouse/status/1187046858142687232?s=21[/tweet]
The general of the SDF (the Kurds) applauds Trump’s efforts.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mustefabali/status/1187033970850123779?s=21[/tweet]
Even sooner for me. But it seems that all sides are at least happy with this development.
If what Trump says is true, Turkey is finished with it’s operation. If what Turkey says is true, they will start repatriating Syrian refugees to their home country. It will take time to see how this works itself out, but if it does work, the prophecies and hand-wringing of Trump’s opponents were for naught.
Prior to the civil war a Republican senator was beaten with a walking cane by a Democratic representative. Maybe we'll get there again.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/trump-impeachment-chances-gaetz-scif-edition.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/23/hidden-revelation-taylor-hints-worse-come-trump/
What an embarrassment to the country. It's a mob-mentality once again: desperate times call for desperate measures.
Now he's attacking some of his own party calling them 'human scum' since they are turning against him.
It's funny the hypocrisy as it relates to Lindsey Graham. During the Clinton impeachment hearings he was all about abuse of office and "cleansing the office" in favor of impeachment.
And now there's this Trey Gowdy dude who in the past made a big deal about ' preserving the process'... now like Graham, he's doing a 180. LOL
I think Anthony Scaramucci was right ( a GOP'r who also turned on Trump) about Trump mentally losing it... Or maybe it's just that whole New York City mob mentality.
Sorry New York!
If Trump is not removed from office, then it's goodbye to the rule of law in America. And the implications of that are mind-boggling. But on the other hand, if Trump is impeached and removed from office, then maybe there's a chance that this whole sorry episode will act like a vaccine of sorts. We can only hope.
True that!! It's a pretty standard distraction tactic. Pretty pathetic...
And as a little PostScript, I'm 'equal opportunity'; I was also embarrassed when Clinton was doing all that ridiculous behavior stuff in the oval office. I felt like, hey just go to a hotel somewhere but not in the oval office... .
I still say we need more moderate's in both our religious and political institutions.
You don't think that all the "hand-wringing" is the reason Trump has expended so much energy trying to get a ceasefire?
Quoting NOS4A2
The permanent ceasefire is based on an agreement between Russia and Turkey, without US involvement. So it's Putin, not Trump, who has made progress.
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding...
We have a winner!
Tell you what he's gonna do-ooo-oo
Do you wanna keep on being Putin's pawn
Cause there's so much more that he wants from you
I suppose the SDF general was lying, then.
No, Trump’s sanctions and ceasefire deal were separate from Russia and Turkey’s pact.
He didn't make a statement of fact at all. It doesn't make sense to say he was "lying".
Quoting NOS4A2
They were separate, indeed. Mike Pence negotiated a five day ceasefire. Russia and Turkey negotiated a longer term solution. So, the actual progress beyond the short-term ceasefire was made without US involvement.
This cannot be a lie?
Anyways, quibble about my use of terms all you want. I think leaving Syria is great progress.
I remember asking how along the US should remain in that area, and you gave a great idea, broker a deal between Turkey and “the Kurds”, until they are able to escape or get ready for their defence. It appears Trump had pretty much the same idea. Broker a deal and get “The Kurds” out of the area. So now that that is over, what else do you suggest?
I was watching Chris Cuomo last night about yesterday's 'political charade' apparently endorsed by Trump, and he reminded the viewers about 'the process'. To this end, we are in the deposition phase. And we know in most any adjudication process, deposition's are almost always closed door between said prosecutors and witnesses. I mean, standard stuff in a civil or criminal trial.
The interesting parallel was that during Clinton's impeachment, the Ken Starr report was all 'off-site closed door deposition style' where typical witness testimony was taken including corroborating evidence/testimony at his law office(s).
So, don't worry GOP, when the deposition 'process' is completed, your party, and the American people will get to see/hear the 'trial' and you will have your chance to cross examine witness, as well as bring other's to testify... . And by the way, there are Republican's in the committee right now asking questions of the various witnesses... .
Just a minor point to bring up concerning the charade yesterday. I wonder if Trump's base even gets it...
Or maybe they just 'get' the mob mentality!
Right now? Nothing. The ship has sailed, Russia has taken up the position of the US and it's not like further involvement now does anyone any good. That doesn't mean the initial decision was a good one, or that Trump can somehow take credit for salvaging the situation apart from brokering a ceasefire (at a point when the presence of Russian troops had already put the future of the Turkish offensive in jeopardy).
Perhaps. At least the doom-mongering and fortune-telling of both the war hawks and their propagandists didn’t bear any fruit, as usual. But yes, those who border Syria will continue from here. Millions of Syrian refugees in Turkey will begin to repatriate. American troops in the area will hopefully return home.
They will not. Has any Republican in Congress even acknowledged that the closed hearings are even allowable, much less appropriate?
If you get a second, what do you think of this perspective on morality in politics? Moore is typical of American liberals; emotional, strongly focused on morality, not overly interested in practicality:
indeed Relativist, indeed. And lot's of hypocrisy too:
“One of the reasons that [former Republican House Oversight Committee Chair] Trey Gowdy said that these things work better in private, the way he conducted most of Benghazi, I don’t remember you complaining about that. I don’t remember you guys complaining in 2015 when you guys changed the rules to empower the majority with subpoena power to suppress the minority,” Cuomo noted"
You go Chris! Love you man!
The MAGA thugs in the GOP will stop at nothing to wreck these proceedings. If there are any honest GOP members left, they really have to stand up.
True that!
And going back to the big picture, someone said past performance is a good indicator of future performance.
Whether it's his past business dealings with stiffing contractors, Russian interference with our election from which his campaign team members were found guilty & ncarcerated, or this kind of Ukraine attempt, common sense still tells me the likelihood of guilt is very high...
In the meantime, I'll be stocking up on the popcorn !
Justice Dept. Is Said to Open Criminal Inquiry Into Its Own Russia Investigation
Get your popcorn indeed.
I'm totally fine with anything that uncovers truth!
As far as I'm concerned it wouldn't bother me if that's all that both Democrats and Republicans do; investigate each other. That's probably the only way to drain the swamp.
And the reason why it shouldn't bother anyone, is that in using the sports metaphor, the players (rank and file ) are the ones who execute the real work anyway ( I know from working in state government myself). The coaches (politicians) can argue till exhaustion. So then maybe some level of truth will come out...gee that would be one virtuous outcome from this Presidency!
NOT LoL
He's roped in Stephen Barr - oh, who happens to be the US Attorney General - to investigate and coerce various bit players on the sidelines - among them, an Australian ex-foreign minister and an Italian professor with links to a fake passport scam, in a phony 'investigating the investigators' sham, again attempting to prove that the Mueller Report was bogus.
He imagines - dreams! - a scenario where Joe and Hunter Biden are found to have been conniving with corrupt elements in the intelligence services and in the Ukraine to manufacture the evidence that was later included in the Mueller Report, and are being led off in handcuffs to a federal penitentiary. He falls for some crazy internet meme that Hilary Clinton's email server with 'thousands of classified emails' is actually somewhere in Ukraine, and he's going to have someone (or have Rudy find someone) find it.
Mueller, if not disgraced, is found to have been the dupe of corrupt intelligence officers in the FBI and CIA. Trump's reputation is restored, all his persecutors and tormentors are disgraced and jailed, with the Fake Media shown up as co-conspirators in the whole wicked scheme.
Through pursuing this, Trump has thoroughly corrupted the Office of the Presidency. He's also practically eviscerated the State Department and earned the life-long enmity of many in the CIA and FBI. Of course, all this plays into the Alt-Right 'deep-state conspiracy' nonsense that Trump throws out to the base.
But in reality, you're seeing thousands of loyal and beleaguered public officials, diplomatic staff and intelligence agents being abused in pursuit of a truly crackpot conspiracy theory, worthy of a plot written by Robert Ludlum or John LeCarre.
This is what Trump and Guiliani were working on proving, and he's convinced this is what happened. It may, hopefully, lead to his downfall and removal from office, but he and the MAGA thugs in the GOP will fight by any means necessary, legal or illegal, to prevent that from happening. It all rests on getting enough people, and the right people, to believe and defend lies. It’s the fact that it’s working that makes it so depressing.
If you would like to portray youself as an objective observer, I recommend you refrain from using Trump's memes. The investigation was anything but a hoax which implies there was no reason whatsoever to suspect wrongdoing by the Trump campaign. OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder but that doesn't imply his investigation was perpetrating a hoax.
I‘ve made no secret about voting for Trump and being a fan of Trump’s.
A hoax implies the reasons to suspect wrongdoing were fabricated and passed off as truth. A hoax implies people were duped into believing something when it was false. Out of curiosity, what did you believe?
Putting it differently, if people are aware a gang shot a rival gang and you would have regular contact with those shooters, what part would be a hoax if you are subsequently investigated by the police?
A hoax is a deliberate fabrication, what did Mueller make up? Or who else did that if we're not telling about him? Rod Rosenstein when he signed the mandate?
Again, let me rephrase, what the fuck are you talking about?
The Mueller report is only a part of the Russia investigation. You really have no clue, do you?
As usual, you didn't answer any of my questions.
Quoting NOS4A2
Trump is immune to reason and indifferent to facts. 'Trump fans' are no different.
https://nyti.ms/2Jj4hMk
Bet the atmosphere inside Justice is positively collegial.
Not.
Oh, and let's not forget what happened to John Mitchell.
Sure, but there was actually evidence to suggest wrongdoing. For example, Russians hacked the DNC servers, released the materials through Wikileaks, and there were contacts between Wikileaks and members of the campaign. Further, Russians directly offered dirt on Clinton, which Don Jr was delighted to receive, and Don Sr. (supposedly coincidentally) pre-announced there would be a major announcement about Clinton. And of course, Trump tried to hinder the investigation - the 11 potential obstruction of justice instances Mueller cited, suggesting of his trying to hide something. I could go on, but clearly there was a ample reason to investigate. Bear in mind the Mueller's investigation concluded there was insufficient evidence to indict - that is not a proof of innocence, nor even a proof that an investigation was unwarranted. At least as far as we know now, there is far more evidence that Trump and/or members of his campaign committed crimes than there is evidence that the entire investigation was "hoax".
I know you're a Trump supporter, but that shouldn't mean you must blindly accept everything Trump says. You have frequently said that you don't care what he says - you only care about what he does. But when you parrot his talking points ("hoax"), you are showing that you are uncritically accepting the characterization of a serial liar.
Now that the 'precedent' is set, relative to investigating the (Russia) investigator's, I don't think it will bode well for the Trumper's. For example, now, the circular firing squad will be shooting at say Ivanka and her economic interests in China and related intellectual property abuses viz Biden's son kinds of interests...it's a free for all now !!! .
So the question becomes, who's more corrupt: Trump (family and associates) or the Government. My bet is Trump tips the scale as king of corruption.
I think I've just graduated from popcorn to shrimp cocktail!!
So then why do you uncritically and blindly parrot the CIA and FBI? The problem is now they and their Russian investigation, their spying on American citizens, are under criminal investigation. You know this but still continue to parrot them. Are you even nervous at the prospect you’ve been duped? Maybe now, after years of this, it’s time to think critically?
Right, but the fact that part of the population is sensitive to moral issues becomes politics. It reminds me of war between Carthage and Rome where each side would suddenly become the epitome of moral rectitude while trying to win the allegiance of rural Italians.
Politicians reflect the populace (but dont necessarily lead them?)
The intelligence community absolutely deserves to be trusted by default, otherwise we might as well open up all the prisons and give up all hope of understanding what our adversaries are doing. This does not mean they are above reproach, and I have no problem with an honest investigation of their actions and judgments.
Now get back to the evidence I cited. What portions of it are you disputing?
Where did it conclude that?
Because what they say with regard to the DNC hack is corroborated by other foreign intelligence agencies. In particular the Dutch as they hacked the hackers and saw them hacking the DNC server live.
Sure.
For any or all Trumper's, just a quick question.
I haven't researched the so-called analogous conditions, but now that we are in the mode of investigating everyone and everything [which is a good thing], what about the Ukraine transcripts (put in the code-word server) ?
Like the DNC server, shouldn't the public learn about certain eventual declassified material in there too?
Oh, and speaking of Ukraine, what about all the subpoena'd documents that were denied access from the Trump administration... ?
That’s frightening.
I don’t believe any of what the CIA says.
As for the hoax, I will call it whatever I please. Do I have solid evidence that this charade was a malicious lie? No—we will find out soon enough. But we do have massive amounts of evidence that vast subsections of the population were duped into believing Trump colluded with Russia. Did you believe Trump colluded with Russia?
Yes I think he did but doubt it would reach the bar of beyond a reasonable doubt that would lead to a conviction. I do believe that he obstructed justice as described in the Mueller report. Both are neither here nor there because the evidentiary rules don't really apply to impeachment.
Quoting NOS4A2
What part is the charade? That's the 3rd time I'm asking and you're failing to answer. Are you saying no investigation should have been held? You don't believe the DNC was hacked? What part is it? These blanket denials and distrust of institutions are not informative at all. There's no substance to your replies.
There is no crime for collusion. That’s the hilarious part about it.
I’ve already gone over the Mueller report, my criticisms of the investigation ad nauseum, and you or someone else simply dismissed them. I refuse to do it again. Your finger-wagging about my choice of words is just that: finger-wagging.
The Ukraine-DNC situation is an attempt to contradict the Mueller report.
Ignore NOS4A2, he's spreading bullshit.
I know, as evidenced by countless posts before that we even exchanged so I assumed, since you insist on using the term, you'd take that into account. Instead I get a bullshit "gotcha" reaction.
Like here
Quoting NOS4A2
We're not talking about the report, we're talking about it being a hoax. What part is a deliberate lie in the process that makes you qualify it as a hoax without, as you say, any real evidence? Your qualification was in reply to the investigation having happened in the first place. So was Mueller duped too? What's the hoax and who is the hoaxer?
Do I have solid evidence that this charade was a malicious lie? No—we will find out soon enough. But we do have massive amounts of evidence that vast subsections of the population were duped into believing Trump colluded with Russia. Did you believe Trump colluded with Russia?
That's not what I'm asking. What part is the hoax, so what's the lie and what is, according to you, the truth? Who peddled that lie?
The truth is Trump was innocent despite all claims and worries to the contrary. There was no Russian collusion, no conspiracy to defraud the US, no obstruction. You were duped by selective leaks and bad reporting.
Look, I apologize for flippant responses. I do not have enough evidence to accurately say this is a hoax and criticism of my statement is valid. Yes, what I am saying is, at this moment, conspiratorial and you are right to say so.
I'm supportive of a healthy level of mustrust of their public comments, but it's crazy to be totally dismissive of their work, particularly in a case like this that alsi involved the FBI, and the materials have been examined by representatives and Senators in both sides of the aisle.
[Quote]As for the hoax, I will call it whatever I please. [/quote]
You are calling it what TRUMP pleases. You earlier claimed you don't care what he says - that his lies don't matter because you like what he does. Here's an example of why his words matter: the pattern of lying shows that it is absurd to accept any claims he makes at face value.
[Quote]Do I have solid evidence that this charade was a malicious lie? No—we will find out soon enough. But we do have massive amounts of evidence that vast subsections of the population were duped into believing Trump colluded with Russia. Did you believe Trump colluded with Russia?[/quote]
What evidence do you have to support your claim that America was "duped"? You have evaded responding to the evidence I cited. Do you simply dismiss evidence that is contrary to what you want to believe?
John Brennan and James Clapper are proven liars. Peter Strozk and Lisa page we’re proven to be biased. Andy McCabe was proven to be a liar. These guys hands are over everything in this investigation, and they used state power to spy on innocent Americans based on a fake dossier, payed for by the DNC and sourced from Russian intelligence.
I do not discount the intelligence community out of hand, but these guys I simply do not trust.
For the past few years, from before the presidency until now, we’ve been inundated with Trump/Russia collusion stories and conspiracy theories. Did you believe Trump colluded with Russia to help him win the election?
Of course. Everybody believes that.
"Collusion" is a red herring. Very well used. Self-perpetuated nonetheless. There is no such crime. He knew - they knew - there would never be any such charge of collusion. So, no matter what come of the investigation... it could not ever be a case of being guilty of collusion.
Read the Mueller report. Watch the testimony.
Exactly right. The media and DNC inundation of Trump/Russian collusion was based on that falsity from the get go. We don’t need the Mueller report or his testimony to realize that, but we no less heard it for nearly three years.
No. He colluded.
Stop spreading lies.
And Trump's not?
Why are we feeding the troll??
Tu quoque?
Why are we feeding foreign meddler’s?
Your mistrust of these individuals does not justify your assertion that the Russian investigation was a "hoax". There's no evidence of their having influenced, much less orchestrated, the investigation.
The Inspector General investigated Strozak and Page and concluded their judgments were reasonable. They made some inappropriate comments, but as you have so frequently said, it is actions, not words, that matter. Avoid hypocrisy and apply this principle universally.
Quoting NOS4A2
I cited some of the evidence that led to the investigation, and you continue to ignore it. Throughout the investigation, Trump repeatedly denied it was the Russians (contrary to all intelligence, and accepted by both sides in Congress), derided the investigation, and tried to obstruct it. This behavior certainly made him look guilty, and his obstruction was criminal - worthy of impeachment and removal because 1) it is a crime; 2) it violates his oath of office. His behavior contributed to keeping it all in the news. Had he simply ignored it, except to assert that he had no concerns because he was innocent, the coverage might have faded into the background.
What do I think? I think Trump lied about having knowledge of the promise of dirt on Clinton that was expected from the Trump tower meeting, and that he lied about this to Mueller. That is the best explanation for his promise to have a major announcement about Clinton. I also believe he was complicit in having his people work with Wikileaks. In neither case do I believe there is enough evidence to convict Trump, but these seem more likely than not. On the other hand, there is clearly sufficient evidence to convict Trump of several counts of obstruction of Justice - as detailed in the Mueller report, and assessed by over 1000 former federal prosecutors. Why did he obstruct if he was innocent? That still looks suspicious.
I also think it likely that he withheld Ukraine funding to get their President to announce an investigation into BIden, based on the information that is publicly available so far. I think (what we have of ) Taylor's testimony is credible and damning; not sufficient to convict (of THAT crime)- but more that enough to not reelect. Trump's stonewalling subpoenas is clearly illegal and impeachable. As usual, Trump's behavior toward the investigation is despicable. As candidate Trump asserted with regard to pleading the 5th: what does he have to hide?
Page 174: "In deciding whether to exercise this prosecutorial authority, the Office has been guided by the Principles of Federal Prosecution set forth in the Justice (formerly U.S. Attorney's) Manual. In particular, the Office has evaluated whether the conduct of the individuals considered for prosecution constituted a federal offense and whether admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction for such an offense."
At no point did they tell the Trump campaign they were being infiltrated by Russian influence. Instead, they opened a spying operation on the campaign, on innocent Americans, none of whom were found to be guilty of a conspiracy between the campaign and Russia. They used the dodgy, phony dossier to obtain FISA warrents to spy on people who were not found to be guilty of a conspiracy between the campaign and Russia. They sent spies into the campaign, . They opened a vast investigation on members of the campaign, none of whom were found to be guilty of a conspiracy between the campaign and Russia.
This Russian collision narrative was no less perpetuated by deep-state leakers, the DNC and the media, and sold to the credulous—hook, line and sinker. The WaPo and NYT received Pulitzers for their reporting, for enlightening us on collusion. It's no wonder everyone believed in collusion.
Strzok was fired. McCabe was fired. Page resigned. Comey was fired.
He derided an unjust investigation. That's Trump's only crime. No, it was not criminal for the reasons stated by barr, because there was no corrupt or criminal intent. In the last analysis, they were just the protests of a man and his family being unjustly investigated for DNC conspiracy theories.
And all this while everyone completely ignored the dirt that Hillary's campaign sourced from the Kremlin, from Ukraine, and used to influence an election.
Now, what I asked was: Did you believe Trump colluded with Russia to help him win the election?
You keep saying things like this. And when we find out that you were wrong you just go on to some other falsities.
Quoting NOS4A2
Colluded? He's a fucking puppet. The Russians said 'run for president, we'll get you in'. At first he didn't believe they could do it, but he really wanted it, so he went along with it. The deal with the devil. He let them groom him, creating the public image which got him to where he is now, president of the USA; giving up his soul in this pact. And that's all he is, as president, an image which the Russians have created.
Hey, NOS4A2! I can shoot the shit just as well as you. But my BS has a kernel of truth, yours has a kernel of falsity, true BS through and through.
That’s not true. Your word salads are nearly unreadable.
It is indeed exactly right! Someone cannot be convicted of a crime that does not exist. Collusion - in this case - is every bit as inapplicable as jaywalking.
That said... there are all sorts of other things being looked at. That's what a deposition is all about. It's the first step in the process. Given the high national security concerns, and the fact that it is not at all uncommon to hold private depositions - ALL of them are, anyone unauthorized to be there that walks in and is also a player in the later proceedings should the deposition warrant, ought be fucking charged with obstruction.
There was Russian interference. Trump's close relatives worked with some of those agents. Trump hired a known Ukrainian agent(Manafort). The Mueller report cited enough evidence of obstruction to warrant passing the baton. Mueller did not openly say either way... that, in and of itself, is beyond his purview. He determined there was enough evidence to go to the next phase... He passed the baton...
The next runner dropped it...
For fuck's sake... Trump has a current cabinet member who used to work in Cyprus laundering Russian money...
I think that's fair. The GOP storming Schiff's kangaroo court seemed like an act of desperation. It looks like they're criticizing the process, which, given Schiff's lies about the whistleblower and about possessing evidence of Russian collusion, is quite suspect in my mind. However as of now the Dems are winning with their leaking and media strategy. Unfortunately this strategy leaves Americans misinformed as to the vast majority of the questioning.
Any way you could restate that without making unverifiable charges? I'd be very surprised if Schiff used the term "collusion".
Schiff's been saying for years that that there was an abundance of evidence of collusion, along with many other Democrats.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-russia-collusion-hall-of-shame/2019/03/28/306b5168-5173-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html
The only people I see still using the term are those who keep on saying that Trump is not guilty of it. That term is one of endearment for many who watch Fox and listen intently to the president, and trust that what he says is true. Trump loves using the term, because he can help perpetuate the fucking fraud against The United States of America that his own AG began...
Mueller did not exonerate Trump of anything. The Mueller report did not either! Mueller was not looking for evidence of collusion.
Jesus fucking christ...
Sorry Mom. Sorry Grandma.
It is an actual real life issue, and a very contentious one at that, regarding whether or not a sitting president can be indicted.
There are no statutes of limitation here to be worried about. The timeframe would allow for all the haggling to continue. Trump loses the election.
Then. Indicted.
He had said that if it was clear Trump had not committed a crime they would've said so. So Mueller provides facts that do not give him reason to say he's innocent but he had not analysed whether those facts would lead to sufficient grounds to indict as indictment was impossible in any case.
Here in the United States prosecutors are supposed to prove guilt, not innocence.
So what? Irrelevant. Trump's AG(or was it the FBI director?) claimed that the Mueller report exonerated Trump of collusion. Those claims were made well in advance of anyone else looking at the reports for themselves.
Poisoning the well does not even begin to describe that kind of fraudulent behaviour.
Read Benkei's last post.
So If the CIA says the sky is blue, you'll conclude it's red?
This is a terrible epistemological stance. Dismissing evidence is idiotic, no matter how morally righteous it makes you feel. This of course goes both ways, but given that you are constantly harping on about how we should be fair and consider the statements made by Trump as genuine, your stance on the CIA is incompatible with your stated principles.
No, that’s not what I meant. I meant I don’t trust the CIA.
You mean inedible?
There’s no crime named “collusion” just as there’s no crime named “stabbing someone in the face” but that’s not to say that stabbing someone in the face isn’t a crime - it is, it’s just named something. In the case of “collusion” it would be something like conspiracy against the United States or campaign finance violation.
You can say that there’s no evidence of these crimes but to just say that collusion isn’t a crime is a red herring,
On the other hand, the case for obstruction, as detailed in Volume 2, easily clears that hurdle - per the judgment of those over 1000 former federal prosecutors.
It's mind-boggling that Trump is involved with so much dirty business that opponents can set aside the Russian conspiracy stuff and concentrate on the areas for which the case is strongest. The sad thing is that this permits Trump and his supporters to continue to imply Trump was proven innocent of the conspiracy charge ("it was a hoax")- which is simply not true, and that's why I call it out.
And yet Trump and his supporters proclaim that Mueller completely exonerated him, which is false. There is more evidence for Trump's conspiring with Russia than there is for Biden's alleged corruption regarding Ukraine.
Unlike, “stabbing someone in the face”, “collusion” is too vague. There simply is no law that criminalizes collusion between a political campaign and foreign government.
And his detractors contend he is guilty, which is also false. It looks like we’re at an impasse.
Did you believe Trump colluded with Russia?
It's not an impasse! It's an opportunity to look hypocrisy in the face! For example, it is hypocritical to embrace Trump's unwarranted allegations against the Bidens while claiming the Russian investigation was a hoax.
Regarding what I believe, I previously responded to your question about that.
It would also be hypocritical to embrace allegations against the Trumps while claiming the Biden story is a conspiracy theory.
I was just asking if you once believed, or even still believe, that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the election. I never asked what you believe, but if you believed what I asked. A simple yes or no will do.
The Trump campaign was warned of foreign interference (including Russian) in August 2016, which was within weeks of the determination having been made. You lament the alleged "spying on innocent Americans" - based on both hindsight and a biased view of the evidence. The issue should be: was there probable cause to initiate surveillance. The FISA process was followed. It is interesting that the judgments we've seen are politically biased. Republicans blast the "Steele dossier" based solely on the fact that the research was funded by the Clinton campaign and that this fact was not sufficiently highlighted to the FISA. These are weak excuses to blast the warrant: 1) the general nature of the Steele "dossier" was mentioned; 2) So what if the efforts were funded by Clinton? There has been no evidence that Steele was instructed to make stuff up, or that he chose to do so to please his employer. Steele was an experienced MI6 agent with expertise on Russia and had Russian sources. Irrespective of what we've learned since that time, an assessment of the process must be judged on what was known at the time. It's outrageous to suggest that Steele's intelligence should have been completely disregarded.
Crossfire Hurricane was started in July, before the standardized security briefing in August. In Barr’s testimony, this was just a general briefing, including all potential threats from other countries. But no, they were not warned that Russians were allegedly compromising people like Papadopoulos or Page, nor did they say they opened a counterintelligence investigation.
The FISA process is now being investigated by the IG, and his results will be available soon.
It matters that the efforts were funded by Clinton and sourced by Russian intelligence for the same reasons people have been saying Russian influence is a threat to democracy. It’s election meddling. It’s political dirt sourced from Russian spies to damage an opponent. It’s supposed collusion. It’s everything they blamed Trump for but perpetuated by the Clinton campaign.
It’s official: Russiagate is this generation’s WMD
Fantastic read on media malfeasance during the hoax.
But a russian source is not Russian influence. If an FSB agent tells me Putin's favourite meal, that's information sources from russian spies, but basing a decision on it doesn't constitute russian influence.
Quoting NOS4A2
Interesting article. I read a few other bits and pieces, and the criticism of the way the media dealt with the allegations - and is dealing with the current ones - is at least worthy of serious consideration.
That’s true, but contrast these connections to the ones in the Trump campaign, where every Russian was in some way “connected to the kremlin”. FSB agents are quite literally Russian spies, and quite literally gave the DNC dirt for the purpose of influencing an election. There was no investigation or anything, even as this information was literally finding its way into American institutions, literally threatening democracy.
There sure is.
If enough people think in your terms, when no collusion is found by the witch hunt, they will be much easier to convince of your innocence, despite the fact that X never looked for collusion to begin with.
ISIS leader believed dead.
But the key difference is that in the case of the Steele Dossier, domestic political players used information of dubious quality for domestic political gain. It just so happened that the information was allegedly based on russian sources.
Meanwhile, the allegation regarding the Trump campaign was that foreign political players directly influenced domestic affairs.
Cringeworthy.
True, they weren’t comparable, but the dossier and the Russian dirt within it reached higher levels within our institutions, sowing the discord and meddling that we have been continually told were Putin’s objectives from the get go. Everyone who used it, peddled it, believed in it were the FSB’s useful idiots. It’s classic active measures, and unfortunately it worked.
No doubt Putin does not mind mounting internal divisions in the US. Whether feeding Steele lurid information in order to increase said division was part of a wide-ranging Kremlin plot, or just an accident is ultimately of little importance. Either way, if Putin intended a Trump presidency to reduce the international influence of the US and further weaken it's political system, he clearly succeeded.
:wink:
Good news and kudos to all involved in the successful mission to remove a truly evil human from this Earth. :fire:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-document-opening-statement-of-lieutenant-colonel-alexander-s-vindman/2573a183-18ee-4036-9638-939677a1b9d6/
Murder and assasination is always good news when it's the enemy. For everyone to be consistent, next time a bunch of terrorists blow up "the enemy" in the US or Europe we should all just celebrate!
Obviously it’s not as simple as this; however I think it needs to be said. Trump fans are behaving a lot like addicts when you try and take their drugs away. For example the republicans going all rogue warrior into closed depositions taking devices into a SCIF is the sort of thing you’d expect addicts to do if they were to find out that their family is meeting behind their back plotting to take their drugs away.
It was suicide. The guy blew him self up, but not before taking his wives and children with him. He was not only the enemy; he was evil. There is no comparison between innocent Europeans and Abu Bagdadhi, so I’d be careful making it.
I have a problem with the celebration of violence and death, regardless of how it comes. His last act was evil; I'd still not say he was evil as otherwise, I'm sure, he wouldn't have had any wives or children to begin with. Plus, I think the civility that we pretend puts us above such barbaric acts is very thin veneer that will come off as soon as life becomes slightly harder. Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo, rendition, torture, etc. etc.
Baghdadi had sex slaves and murdered innocents, including children. He led a murderous death cult throughout the Middle East, killing, maiming, enslaving, raping as he went along. No amount of soft-minded relativism and appeals to hypocrisy can defend that.
It’s a tacit defense in my mind. The idea that he is perhaps not evil because he had a family is absurd, especially in the context of him having murdered them all.
Quite apart from whether or not I think your analogy is apt, you're not going to get far in treating addiction with rationality and evidence. Addicts are not usually ignorant of the negative effects of their addiction, I think.
Concerning the topic at hand, I think it does us no good to consider Trump supporters "addicts", "cult members" or "duped fools". I think it makes more sense to start from the basic assumptions that Trump supporters approve of the things Trump does.
However, Republicans have come to Vindman’s Defense: ‘congressional GOP leaders say it’s out of bounds to question Vindman’s patriotism and allegiance to the United States, as some conservative pundits did on Monday night.’
Perhaps they think compromise and moderation are for pussies. Or they think "progressives" want to destroy men and replace whites. Or they think that their situation is down to the evils of "globalism" and only Trump is willing to actually fight it.
Or they just like anything that makes "the left" angry.
[quote=Steve Hassan]As I argue in my upcoming book, The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How The President Uses Mind Control , Trump has gotten where he is today in large part because he has exploited tactics straight out of [the cult leader] playbook. These include his grandiose claims, his practice of sowing confusion, his demand for absolute loyalty, his tendency to lie and create alternative “facts” and realities, his shunning and belittling of critics and ex-believers, and his cultivating of an “us versus them” mindset. These are the same methods used by Moon, Jones, and other cult leaders such as L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology), David Koresh (Branch Davidians), Lyndon LaRouche (LaRouche PAC), and, most recently, convicted trafficking felon Keith Raniere (NXVIM).
Of all these tactics, the “us versus them” mindset is probably one of the most effective. From the moment you are recruited into a cult, you are made to feel special, part of an “inside” group in opposition to unenlightened, unbelieving, dangerous “outsiders.” Playing on ancient human tribal tendencies, cult leaders extend this “us versus them” mindset outwards to an almost cosmic struggle.[/quote]
I would completely concur. I thought much the same thing upon reading the celebration of killing...
What will happen if the House indicts Trump and then the Senate acquits him? What could stop him then - from, say, overturning the rule against extending his term, or getting the by-then thoroughly corrupted Justice Department to arrest all of his critics, or suspending the constitution?
Make no mistake, this next few weeks and months is a battle for the preservation of democracy in America, against some extremely dark and dangerous forces that are seeking to bring down the entire system. I'm still hopeful that the good guys will win, but it's far too close for comfort.
These are the ones that can be peeled away... but not by the likes of anyone who fosters more globalization, more good paying jobs being outsourced, more low paying jobs being produced, less investment in everyday Americans, more investment in citizens of other countries... etc.
Which of the candidates also looks to put Americans first, but does not have the Trumpian baggage? Which of the candidates knew that mistakes were being made in legislation when they were being made, as compared to those who admit it now, but act as if there's nothing that can be done to redress and/or correct them?
That candidate will peel away the reasonable Trump voters who expect elected official in the government to act in ways that are best for the overwhelming majority of Americans.
Should addicts be treated with anything less than the utmost care?
I simply don't believe people are inherently evil and as such it's a mistake to say "he is evil". He did evil and we all share that capacity to do evil. By saying someone is evil we like to pretend we're never capable of the type of acts he committed. But we are. That's not a defense of his actions at all. That's about keeping our eyes open to our own actions so that we may avoid doing evil instead of assuming that since we're the good guys we can't do evil. The man is a cautionary tale. But so is every shooting in the US. Done of course by "bad" guys with guns. Instead of regular people like you and me.
Grauniad
The logic of fascism is thus: I, the leader, am the true and natural voice of the people and of the nation. Therefore, an attack on me is an attack on democracy, treasonous, and against the natural order.
You must support me because I am your representative.
So to any supporter, the opposition is treasonous, antidemocratic etc. This is a position immune to argument, because the ad hom is the entire argument. 'I'm not listening to some dumb fascist/ remoaner/ deplorable/traitor/etc.
I don't suppose it is inconceivable that a purple heart veteran should be a traitor. But it ought to be a bit troubling for a patriot to claim.
Let me first suggest that the mission to hunt down Baghdadi was named after the young woman, Kayla Muller out of AZ, who was trying to not do evil but help other's in the world when she was taken hostage, raped and killed. I am clear that Kayla was not expressing "evil" as you are suggesting that Baghdadi did and not was.
Benkei, you can separate the judgement of an act of evil or helping, from the person who performed the actual act. And you can make the claim that we are all capable of both, to which I would agree, to various degrees.
However, I know, when I look in the mirror that I DO NOT hold a spot in my moral and ethical heart to cage a man and burn him alive for any reason. I would not kidnap your daughter, nor would I support having done to her what was done to Kayla.
As far as "celebrating"? Reread what I wrote. I am proud of what our forces were able to do and I am grateful to the men and women who willingly put their lives in danger to carry out this mission. Many of the people who will be in the theater in a couple of years, are classmates of my son now and I respect their dedication to pursue securing our nation's security.
There is no celebration of Baghdad's death and the fact that he believes he died a hero and got his kids and wives into the afterlife by killing them as well?
My upbringing and morals do not match his thoughts and actions. If it matches yours? Then the fabric of our character is quite different.
Taking the side of the Devil's advocate is a challenge worthy of accepting in most cases Benkei, but this time? Taking the side of the Devil is something that Baghdadi did without any philosophical waxing from "thinkers" like us.
I get it, but I’d argue you’re equivocating between evil in the noun sense and evil in the descriptive sense. We cannot do evil any more than we can do fat or thin or hungry or jealous. Evil isn’t a thing we do.
Speak for yourself because no one else is assuming that because Baghdadi is evil, everyone celebrating his evisceration must be good. It’s just that the adjective “evil” is apt in Bagdhadi’s case—not because of some inherent essence known as “Evil”, but because of the wicked and immoral and evil acts he let loose on the earth.
For example, the house minority will be allowed to subpoena witnesses, but only if Adam Schiff and the house majority agree to them.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/politics/impeachment-resolution-released-rules-committee/index.html
The Dems are running a class in political warfare. This impeachment, essentially a show trial, is more campaign than justice.
Instead of arguing on the substance of the charges, which are of considerable gravity, Trump chooses to tell lies about lies, to ignore the rules, and to treat Congress with contempt.
Make no mistake, democracy in America is under threat. Either the rule of law, or the rule of Trump, will survive, but it can’t be both, because they’re incompatible.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/31/regime-cleavage-229895
Need as many people to vote in the Poll as possible. Will be greatly appreciated! Gratitude to anyone that takes the time. :)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6965/constitutional-interpretation-usa-article-i-section-3
https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/comments/dqlooo/dear_doj_this_is_how_you_properly_interpret_the/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Isn't that how it always works in the House? When the Republicans were the majority they wouldn't let the Democrats subpoena witnesses.
Republicans block Democrat attempt to subpoena Trump interpreter
And apparently these are the rules that Republicans introduced anyway.
House Republicans Complain About Rules They Approved In 2015
The distinction, I think, is that the Dems are using it to take down the duly-elected president, while the GOP are using it to defend the president.
If the GOP is just looking to defend the President then they're not doing their jobs. They should be carrying out their constitutional duty of Congressional oversight. If the Republicans' motive behind their subpoenas is to protect Trump rather than to uncover the facts then perhaps they shouldn't have subpoena power.
If they are unjust allegations and the impeachment process is being abused for political gain, it is their duty to defend the president and oppose the unjust process, not to participate in it.
The only way to know if they're unjust allegations is to carry out actual oversight in good faith. If they just assume he's innocent and so try to sabotage the investigation then it's willful ignorance. And that's even if they do assume him innocent. It wouldn't surprise me if they think he's guilty but defend him anyway out of loyalty for the party and because they think that impeachment will hurt their reelection chances or help a Democrat win the Presidency.
They have to presume he is innocent as a matter of due process. No crime has been shown to occur.
When whistleblowers and government officials testify that the President's behaviour is inappropriate and possibly illegal then Congress ought carry out its duty of oversight and look into the matter.
What exactly do you need to happen to accept that an investigation is warranted? Must Trump himself publicly announce that he pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rival and threatened to withhold aid if they didn't? That's a ridiculous requirement. Executive misbehavior would then forever be hidden.
The whistleblower has not testified.
A crime would be a good start. We cannot just investigate people because of a whistleblower who provides no evidence and was known to have contacts with the opposition party. There needs to be a reason to investigate: perhaps a crime, for instance.
I have no idea what you mean by this. There's an alleged crime (or abuse of power) that Congress now ought investigate. Just as there's an alleged crime re. the opening of the Russia inquiry that the DOJ is now investigating.
You seem to have a hypocritical standard when it comes to investigating potential crimes or other improper behaviour.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6965/constitutional-interpretation-usa-article-i-section-3
There is zero room for any interpretation that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The DOJ is wrong and the memos relating to the question of indicting a sitting president are based on no arguments that fall in line with any of the methods of constitutional interpretation applied.
Indictment is NOT hindered or obstructed by impeachment, at all!
Do you believe we should investigate every allegation of wrong-doing? Let’s say I accuse you of abuse of power, should authorities be allowed to investigate you?
You, like everyone else, do not have access to the testimonies, only the opening statements that have been leaked by one side.
At no point did the president ask the Ukrainian president to find political dirt for the purpose of influencing any election. Yet that is the allegation.
The Republicans are so far up Trump's ass now, it would take an enema to extract them. I'm just going to amuse myself as they and the rest of Trump's minions ditch all pretence of self-respect and intellectual honesty defending him while he carries on not giving a crap and throwing them under new buses.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/growing-number-of-gop-senators-consider-acknowledgingtrumps-quid-pro-quo-on-ukraine/2019/11/01/72084a3e-fcc4-11e9-9534-e0dbcc9f5683_story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/25/us/politics/trump-ukraine-transcript.html
Pretty much starts with “Do us a favour”.
Are the opening statements going to change just because the rest of the testimony hasn’t been divulged? No, and they are pretty damning. I’d love to know what mental gymnastics you’d employ to deny the full testimony when it is available.
Unless they say anything other than “I lied in my opening statement” (which would be a crime) I doubt the rest of the testimony is going to divulge anything else. The opening statements are pretty much just summaries of what is going to be detailed in the testimony and that may only cover a small portion of it as testimony will largely be in the form of answers to questions in regards to the opening statements from the committee members.
Have you ever read the constitution? All the way through? I have, multiple times and I’ve done volumes of research on different interpretation methodologies used by the judicial branch and I’m frankly shocked no one has indicted a sitting president before. Nothing forbids it whatsoever, no forbidding language or details about timeframes allowed at all.
Probably because no one ever really expected such a corrupt menace to American democracy to be allowed into the Whitehouse. If the Judicial branch had any shred of honour decency left they’d have opened up their own investigation the moment the whistleblower report on Ukraine hit their desks.
Not to mention, a lot of members of Trumps government have willingly committed obstruction of justice by refusing to submit to subpoenas.
This entire thing is an absolute farce and I’ve yet to see one intelligent or thought out argument from you and not a single source for where you’re getting your ridiculous claims.
Quoting Mark Dennis
You should realise the pointlessness of engaging with Trump trolls.
Yes, he asked the president of Ukraine to work with Barr, the attorney general, to look at the 2016 election and Ukraine’s hand in it. As you might know (or not) there is a massive DOJ criminal investigation occurring on that very topic.
No formal impeachment proceedings have occurred, so the White House is not obligated to participate, and your accusations of obstruction of justice is nonsense.
Since you’re an expert, perhaps you can tell me which crime Trump committed.
Sure, and you've now got a trillion dollar deficit and record debt because Trump bought a continuation of Obama era progress with tax cuts for his rich friends. Patting him on the back for that is like complimenting some poor fool who buys a Mercedes on credit card debt he can never pay back.
1. The players execute the plays.
2. The coaches coach ( some are rah-rah coach's; other's are more X's and O's, and still some remain somewhat clueless and keep making mistakes or just don't care)
The overlooked thing; the coaches either benefit or suffer (for a few years) from their predecessor. (Barry Switzer benefited from Jimmy Johnson's Cowboys, Mike Tomlin from Bill Cowher's Steelers, etc. etc.) Obama suffered from Bush trickle-down economics.
I worry Trump is going to get mad at everybody and dick-up the economy. With his money, I question if he really cares...oh wait, he doesn't want to share his tax returns LOL.
We need more Moderate's in both Political and Religious institutions!
That's what they're doing now?
H. Res. 660
Quoting NOS4A2
If individuals in the White House have been subpoenaed then they're obligated to participate. See 2 U.S. Code §?192:
Quoting NOS4A2
If the White House is ordering these individuals not to comply then they could be guilty of obstruction under 18 U.S. Code §?1505:
Would anyone care to expand on what Harris means by this?
This is an anarcho ska-punk band waiting to happen.
According to Whitehouse counsel the inquiry is constitutionally invalid, violates basic due process and the separation of powers. To them it Is a naked political act to overturn the 2016 elections and to influence the 2020 elections, it has no legitimate or constitutional basis, and therefor the Whitehouse cannot participate in such a process.
The White House doesn't get to decide that else the very premise of Congressional oversight is moot.
Judges decide the merits of any legal argument.
Has the White House appealed to a court and been granted a stay?
No, they wrote a letter. No courts are involved.
Also, a judge has already ruled that the inquiry is legal.
If the White House isn't going to appeal to the court then they have no constitutional/legal authority to disobey a Congressional subpoena.
It will likely be appealed.
They do if the subpoenas are invalid and unconstitutional, which is what the whitehouse counsel is arguing.
Again, the White House doesn't get to decide that they're invalid and unconstitutional. Unless and until a court rules that they're invalid and unconstitutional (or at least agrees to hear the case and issue a stay) then the White House is legally required to submit to subpoenas issued by the House and failure to do so constitutes obstruction.
Then they should bring the Whitehouse to court, where it can be heard by a judge.
They could. Or they could hold them in inherent contempt of Congress. Or they could simply draft articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice as is their Constitutional right.
That’s correct.
What the Democrats can do to make it less close is run a guy who says he'll legalize marijuana by executive action in the first 100 days.
I love Bernie. I think we should legalize marijuana across the board. But is it necessary to shove it down every state's throat? Is there some reason we can't let each state make that decision? Bernie is out of touch with the people he proposes to lead.
Presuming no major third-party runs, Trump will lose 46 to 49 against any Dem short of Biden or Bernie (who'd both break 50). The electoral college won't save him this time. You read it here first.
Hehe, I doubt Tiff will join you in that sentiment on this occasion. Not to worry though, I'll make a Marxist of her yet. Might take a huge pizza bribe, but we'll get there.
The Trump Infallibility Doctrine
:party: :party: :party:
A marijuana candidate would do well. Though trump did legalize hemp to no particular fanfare.
The book is basically comprised of 80% Trump tweets and 20% self-aggrandizement. The latter feels almost childish, actually so does the former, but you can tell it's geared towards Trump's base of supporters. That he enjoys hunting and killing animals, has worked hard his entire life, or feels a kinship with the blue-collar workers of American doesn't impress me personally. This makes it appear that he intends to pursue a policial career using the same strategy or base of support that his father uses.
The book tour is not going over so well in every location.
He is unlovable.
I commend you for giving it a listen and coming to your own conclusions. The world needs more of that. I assumed most outside of Trump’s base wouldn’t give it the time of day. Personally, I won’t read it because I’m tired of the “owning the libs” mentality, which is rife in Trump world.
A definite possibility.
I'm tired of the whole "owning" mentality.
It’s base tribalism at this point. New political identities and ideologies are emerging and with them their ready-made list of tribesman and enemies.
I dislike him but I don’t hate him. Curiously, if the book contents is taken to be from the heart and not simply propaganda for the base, it could only read as an expression of hatred for the ‘left’.
There’s really no need to read it, we’ve already heard it all in the form of Trump tweets and speeches. The only thing that seemed new was the indication that he may run for office himself. He’s too much of a weeny to say one way or the other though, when asked.
One thing about this administration is the certainty of anyone associated with it ending up on the book circuit hawking their screeds. It’s almost inevitable.
I think this one is different in that it’s propaganda/self-promotion and not just to make a buck or promote a set of policies.
So the GOP defense of Trump is going to have to be along the lines that although Trump did these things, it doesn’t amount to an impeachable offence, or doesn't constitute a crime (per this story).
And this is the exact way that Trump will continue to attempt to undermine the constitution and the rule of law - to convince his ‘base’ that whatever he has done must be OK (it must be OK, 'cause he did it!), and that any fault must reside with his accusers. The longer it drags out, the more the GOP hopes to normalise these ideas. So crimes aren't really crimes, the law doesn't apply here, the impeachment process is the crime, the accusers are the real wrong-doers.
That's what they're trying to sell, and I still cling to the romantic notion that it might actually fail. In any case, the televised hearings are about to commence, and the Reality Show President will soon find himself star of a reality television impeachment.
Am I wrong, or didn’t the ‘whistleblower’ turn out to be a political adversary teamed up with a (pedophile?!) lawyer who was on record predicting a coup 2 years ago?
Like, first of all, WTF is going on with all these pedophiles?
Second of all, asking for Ukrainian help investigating political corruption just doesn’t seem like a big problem to me. If a frontrunning presidential candidate is involved in corruption, it’s in the interest of the US public to find out about it, right?
Yes, you're wrong. It's typical of all the bullshit being spouted by various fringe conspiracists.
Quoting Roke
More Alt-Right misinformation. The only corruption at issue, was on the part of Trump, in withholding congressionally-approved aid monies in an attempt to force the Ukrainian government to support a completely baseless conspiracy theory. It's been abundantly documented that the steps Joe Biden took in connection with dealing with corruption in the Ukraine would have hurt, rather than helped, any effort to shield Hunter Biden's activities at Burisma, had there been any suggestion that these were corrupt, which there wasn't. The second bullshit story is the 'Hillary Clinton email server' being in the Ukraine, and the idea that the Ukraine framed Russia to get them blamed for the DNC hacks.
I think you might be trolling, but then you might also just be getting sucked in by all the rubbish being posted about this matter. Suggest broadening your media diet.
Lol, I wrote that down. “If you have truth dont wield it like an asshole”.
Love it, thanks.
:rofl:
You waste your great writing in the service of tyranny and injustice. As such they are empty and without value. What a shame.
It’s been postulated that Ciaramella is the whistleblower that started this whole mess. I believe Facebook and YouTube censors anyone who mentions his name. There is zero reporting on him, so your average Guardian reader remains ignorant of who he is. Zaid is his lawyer and rabid anti-Trumper.
Yes, just these 1.1 million results.
Maybe who you should and shouldn't be listening to is becoming clear now, @Roke.
Well done. You mined my quote and cherry picked six words from a 42 word statement. Let's see, one or two outlets...fair point... any Guardian articles in there?
:yawn:
One might accuse you of much the same, given your unwavering loyalty to your chosen cause. So are these more than words, "empty and without value"? Can you explain what makes the Tyranny?
I love how only my statements receive your criticism while everyone else's are pushed aside and covered for.
Next day, New York Times prints a front page story You're Fired! More than a million people turn up to the National Mall, many holding copies of the NYT, and gleefully chant 'You're Fired'.
Do I think it will happen? No. But it doesn't stop you from dreaming.
Don't you think it's strange that the president of America is asking a foreign government to investigate American citizens? We can take the view that Trump is just anti-corruption, but why then did Trump withhold military aid to Ukraine? (And why can't Trump use America's own justice system to pursue justice? Asking foreign governments to handle matters which concern constitutional rights of Americans (habeus corpus for example) is a slippery slope, don't you agree?). One of the biggest ethical problems here, even if everything Trump says is true (innocent anti-corruption), is that by making military aid dependent on public investigations (why did they have to be public?) Ukraine basically is being given the idea that unless they find Biden's son guilty, aid might be withheld in the future. (so not only are they asking what might amount to a kangaroo court to prosecute an American, they're introducing a kangaroo of their own that will spoil the verdict).
There's simply no denying that withholding the military aid was about winning points in the domestic election, and there's no denying that it is an unethical abuse of power that subverts constitutional rights. If Trump is allowed to abuse the power of the U.S to make sure he wins the next election, what does that say about democracy, or the state of the union?
Why is it more important that Biden's son gets investigated than it is important that Russia not takeover Ukraine?
There is plenty of denying that the military aid was about winning points in the domestic election. There was no mention of wanting political dirt, or anything to do with the coming election. In fact, as the transcript shows, it pertained to previous elections and previous officials in pervious administrations. So the part about it being about the 2020 election is completely fabricated.
While we’re talking about American citizens, remember that the previous (Biden’s) administration spied on its own citizens, members of Trumps campaign, leading to unjust investigations for years, including during two crucial elections. This is an unprecedented occurrence and a potential abuse of power within the entire security apparatus. This administration wants to investigate this injustice and hold the previous administration to account for any corruption. A very big DOJ investigation into this is occurring as we speak. This is in America’s best interests.
Second, Biden’s son was on the board of a corrupt holdings company in an industry in which he had no experience, in one of the most corrupt countries in the world, A country in which he didn’t speak the language, making over $50000 a month, while his father just so happened to be the point man there: the Vice President of the United States. It is in America’s best interests to know what’s up with this.
Third, we now have to sit while the Dems give a political and now public investigation of their political opponent before the upcoming election. The irony is thick. But I am told I should worry about an investigation that did not occur, military aid that was not held up, a victim that felt no pressure, and the foreign policy of the man we voted in to direct foreign policy. It’s nonsense.
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting NOS4A2
Don't you think that having the president of Ukraine make a public investigation our of Biden's son would benefit Trump in the upcoming election? It would be of undeniable benefit. Do you deny that?
You can bet your boots that if/when the Senate acquits, he'll take a leaf from Erdo?an's book - suspend the constitution, start to round up his accusers, and move towards extending his term extra-constitutionally. And who will be there to stop him, if the GOP has acquitted?
It certainly would. Do you believe potential corruption in Ukraine should not be investigated because one of the named figures is running in an election?
Are you saying they should investigate both?
There are two important caveats.
First Caveat: Constitutionally, the government is obligated to uphold the rights of their citizens (including Biden Jr.), but they can't do that if American citizens are being held or prosecuted by a foreign government (embassies and consulates offer assistance to legally entangled American tramps, and there are prisoner exchange programs for this reason). The law of the land is the law of the land (criminals abroad should be punished), but there is little to no reason for America to actively petition another nation to prosecute an American citizen. Ethically, if there is justice that needs getting (especially if American interests are involved), then it ought to be the American judicial system that renders that justice. I'm sure the anti-corruption and racketeering laws of the U.S have ample precedent and jurisdiction to accomplish that. In summary, wanting corruption to be investigated is not wrong, but [s]asking[/s] demanding other nations to prosecute and incarcerate American citizens is. The fact that the main target was the Biden family just makes the motive obvious: winning points in the 2020 election by making Biden and the democratic party look corrupt (as if that isn't already clear anyhow. Would you like some coffin to go with these nails?)...
Second Caveat: The national interests and security of America (and her allies,where applicable) must be considered by the cardinal office charged with their preservation. In other words, the need for public investigations into the Bidens by Ukraine does not reasonably justify compromising military and foreign policy. Trump was more interested in preserving his seat in the office than the nation the office serves. That's a really serious problem, and doing nothing about it isn't an option. Even if the dems fail to impeach Trump, they will have at least sent the message that the oval office isn't a license to carpetbag American interests, whether at home or abroad (countering Russia in Ukraine is in American interests, and withholding aid to Ukraine is an intolerable risk to that interest).
Fourth caveat: It was illegal to withhold aid.
Am I not allowed to pick and choose what I find interesting? Who am I "covering for" by asking you a question? Why are you so afraid of questions, anyways?
Prosecuted by a foreign government? No one asked for such a thing. In fact, Trump asked the president of Ukraine to speak with our Attorney General regarding such matters. The attorney general, as you know, is the top attorney in the United States, not Ukraine. As I’ve stated, there are currently vast investigations occurring in the US on these and related matters.
There is no evidence Trump was “more interested in preserving his seat in office than the nation the office serves”. Absolutely none. It’s completely made up and simply repeating it doesn’t make it more true.
Regarding withholding the aid, As Copper’s testimony attests, there was a concern about how to do it legally, meaning within the law, which I can only assume they did. I see it as an obligation of our president to make sure one of the most corrupt countries in the world at least promises, even publicly, to root out corruption before handing them millions of taxpayer dollars.
There is exactly one likeable thing about Trump and it’s the unlikeability of his opponents. Careful of that. I’m going back into hermit mode, wasn’t a good time to peak out!
The evidence makes it pretty clear that Trump wanted actual investigations to be opened (by the Ukranian administration/government). The whole "I want him in a public box" thing is really unambiguous. Even if Trump didn't expect real investigations from Ukraine, he at least wanted the appearance of them (and if that is the case, then our discussion would shift to focusing on election and foreign policy interference)
But, can we both agree that if it is true that Trump tried to incite a Ukranian investigation into an American citizen, that there is a serious problem in and of itself? To be clear, America has no formal obligation to defend it's ex-pat criminals, but an American institution seeking justice against an American citizen via the proxy of a foreign legal system is in this situation bat-shit insane (Hunter Biden isn't some kind of cartel kingpin that is out of reach of the long American law-arm).
Let me continue to clarify: intelligence sharing isn't problematic, and asking Ukraine to share evidence of 2016 election interference (regardless of who's son it taints) is not a problem (although,how that evidence is handled, vetted,and disseminated could be problematic). But what IS a problem is when America ostensibly abandons the constitutional duty they have (to each and every citizen, criminals included) by asking another country to perform justice upon them.
I realize I'm jumping the gun a bit here: I still need to convince you that Trump did in fact want Ukraine to open actual investigations. Most of the other liberals here and elsewhere are focusing mainly on how targeting the Biden family amounts to 2020 election interference, and how withholding aid amounts to a treasonous abuse of power for personal gain (the personal gain being points in the 2020 election), but if we zoom in even further then we don't need any of that to see why this is such a problem:::::
As far as I know, the president is endowed with the power to pardon, but importantly, not the power to condemn. I guess this would go back to the whole separate and equal branches of government and a republic, if you can keep it shtick that the founders liked to bandy. There's really an important idea contained within those statements: we need impartial legal processes (both in the judicial system, and in the election system) because the whole philosophical basis for America's existence is anti tyranny. Tyranny is about tyrants: authorities who do whatever they want regardless of rules, tradition, or justification. Trump trying to pursue justice outside of the American judicial system, against an American citizen, is fundamentally a stab in the back of everything America actually stands for. American's aren't free under their own government if it can undermine the very processes that were designed specifically to guarantee that freedom.
You won't get agreement on that from the person you're talking to. If Trump supporters came to agree with that, it would be game over for Trump. So that is the one thing they will never agree to. Remember, in the Trump World, it is impossible for Trump to ever do or say anything wrong, so any wrongdoing or falsehoods always must originate with someone other than Trump. Trump is only a ever a victim - of the Deep State, evil bureaucrats, corrupt spies, fake news, and shifty Democrats. That is what you need to agree is the problem.
Quoting Roke
Good call.
They already believe that there is corruption that needs rooting, so even though Biden's son got found out: justice is justice.. I think it is more persuasive to start by showing just how out of the ordinary the move was in the first place. When ASAP rocky got incarcerated for assault/battery in Sweden, Trump sent out tweets of support; he's an American, and America has got American backs. But when it comes to a political rival, throw them under the foreign bus? No no no... It simply must not be permitted to work that way. It's not so much a slippery slope as it is a sudden democracy-killing pit-fall trap that is a favorite of corrupt strong-men; dictators.
There's the illegal compromising of American security gun (withholding the aid), there's the election interference gun (targeting Biden specifically, with the demand for public announcements), but I think it is best to start with the much humbler gun of undermining the constitutional rights of American citizens. I'm not entirely sure what the necessary legal implications of asking another government to investigate or prosecute an American citizen are (party connections not withstanding), but something tells me that it amounts to a gross betrayal of the American system (one in which the executive branch extra-legally attacks an American citizen, thereby subverting their constitutional rights, while also subverting the judicial branch).
There may be no strong legal argument or precedent to be had in this, but there is a very persuasive argument from ideology. Republicans believe that they believe in the rule of law, the American way, and the fundamental freedoms guaranteed them by the constitution. As much as they love Trump (which is to say, as much as they despise democrats), they love their principles even more. Removing politics from the equation (sticking to the philosophical side of things) is the shortest road to common ground between the poles IMO.
P.S:I am very keen to hear any insights you might have about the constitutional argument I've tried to delineate. I suspect it would be a matter for the Supreme court to rule on...
Some people are incorrigible ideologues, for sure, but everyone has a limit, and everyone can be persuaded. If I assume that nothing can persuade my interlocutor, then I'll just probably wind up entrenching his position. In effect, it would amount to calling him stupid, and he would assume that I have no actual arguments or evidence. Instead (ideally) I can try to understand his position well enough to also understand how it has persuaded him into his current position. Ultimately that is the key to identifying which arguments and evidence will actually make a persuasive difference in the long run.
In this case, given Republicans derive most of their confidence from ideological principles and distrust of the left, the most persuasive argument is one which relies on agreeable ideology/political philosophy, and which excludes anything vaguely resembling leftist politics. "It's an uphill battle" is an understatement in many cases, but if die hard Trump supporters think that they care about truth, then the truth may out.
Another point - this GOP meme about the impeachment being 'a coup' or 'an attempt to undo the last election' is another attack on the constitution. Impeachment was enshrined into the American constitution, specifically so that Congress could act to check corruption or crimes committed by a President. In this case, there is clear evidence of wrong-doing, and a constitutionally valid committee has been set up to investigate it.
The pattern of calling the process a coup, or suggesting that witnesses are biased, or don't llike Trump's policies, are (1) lies, and (2) contempt of the constitution.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/impeachment-not-coup/601981/
That said, I'm also of the opinion that the DNC is also featured in the freak show, making me a reformist. Election systems are fucked (along with the parties), health-care system is fucked, prison and judicial system is fucked, education system is fucked or at least fucks over the non-wealthy, industrial military complex is fucked, the wealth gap is fucked and promises civil unrest in the near future, foreign and domestic policy is now (and arguably has been) fucked by a never ending stable of lobbyists and interest groups, et cetra...
The party divide is not really on my radar as fundamental issue or threat. In fact, in a decade or two, unless there is economic change for the lower class, social unrest will dissolve any disunity between conservatives and progressives, and all that will matter is tearing down a broken system which has so thoroughly fucked them all.
I've been supporting Trump's impeachment since before he was elected, all because it is the perfect reform catalyst. I could not care less about the 2020 election or the dire need for each side to be the winner (it's complacency masquerading as expediency, masquerading as right and wrong).
Trump continues to vomit and shit on the resolute desk, just as I knew he would, and by god there has got to be a limit. Unless Trump's base actually does somewhat step back from their unconditional support (something you're saying they can't possibly do) then my hopes of reform are fucked, and America (and by extension the rest of the world which lives in its shadow) is itself fucked. I'll endure any amount of trolling just to find the one person who is open to evidence and reason. If in the end my hopes come to nothing, and the status quo carries on its current trajectory, then the term "Second American Revolution" is probably something we're going to be hearing in the future.
Americans are, by and large, feckless and too addicted to their screens to revolt. A fantasy revolt is enough to give them a narcissist-charge. That's what they live on: a fantastic narcissism; that's what takes the edge off their anxiety and gives their lives a numbing dumbed-down shadow of meaning.
Which enlightened country do live, just out of curiosity.
I would tend to agree, but even bread and games eventually give way to mounting inequality and suffering (wide-spread and systematic wanting, whether it's for justice, education, or economic/political opportunity). Things have to get pretty bad for an actual revolution to occur (at least according to history). One thing I will say though, is that so long as there are yet enough deep-pocketed "elites" who can influence or control the flow of screens and sweeties (in the past it has typically been land-owning nobles, but today it's the enfranchised wealthy and super-wealthy), then we will indeed be stuck with nothing but our narcissistic rage in this digital and intellectually desertified wilderness.
Be careful, you’re making up quotes and attributing them to someone who never said them. That was something expressed by Taylor, quoting Sondland who was interpreting Trump’s desires. The fact that people are misquoting double-hearsay only attests to the fabricated nature of these accusations.
But remember what Sondland said when he asked Trump “What do you want with Ukraine?” According to Sondland, Trump replied “I want nothing. No quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.” Could it be possible that Trump wanted Zelensky to do the right thing, instead of this convoluted story about political dirt and future elections?
Any Ukrainian investigation would pertain to Ukrainian officials, Ukrainian companies, and corruption that occurred on Ukrainian soil. Burisma is a Ukrainian company. It’s not American. An American who engages in activities abroad is not immune to foreign laws unless he has immunity. Hunter Biden has never had diplomatic immunity. Even still, none of this means Ukrainian justice is going to be brought on Hunter Biden, who doesn’t even live under Ukrainian jurisdiction. What are all these but the fears of a future that will likely never be realized?
This entire show trial is built on a foundation of shifting sands, another political ploy payed for by the American taxpayer for the benefit the DNCs elections in 2020.
To be fair, I'm not making up quotes, I'm quoting sworn testimony. Taylor's understanding was that the military aid hinged on investigations. This is backed up the summarized transcript the WH released ("I would like you to do us a favor though"). But why would Taylor have that understanding if it didn't represent WH intentions? Why would Sondland interpret Trump's desires that way? Was he just confused?
Yeah, that sounds just like Trump ... "please, don't do me any favours, just do the right thing"... when "the right thing" is always defined by what is beneficial to me.
You know him well...
So does the White House lie when it provides a summary of the President's calls, or is the memo released today fabricated?
Fake News administration either way.
There is no quote that says "I want him in a public box".
I just gave you sworn testimony of direct conversation with president Trump where Trump clearly expresses his intentions, but you’ve disregarded that for second-hand hearsay from someone who also stated they never talked to Trump, who understood Trump’s and Guillianni’s intentions only from an article in the New York Times. It’s not odd nor surprising that both you and Taylor can understand Trump’s intentions from the NYT, but completely ignore them when they come from sworn testimony from people who actually spoke to the president.
I’m sorry but this is a charade.
Let’s test it out. Here’s Biden regarding withholding 1 billion loan securities from Ukraine.
“ I looked at them and said: 'I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," he said. ”
Would you suggest Biden be impeached for one, withholding aid, and two, alleged bribery?
I don't know all the background, but if he did the exact thing Trump is accused of doing, yes.
Well, he wasn’t. He even gets to brag about his alleged offences while campaigning for office.
Anyone who is as corrupt as Trump in this respect should be impeached if they hold a public office and prevented from running for one if they don't. Who they are or what side they're on doesn't matter a bit.
Both would be wrong, but one of the differences that makes this that much more corrupt is Trump is using a foreign entity to dig dirt on a political rival while he is in office. This to me, is that much worse.
I’m speaking about those specific charges. Both threatened to withhold aid (well, no evidence Trump did, but he is accused of it nonetheless), and did so for his personal gain (no evidence Trump did this, but Biden’s son was making $50000 a year at a corrupt company there).
There is no evidence that Trump is seeking dirt, nor that he is trying to influence any election. That part is completely fabricated.
Both Trump and Biden have the power to hold back aid to make sure Ukraine complies with any deals regarding corruption. In fact, it is their duty to do so.
If Biden used the state apparatus for personal gain like Trump did, yes, of course. What possible justification for letting someone do that could there be?
You’re assuming, without evidence, that the state apparatus was used for personal gain in both cases. Except Biden is the only one with the conflict of interest.
You asked [s]me[/s] a hypothetical about Biden. I answered. I'd flush him down the toilet as quick as I would Trump. So, you can continue doing your White House line re Trump as long as you like. I'm not interested in arguing with that.
I didn’t ask you anything, but whatever.
So all that backchannelling with Guiliani to dig dirt up was not for personal gain? Interesting, I didn't know Trump was such a crusader against corruption, and to specifically target a specific case in Ukraine that just so happens to be a person running against him.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/15/politics/roger-stone-trial-verdict/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/15/politics/trump-associates-convicted-in-mueller-related-investigations/index.html
Thanks for sharing the Stone verdict. I'd been waiting to see that dick get his due.
I wonder how Roger's book will sell now:
7 process crimes, zero for anything to do with Russian collusion, even though that is what we were sold. That’s American justice for you.
What's with the denial NOS4A2? Trump is the most Pro-Russian US president ever.
1) Russia intervened in your elections. As it has intervened in other elections.
2) It is very unlikely that this mattered much, because the Dems just had the worst candidate ever
3) The Trump team oblivious of everything welcomed the support because the likely had no idea that the FBI is obligated to look what foreign intelligence services do in the US.
4) A guy like Roger Stone boasted about his contacts and then lied about it. Case closed.
So the Dems now have avoided a serious discussion of just why they picked a bad candidate that many people hate by saying that the election was stolen.
All of which occurred during the previous administration. But instead of investigating apprehending the culprits, they spied on, investigated and prosecuted the victims of the alleged influence campaign. Stone is such a victim. This was an abuse of power, and this is why investigations are now occurring.
What are you talking about?
Uh, of course the 2016 elections happened on Obama's term. Umm...I don't know where you are going with this?
INSTEAD of investigating the culprits? Yes, they did investigate the culprits. They could make the links to even some individual Russian intelligence people. It's there in the Mueller report and even earlier.
Abuse of pow...Oh God.
Quoting NOS4A2
One count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements – including lying to Congress – and one count of witness tampering. And you want to paint Roger Stone as the victim and his prosecution as unjust? That's ridiculous. He broke the law and deserves to be help accountable and punished accordingly.
But it would be bad for my health and my looks.
You do realize that the actual prosecutions are happening under the current administration, right? If you really think them unjust then you should be complaining about Barr and Trump.
A blatant fishing expedition. A man will face years in prison because he made mistakes during the process of an investigation of which there is no underlying crime.
What tyranny that a man cannot lie under oath and tamper witnesses.
Where's the justice?
Is the justice state dead?
Clinton was acquitted. More evidence of a two-tiered justice system.
"No underlying crime" parrots Trump's "totally exonerated." So we have an alt-fact parrot here.
Evidence?
Well, let's see how the impeachment of agent Trumpov goes...
And of course, lying about a blowjob and lying about getting support from Russian intelligence services is naturally the same thing... :smirk:
We know what the Mueller was investigating and why crossfire hurricane was spying on American citizens—Russian attempts to influence the election and any Coordination between the Trump campaign. No need to lie.
Lying to Congress. One minute it’s “case closed” the next it’s “oh but it was about a blowjob”.
Trump asked the Russians to help him. It was on TV.
Repeating the Clinton line. Alt-facts.
I know you are but what am I?
Which in my view is then OK to have an impeachment hearing. Being actually impeached or resigning as Nixon did is another matter. Then the Republicans had enough of Watergate. Today likely the whole thing wouldn't even come up.
Yet the story with Trump is quite obvious. Everything you read just basically paints the same picture of this guy.
Impeachment is supposed to be used in the rare occasion that high crimes and misdemeanors are committed. So what is the crime?
And misdemeanours.
So, the man must really be the second coming of Christ or something.
What is the misdemeanor?
(I heard him say it. It was on TV.)
Oooh, seems you a have a new take on this! Umm...pizzagate.
Earlier Trump said it was sarcasm.
Quoting NOS4A2
Right, willingly taking help from a foreign adversarial intelligence service and then pressuring other countries to dig up dirt at your opponent. Or to say it with legal terms, us the office to solicit a foreign country, to interfere in the 2020 US election campaign.
And I'd think you could enlarge this with checking Trump's and his son-in-laws dealings with the Saudi's, because the absolute confusion in US policy in the Middle East with suddenly White House taking a very Pro-Saudi view totally opposite to the US foreign policy before (and the secretary of state learning this only later) hints simply at corruption.
Anyway, the US foreign policy is in total disarray.
The fact that Zelensky knows how to tell lies...what follows from that fact?
All of that is a complete fabrication with zero evidence. Pizzagate indeed.
Now the president of Ukraine is lying...
Shocking? I take it you don't have a lot of history under your belt.
Of course, your standards are just beyond comprehension here.
It is strangely a totally blind spot for some Americans.
Similar behavior I witnessed on the old PF site with some Americans having the urge to defend George Bush and the War in Iraq: that Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda, the threat of WMD's was evident. Then the intelligence services lied to him or he couldn't have known there weren't any WMD's around anymore. The quite open and very well documented active pushing for the war in Iraq by the vice-President were simply ignored as Trump's ties to Russia and actions today. Nope, it seemed to be a calling for them to back their prez and defend him on a philosophy forum.
And this case?
I myself noticed something was strange when Trump came out with his Foreign Policy team in March 2016 (if I remember correctly) and some guys bewildered the Washington circles...guys which later then came around in the investigations. So I've myself been actively following the issue from early 2016.
Have to say Trump is as open as can be. How everything looks typically is like it is.
Is this guy beyond reproach?
To my view, American jingoism flows from profound anxiety stemming from a visceral fear of social ostracism - compounded by Pascal's "inability to sit quietly alone in a room" - to anxiety-tempering narcissism to the lusty thrill and anxiety-obliteration of collective narcissism fueled by ignorance, decrepit critical thinking skills and an unreasoning, unmanageable desire to substitute civil religion for the loss of Christ.
These notions flow from Freud to Fromm to sociologist Robert Bellah, with many sane and serious voices also crying in the wilderness in-between.
Right, and instills a groupthink mentality of sorts, that is conflated with patriotism to a large degree. Yes?
Yes. Groupthink: The orgiastic thrill of binding one's narcissism to a roaring crowd. That quashing of an essential anxiety in the synchronicity of a coliseum frenzy. Trump qua God qua missing-Christ a la Freud's "ego ideal." (See Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego)
You should see what's happening to the religious right in the US. They honest to God, think this guy is a prophet or something sent by God to fix a falling empire. Truth and all that jazz.
Pray! The end is nigh!
:fear:
It's Taylor quoting sondland. The quote is present in Taylor's personal notes, and he affirmed their accuracy under oath.
https://youtu.be/BpNl3b1SYtc?t=12279
So we're back to my question: Is Taylor confused or lying about the marching orders he received from Sondland? Is Sondland confused about the marching orders he received from Trump?
It seems like someone is either lying or incredibly stupid, and it might be worth continuing the inquiry to find out who the liars are, right?
There are reasons why those mistakes, of lying and witness tampering were made. Those mistakes are only made when the person is already guilty.
Taylor affirmed no such quote because no one said “I want Zelensky in a public box”. So we can quote it properly, or not at all. What we cannot do is pretend people said something when they didn’t.
My guess is stupid, but yes, you’re right. For all I know Trump and Co. are lying. But there is no evidence of the motives Dems have attributed to Trump. There is no evidence of any crime. These so-called public announcements never occurred. There was no pressure, as stated by the alleged victim of the blackmail himself. Ukraine has its aid. Because there is no crime and because they do not know Trump’s motives, but pretend so anyway in what can only be described as a show trial, we know they are knowingly lying.
That’s fair. Americans often do take offence to president bashing, especially from people who live in countries that benefit from American protection, spitting on the man who watches over them while they sleep.
I get it though. Trump is as American as apple pie. He’s the man of reality TV, the beauty pageant, professional wrestling and the casino. This offends a certain quasi-European sensibility, in this case, a legion of technocrats and bureaucrats who have not been able to accomplish half of what Trump has and on so little. Trump’s success refutes their relevance.
Earlier in the testimony, the counselor asked Taylor why certain terms, including "public box", were in quotation marks, and Taylor stated that everything in quotation marks were actually used in the conversation the notes pertained to. Maybe he Sondland did not state verbatim "Trump wants the Ukranian president in a public box", but the term public box was in fact used, and Taylor's understanding of Sondland's usage was in fact that Trump wanted Zelensky in a public box by committing publicly to investigations.
So yes, "public box" is a term Sondland used. Taylor has provided sworn testimony that "public box" did in fact come out of Sondland's mouth, and also that it was in a conversation about (Sondland's interpretation of) WH/Trump intentions.
So I'll ask yet again, has ambassador Taylor perjured himself (is he a liar)? Or was Sondland just confused?
i call this new conspiracy theory: trump supporter.
Tell us what Trump has accomplished.
The truth will be in the history books. Typically 20 or 30 years later.
Quoting NOS4A2
What on Earth are you talking about? That what you say doesn't matter at all. Some leftist bashing US materialism isn't how actually Europeans view the US or it's Presidents. It's the goddam political actions the administration makes. Or do you have this view that Europeans just hate America or what? I think then you don't get it.
First of all, I only have to watch a session with Trump and Putin answering questions about their summit in Helsinki to see that everything isn't at all right. Similar peculiar behavior US politicians might show when to talking to AIPAC or when visiting Israel. Even then they don't parrot the Israeli line and do occasionally have different ideas. Otherwise, they usually bring up US foreign policy and US agenda, not conform and comply with an obvious adversary's agenda. It simply isn't NORMAL. But Trump has been so fixated with Putin right from the start it really is strange.
There simply is too much of this bullshit with Trump. Just to give one example from many, things like the only thing that the Trump team wanted to change during the Republican national convention was the policy to give arms to Ukraine. Really? That's the thing? I remember when it happened, it was actually immediately discussed. There's just a ton of similar stuff like this.
Naturally the whole administration didn't and hasn't gone with the Pro-Putin line. In fact all the pro-Russian people were kicked out of the Trump administration immediately and surely generals like Mattis or McMasters had nothing to do with this. Basically it's left to Tweeter-in-Chief to make these strange gaffes like wanting to create a joint US-Russian Join Cyber Unit Security Unit. Trump usually has had to backtrack with these silly ideas (as he did with the Join Cyber Unit), but the effort ought to be noticed.
That’s the problem I’ve been speaking about during the entirety of my participation in this thread: the word-policing, the consideration of the president’s words and the subsequent doom-mongering that is sure to follow. No, it certainly isn’t normal the way the president speaks, but considering that normal was the politically-correct PR speak of men trained in writing and giving speeches, this is exactly what we wanted. We don’t want varnish and lullabies and the public/private views of career politicians. We want to know what the president is thinking, whether he is right or wrong, silly ideas or not.
That’s the problem, I think, is Trump’s expressions strikes fear into people who would rather not think about politics, but would much rather be lulled by glittering generalities and euphemism. People are thinking about politics now, some for the first time in their lives.
You're not an American, dont worry about it.
And you’re ignorant, so I’m not worried at all.
That doesn't even make sense. :nerd:
Simple English doesn’t make sense to you? Yikes.
One can be a good communicator, but in truth the ACTUAL POLICIES are what matter. And people don't usually follow the actual policies implemented. As long as the economy is doing for them OK, it doesn't actually matter so much what the administration is actually doing.
Besides, the simply fact is that government policies are extensive complex and have to take into account many issues and details, and explaining them is an arduous task for the listener to listen and understand.
For Trump to say "I'll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it" is a great line to quote when drinking beer with friends and talking in an unserious way. But as A POLICY it doesn't simply fly. Mexico hasn't paid and won't pay and building concrete barrier to mostly an emptydesert that usually is circumvented by airports or long coasts is an extremely lousy way to spend taxes. It's truly just a monument, not an effective policy. But who cares about actual reality, when then the catchphrase was so awesome to many?
Mexico is doing quite a bit along the border. They recently sent 15,000 troops there to slow northern migration at great expense. Sure they aren’t handing over cash for a wall, but they are now doing their part where they weren’t before. It’s working. So it turns out to be a great policy.
There is a difference between illegal immigration through an official point of entry and hopping over a border. When you come through an official point of entry you go through security and show documentation. When you hop a border there is no security check nor documents provided. So equivocating between border-hopping and going through an official point of entry is silly. But then again, who cares about actual reality?
Because Illegal Immigration mostly happens through official points of entry! So yes, who does care about actual reality?
See The Real Illegal Immigration Crisis Isn’t on the Southern Border
Rhetoric and actual implementation of effective policies are two different things.
Again, the equivocating is silly. If you overstay a visa you’ve gone through the necessary security points and shown documents. If you hop a border you’ve avoided going through security and showing documents. The wall is to hinder the ones who hop the border, not the ones who overstay their visas.
Lies and deceit do not tell others what you are thinking. And if lies and deceit are what makes other politicians bad, Trump is clearly not any better. In fact he seems to lie and deceive even more that the average politician. He's taken politics to a new low.
It doesn't matter if he thinks it's unconstitutional, because it's following those guidelines precisely...
Paul Manafort is evidence enough to warrant looking. The Republican change in platform no longer arming the rebels in Ukraine is another. Paul Manfort's immediate departure afterwards is another. The Trump tower meeting, yet another. The recent quid pro quo with Ukranian official is just an extension of the corruption in the form of looking for someone to return a favor(the disarming of the rebels), and withholding aid unless one does so.
Trump has taken every action he deems he can get away with to obstruct the investigation.
That has nothing to do with the wall, as you well know.
Quoting NOS4A2
Says who? You?
Quoting NOS4A2
That's as patently absurd as claiming all Trump supporters are idiots who only vote for Trump because they know him from TV.
Sure it does. The actions by the Mexican governments are directly contributing to lower illegal immigration over the border, saving American’s money at great expense to the Mexican government.
Hopefully you do too. Arguing that building a wall doesn’t work because there are a lot of illegals overstaying visas is absurd because a wall is not intended to stop or hinder the flow of illegals overstaying visas.
Those two arguments are not even analogous.
And all achieved without a wall, or anything related to funding a wall. So where is the connection, exactly?
Quoting NOS4A2
No-one is arguing that "building a wall doesn't work" in the sense that you literally end up with nothing. That's just a straw man. The argument is whether building a wall is an effective policy regarding illegal immigration as a whole.
Quoting NOS4A2
The analogous part is painting your political opposition with a single broad, condescending brush.
Mexico is paying for it.
I said “people who would rather not think about politics”. You said “all Trump supporters”. Not even close.
I dont think that's possible.
No.
After the indisputable well known accepted facts are laid out... and after the states finish the work Mueller began. Until then... let's have all the facts... and let the voters decide. In the meantime, let's punish those who deliberately mislead the public about the events that are transpiring and have been since 2016 for treason to defraud the American people. Those who are just wrong... let them say their piece in light of the evidence to the contrary. Hold them side by side. Show the relevant facts.
Sleeping with enemies does not necessarily make one an enemy.
So you don't think America should be giving military aid and assistance to Ukraine?
I don't understand why we are. How would it impact us if Russia defeated them? Wouldnt the lives of Ukranians improve in the absence of war?
We should be asking Congress if any of them can point to Donbas on a map.
American diplomats saying the Donbas is important for America is like saying the border along northern Mexico is a vital national-security interest of Moscow. Ukraine should be Europe’s problem.
If Trump is impeached and then removed from office, it will be no longer up to the voters. Given the evidence, he is clearly impeachable in my and many other's views. But it seems 'Trump supporters' are willing to believe the lies, and the GoP will follow suit, so he may not be removed from office. But I think he should be, and hope that he is.
What is this nonsense? Anything the Mexicans are paying for is now related to Trump's promise of building a wall?
How would anything that Mexico does now be different if Trump never promised a wall?
Quoting NOS4A2
Ok, let's play that game: who are the people who would rather not think about politics? What's their stance toward Trump?
Is that all you can do? Misrepresent my argument then pose it back to me in the form of a question?
I’m just saying that Mexico is paying for American border security. You can thank Trump for that.
To you “people” means all Trump’s opponents. Play that game all you want.
Maybe you're living a parallel universe, but can you back this claim up in any manner or form?
But you were attempting to defend Trumps promise of building a wall. So what does any of this have to do with the wall idea?
Quoting NOS4A2
So who did you mean?
Mexico sends nearly 15,000 troops to the US border
“ The deployments come after renewed pressure from the Trump administration on Mexico to help slow migration flows northward.”
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/06/24/americas/mexico-sends-15000-troops-to-us-mexico-border-intl/index.html
I was defending Trump’s efforts to get Mexico to pay for it.
It's mostly about a long-term geo-political strategy to counter the re-emergence of Russia as a rival super-power. To some degree it's also about making good on America's alliances.
Quoting frank
It would weaken western economic strength and strategic position, and strengthen that of Russia.
Quoting frank
Maybe, maybe not. If we're to consider the Ukranian people (and if there's any validity to the moral premise of America as herald and protector of democracy) then the U.S might be right to counter Russian aggression/infiltration/influence. It depends on what Russia would decide to take as victory spoils, and the measures it would use to stay in control.
It's reasonable to assume that Russian control over Ukraine benefits Russian interests more than it does Ukranian interests. Maybe surrender would save lives, but what would it cost them now and in the long run?
In any case, it seems as if the Ukranians will fight with or without American help, and now is not the time for isolationism.
Okay, then we have progress on the issue. Still, that wall isn't being paid by Mexico, as promised it would be...(?)
To pay for what? Your sentence is missing an object.
Every policy ought to be grounded on facts and reality, not on impressions ignorant voters have on the issues. So if the majority of illegal immigrants don't come over the Mexican-US border somewhere in the desert, that doesn't actually matter. That's those kind minute details people get bored with. Building a wall is something that the simple Trump supporter can picture mentally in his or her mind. Hence it's got to the best way to counter illegal immigration (from Mexico). Simple answers are understandable. Complex policies confuse or bore people.
Especially for Trump the reality doesn't matter, what only matters is if his supporters think that is good. Best example of this is this whimsical idea to deploy "the army" to the border. Because that instills this idea in the Trump supporters that the President is doing something in a "dramatic" way in a "dramatic" situation. People can understand as a measure that "the Army is called in". So increasing the various law-enforcement agencies isn't the option or increasing the Border guard isn't an option either. Nope, have the US Army go there. It's dramatic. The effectiveness of this is quite debatable starting from things like what authorities and when has the army compared to the border guard and police, but who cares. Any kind of critique of Trumps actions is just those Trump-haters hating Trump.
Trump has stated himself that this is his modus operandi. Actually Trump let the media himself to see this with one perfect example. When Trump was interviewing general Mattis for the post of secretary of defence the issue of the effectiveness of torture came up. The marine general said that giving a beer and a pack of cigarettes works far better that torturing a prisoner, but Trump personally disagreed. He stated that because Americans think that torture works, then he thinks that torture works. And these people have learned that from Hollywood: the no-nonsense hero willing to go the extra mile and who doesn't give a shit about protocol will by whacking the terrorist get him to spill the beans where the nuclear warhead is. And besides the lousy terrorist deserves the beating anyway. So what actual intelligence people and the military on the ground think about torture doesn't matter. Hence it doesn't matter for Trump.
And hence we can understand Trump's obsession with the wall and why it has to be a "big, beautiful wall". His supporters might be OK with the idea that some intelligent barrier of barbed wire with a network of smart detectors with quick reaction teams would physically be more effective and be far cheaper. They could understand that focus on the US-Mexican land border might then turn the problem to the Coast Guard. They could admit to it and understand the "wall" being more of a metaphor. But just how closed or open the border is doesn't matter. It isn't the issue at all here: the issue would be that if Trump didn't build exactly the wall, then all the Trump haters could laugh at him at not building the wall. This is what Trump is most concerned about: if people could say that he has broke his promise. It all comes down to his own self centered narcissism and that he doesn't believe he could win over people that didn't vote for him. For Trump these issues are just rhetoric, a discussion he has to be on top with his tweets. Actual facts don't matter so much.
Don't politicians make promises in exchange for votes? Does their election benefit the nation as a whole, or only their voters, constituents and political party members, or themselves?
Don't politicians make promises to each other to support each others bills in exchange for other political favors and do those bills, and the favors they generate, benefit the nation as a whole, or only that representative's constituents back in their home district, and by extension themselves if they get re-elected? One of the favors is getting money from your political party to support your re-election in your district. Are those favors in the public interests or in the private interests of the politician and their party?
It's not a question of whether or not Trump was engaging in a quid pro quo. He was. The question is whether or not it benefited just Trump, or more than just Trump.
What about Biden and the Obama administration's quid pro quo with the Ukranians - in withholding aid in until they fired the prosecutor investigating Burisma and Biden's son? It is not inconceivable that the Obama administration harbored legitimate concerns about the Ukrainian prosecutor. The question is whether the Bidens benefitted personally from the dismissal of this prosecutor as a direct product or merely as a byproduct of the quid pro quo? To maintain the public trust, elected officials must not only avoid impropriety, they must also avoid the appearance of impropriety. At least on this latter score, Biden failed.
Does the relationship between the Bidens and Burisma appear to be corruption? I'm not asking if it IS corruption, I'm asking if it appears that way. If you agree that it does, then doesn't that warrant an investigation regardless whether Biden is running for president or not? Doesn't it make it more important to investigate it since Biden is aspiring to hold the highest office?
The U.S. has a legitimate interest in securing a corruption-free Ukraine. Trump could have stated this in no uncertain terms that aid is contingent on eliminating corruption in their government and that means identifying and prosecuting any and all individuals regardless of party affiliation that are complicit in the corruption.
This statement would have cast a wide enough net to include the Bidens without identifying them specifically by name. The fact that Trump singled out Hunter Biden in the discussion blurred the lines between the public and the private interest, but only because Joe Biden is a potential presidential rival for Trump.
Nice analysis. :100:
So we're still fighting the Cold War? The nice thing about the Cold War was that the US was in a position to hemorrhage funds into the US economy and defense at the same time. We're not there anymore. While billions of dollars have been handed over to Ukrainian.. whoever that was, there are still US cities that have lead levels above the EPA's guidelines.
Americans are suffering so that 1) Europeans don't have to pay for their own defense, and 2) so somebody in the US can live in the past.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
How does that happen? Why does there have to be an east/west conflict? Am I just hopelessly naive?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Moral premise. I think I understand the sentiment, but history shows that once the borrowed money is flowing into this moral project, the long term effects will be instability and bloodshed. I think it's time the US realized that each nation has to work out stability for itself. A culture has to evolve according to its own internal integrity. Trying to make USA mini-me's is not moral at all.
Thanks for the opportunity to rant.
It's not just that. It was illegal for him to withhold aid at all, whatever the motivation.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-09/state-department-freed-ukraine-money-before-trump-says-he-did
Quoting Harry Hindu
That's not what happened. It's actually the opposite.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/c-span-video-joe-biden-ukraine/
As for whether or not the Obama administration had legal standing to block the aid, I'm unsure.
Sondland's opening testimony
Also Kent's opening testimony specifically refers to "Giuliani’s efforts to gin up politically motivated investigations" and says that "I did not witness any efforts by any U.S. official to shield Burisma from scrutiny. In fact, I and other U.S. officials consistently advocated reinstituting a scuttled investigation of Zlochevsky, Burisma’s founder, as well as holding the corrupt prosecutors who closed the case to account."
It's pretty clear that the accusations against Biden aren't credible and that the quid pro quo for a public announcement of an investigation into Biden is politically motivated.
“I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form. And that form kept changing,” Sondland said, before confirming that the “form” did, in fact, have to be public.
I don’t mind the speculation, but there is a lot of mind-reading involved in your screed. I’ll dismiss much of it as just that, but I can tell you at least one of my feelings that you failed to address—I tire of critics telling me how Trump and his supporters feel, their desires, their concerns, what matters to them, their hopes and intentions, and the limits of their intelligence on real issues.
I think it’s clear that you and other critics equivocate between border hopping and overstaying visas as a means to discredit the idea of a wall, as if the wall was intended to end illegal immigration in general, and not to alleviate the border crisis in particular.
The troops were brought to help with logistics, administration, surveillance and barrier construction. It wasn’t for drama or political reasons, but because DHS was at a breaking point under the current surge of illegals, facing a system-wide breakdown. These are the facts according to DHS, the border patrol and the pentagon. Increasing funding for personnel and border patrol would be nice, but that is up to Congress.
This sort of flippancy towards what goes on at the southern US border is routine anti-Trumpism. Of course it makes no sense to insert your psychoanalysis of Trump in such a scenario, unless it was to pooh-pooh Trump’s efforts or to signal virtue to those who already hold the same opinions.
- Donald Trump according to Sondland.
Case in point: he says “I want nothing. No quid pro quo.” but then withholds the aid and refuses a meeting until an investigation is announced. The facts show that he was lying.
But he didn't want a quid pro quo, he just wanted the Ukraine to do the right thing, which was to publically announce the launch of a fake corruption investigation into the guy who happened to be his main political rival for the presidency and 12 points ahead of him in the polls. What on earth could Trump possibly have to gain from that? :lol:
The he said/she said doesn’t really matter in the absence of any high crime and misdemeanors. What is the high crime and misdemeanors?
But you’re jumping around here. We were discussing whether or not Trump conditioned the aid and a meeting on what amounts to a political favour. Are you now accepting that he did but claiming that it isn’t impeachable?
No, I do not accept that the aid was held back on the condition of a political favor.
I don't accept that it was on condition of political benefit or to influence an election.
Then could you make sense of this?
[quote=https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/sondland-confirms-announcement-more-important-probes]“He had to announce the investigations, he didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it,” Sondland said.
“I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form. And that form kept changing,” Sondland said, before confirming that the “form” did, in fact, have to be public.[/quote]
What purpose does a public announcement serve? And why is the announcement itself sufficient, rather than an actual investigation?
I think I'm right to infer from this that Trump was interested in the optics. He wanted to damage his political rival and help his own re-election chances. The U.S. doesn't benefit at all.
That would be assuming corrupt intent without evidence. That's a dangerous and unjust game to play, especially when there is no such announcement nor any investigation.
There are other possible explanations. Ukraine is and has been a very corrupt country. It makes sense for its country's leaders, in order to receive vast sums of foreign aid, to publicly express a commitment to rooting out corruption. Not only that but for messaging purposes, it shows our European allies that the US is doing more for Ukraine than they are, and for domestic audiences, that we aren't throwing foreign aid to the wind.
Wanting a public aannouncement is the evidence. If you don't believe me, I encourage you to walk into a shop, take a bunch of items and leave without paying. You can then experience first hand how well the defense of "no evidence for criminal intent" will go.
If I wanted to steal a bunch of items but didn't would you try to convict me for theft?
Really, you think so? Ok, then a reference you can find in many articles besides this one:
See Trump 'surprised' by Mattis waterboarding comments
So it really isn't speculation at all. Trump is so clear to interpret. As clean water. When you read books about Trump they paint the same picture.
Quoting NOS4A2
No. What my point is that actual effective policies are typically multifaceted and complex and cannot be put into one simple sentence.
Quoting NOS4A2
Again really? Before the midterms? Your simply being silly now. Or an apologist.
Let's see how it was actually when Trump ordered troops to the border:
See President Trump orders 5,200 active duty troops to US-Mexico border
I think I'll listen to the words of the commander of NORTHCOM in this case. And then let's just look at what Operation Faithful Patriot is said to be about by US Northern Command: the operation is being conducted in order to block a potential border crossing of migrants from Central America.
It was all about the caravans back. The classic mid-term campaign spoof. And btw, just look what was asessed even at the time above on how many will reach the border.
We're protecting our ally against Russian invasion...
Quoting frank
America is in a very complicated strategic relationship with its allies, but in short, Europe's defense is actually America's defense. Allowing Russia to swallow Ukraine would be a stupendously bad strategic decision for America...
Quoting frank
Better to have a bunch of American mini-me's than one giant Russia. Better for America, better for Americans, and better for the would be comrades.
But more importantly, domestic stability cannot be achieved without international stability. Our economies and societies are so interconnected that "working out stability for ourselves" just doesn't make sense unless you want to be an isolated nation of farmers.
And do not that former Warsaw pact countries wanted to join the US alliance. Of course there are exceptions.
Typically those countries that the US has bombed don't have an urge to join NATO. So even if Milosevic was ousted by US help (and the covert help has been admitted), Serbia is still close to Russia and has not intension of joining NATO.
Unlike other countries, In Serbia people love Putin.
Leadership standards haven't risen much since the collapse of their union (maybe it's just a low bar?):
[hide="Reveal"]
[i]My boyfriend is in trouble once again:
Got in a fight, got drunk on something nasty
I've had enough and I chased him away
And now I want a man like Putin
One like Putin, full of strength
One like Putin, who won't be a drunk
One like Putin, who wouldn't hurt me
One like Putin, who won't run away!
I've seen him on the news last night
He was telling us that the world has come to crossroads
With one like him, it's easy to be home and out
And now I want a man like Putin
One like Putin, full of strength
One like Putin, who won't be a drunk
One like Putin, who wouldn't hurt me
One like Putin, who won't run away![/i][/hide]
But Putin aside, allow me to rephrase: better war in Ukraine than allowing Russia to become a rival super-power once-again. Ukranians and other ex-soviet territories may admire Russia's prowess, and wish to (re)join their strengthening empire, but the west has reason to prevent that (the cold war).
Russia cannot be invaded or attacked directly due to their hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons. That reality is what created the cold war, and it is what allowed the Soviet Union to safely extend its caustic influence across the globe. It's why Russian assets in Ukraine and Syria are so difficult for America to attack directly (it risks escalation).
Maybe the Crimean people got what they truly wanted, but at some point it doesn't matter; the Soviet Union lost, and the west should not be expected to be so good a guy as to allow Russia to rebuild it for a round two.
- Sondland, earlier today
I thought our defense was a bunch of H-bombs.
The USA saves the world:
Trump wants to do what the American people want? What a tyrant!
But as for the mind reading, your assumption of people’s motives and desires and intentions is regnant. For example:
This is an assumption regarding the mind-states of Trump supporters.
This is an assumption of what matters to Trump.
More assumptions regarding the mind-states of Trump supporters.
Assumptions about what people learn.
More assumptions about Trump “is most concerned about”, what he “doesn’t believe”, what these issues mean to him (just rhetoric).
I’m not saying these speculations are wrong; I’m just saying they are assumptions.
Of course that’s true. So it makes no sense to equivocate between border hopping and overstaying visas. Some policies are for visa overstays, others are for security along the southern border.
Trump was right; the news was wrong. When CNN and the like we’re claiming around election time that there was no crisis at the border, there was and still is a crisis.
Immigration official says US-Mexico border crisis not over
It wasn’t just a “campaign spoof”, but an ongoing humanitarian crisis. DHS Secretary Kirsten Neilsen reiterated this countless times within the following months to no avail.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/01/09/dhs-we-face-humanitarian-and-security-crisis-editorials-debates/2531535002/
The CPB says much the same.
So while you and CNN pretend this was just a campaign spoof, people who deal with the border on a daily basis say quite the opposite.
America could abandon the rest of the world and turn to farming, but I don't think that's what it really wants. (And the rest of the world doesn't want that either, because it would just serve them up to whichever strong nation has the least moral scruples, such as Russia or China).
Otherwise, and if America wishes to maintain it's economic trajectory, it's inextricably entangled in matters of geo-political stability.
I too want a world where there is less violence and conflict, but in some cases violence is a necessary response to force.
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/625831-amp.html?__twitter_impression=true
It looks like Ukraine is in a Catch-22 as suspicions mount—Potentially help Trump or refuse to investigate possible of corruption to help Biden.
Ukraine Wants to Probe the Company That Paid Hunter Biden. But It's 'Too Sensitive'
This will add a new layer to the impeachment witch-hunt.
No. He just doesn't care about torture... if the voters think that torture works, he goes with it. After all, in the debate the moral stand wasn't touched, just the effectiveness of the interrogation method (see the wording... by Trump himself).
Quoting NOS4A2
And above you just made the assumption that the American people want waterboarding (and hence are OK with torture). :smirk:
EDIT: also this
If you tried to actually do it, but failed, I'd try to get you convicted for attempted theft.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Its either continue giving billions to Ukraine or give up and plant pumpkins.
You can do a lot with a pumpkin. I know what you're saying, though.
Quoting Michael
If Trump didn't have the power to withhold or release aid, then it seems to me that there was no quid pro quo from Trump. I find it difficult to believe that no one told Trump that he doesn't have the legal standing to make such a request in exchange for military aid that he was offering. Maybe that is why he ended up telling Sondland that he didn't want anything and that there was no quid pro quo.
Quoting Michael
Quoting Michael
Right, so then Trump wants the Ukranians to launch an investigation into the very same company that the Obama Admin had issues with, it's just that now Hunter Biden is on the board of the company that the Obama Admin wanted to investigate and his father is a political rival to the sitting president, and they withheld critical military aid in exchange for those investigations. That raises even more eyebrows and is even more of a reason to investigate the relationship between Burisma and the Bidens. The fact is that this investigation doesn't just help Trump. Blaming Trump for asking questions that everyone with an objective mind should be asking is hypocritical.
Just to be fair, Trump should have released his tax returns by now. Trump claims to not be a politician, but then goes and does what politicians do - lie.
He needs to go, for what reason?
Uh, yeah. I even quoted it.
That’s not true, he does care about torture when our enemies do it. Perhaps torture is their just deserts. Trump never wants to take anything off the table. This is just routine art of the deal type stuff.
Given that there's no evidence that the Bidens have anything to do with any corruption at Burisma, how would refusing to investigate possible corruption help Biden?
And how does investigating help Trump anyway?
Surely announcing criminal corruption investigations into a candidate would hurt that candidate’s campaign. Knowingly refusing to do investigations before an election because it may hurt Biden is to help Biden’s campaign.
But this wouldn’t be announcing an investigation of a candidate. It’s an investigation of a Ukraine company, and they explicitly say that there’s no evidence that either Biden has anything to do with it.
It’s a corrupt company that payed the son of that candidate over $50,000 a month while that candidate was vice-president of the US and the point man in Ukraine.
Your own source is refuting this conspiracy you’re alleging - a conspiracy that Trump is using in an attempt to justify his illegal withholding of aid to leverage the announcement of an investigation into his rival.
I haven’t alleged any conspiracy. I have only alleged it is a clear conflict of interest that deserves investigation. I hold the same view of Hunter’s dealings with China.
We've seen nigh irrefutable proof that Trump did in fact try to extort/bribe/trade security assistance dollars for an investigation into his 2020 rival (Biden), thereby illegally subverting American interests and the rule of law for personal gain, and then covering it up with lies and obstruction...
Were this a democratic president, or were this pre-90's, I feel like republicans would seriously be calling for the rope. How ironically twisted is it that republican pundits are instead accusing people like Lt.Col. Vindman of being Russian agents? (Who is by all accounts save Trump sycophants, a war hero, and quintessentially American (son of an immigrant, dedicated to serving America; in love with the meaning of the flag)).
So we know democrats have found sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, what's next?
[hide="Reveal"]
Aside from possible additional hearings with Bolton and others as witnesses (most likely closed door), democrats will find sufficient evidence of wrongdoing and [s]congress[/s] the house judiciary committee will put it to a vote. The vote will definitely pass, which AFAIK, means we're definitely in for an impeachment trial in the senate?
Even getting that far will be a success IMO, if only as a symbolic gesture to Americans and the rest of the democratic world.
@NOS4A2 And hey, let's investigate the Biden's while we're at it, just for fun (a job for the justice department I reckon), but let's also not ask foreign governments to carry out those investigations (because it's unconstitutional, and stupid).
Getting there:
Exclusive: Former FBI lawyer under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe
I’m betting this lawyer worked under Strzok, likely in General Flynn’s case. Flynn’s lawyer recently demanded documents claiming some were forged. Or it is straight up abuse of the FISA report.
Better arrest the leakers! They're the real criminals.
But they’re patriots worried about the country! They have no ulterior motives at all!
What we learned beyond what we already knew is that insubordination exists at the highest levels of our government. Unelected, career bureaucrats, spend much of their efforts frustrating the foreign policy of the president. Though professing their love and duty to US/Ukraine relations, their actions only further threw these relations into peril.
Fears of “back-channels” were unwarranted. Presidents have back-channels. JFK had RFK work with Kruschev outside the State Department. Obama had Valerie Jarret do back-channel talks with Iran. Given that the president sets foreign policy, the only shadow policy was that of this coterie of insubordinates.
Fears of “foreign governments investigating American citizens” is unwarranted. The alleged investigations in Ukraine would pertain to Ukrainian companies and activities performed in Ukraine. Ukrainian jurisdiction does not extend beyond its borders. No amount of fear-mongering about future events should stifle investigations into possible corruption, especially in Ukraine.
Fears that the president wanted to “seek dirt on his political opponent” for the purposes of “influencing the 2020 election” were fabricated from thin air, made up, invented, and regurgitated into willing mouths. This is one of the fakest components of this show-trial, but is no less repeated almost verbatim in the news as it is from Schiff’s mouth.
Most of the testimonies revolve around presumptions about the president’s wants and desires, as stated above. The political motives of Trump were, again, invented whole-cloth and without evidence, but continued to play a role on the thinking of these bureaucrats. Despite the conspiratorial nature about Trump wanting political dirt to influence an election, most of which were contradicted by Trump’s own statements, the concerns continued, likely fuelled by the same anti-Trump media that found itself on the wrong side of history in the 2016 elections and the Russia conspiracy. This presumption and subsequent fabrications—indeed, the entire show trial—is best exemplified by this exchange between Sondland and Rep. Turner:
The People have found their champion. Trump has consistently evidenced a fierce, egoless passion for ferreting out corruption in every corner of the globe. Watch your back, Swamp. God bless Trump. God bless the USA.
It must. :smile:
Joe Bidens' efforts at that time were not directed at 'helping' his son but at targetting corruption.
Quoting NOS4A2
This is a lie.
Quoting NOS4A2
This is a lie.
Quoting NOS4A2
Another lie.
These are the lies that are undermining the rule of law and the constitution of the United States. Why thephilosophyforum has created a single thread which is now home to a propogandist for this conspiracy nonsense, I don't know, but charitably, it's because 'freedom of speech' extends even to those who repeat malicious lies.
Regardless, the case against Trump on the basis of bribery has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt. As has been said, what he has done is far worse than what Richard Nixon was charged with. But, of course, Trump is completely disconnected from reality, the notion that there are facts completely escapes him. So today's dial-in rant to Fox News comprised entirely more of the same outlandish conspiracy-theory nonsense that fueled the entire Ukraine escapade from the outset.
Had the GoP not been taken over by nutcase cronies of Trump (mostly the dregs of the Tea Party) then Trump might be out of office already. As it is, he might be acquitted by the Senate, thereby giving him an implicit mandate to engage in further criminal activities from the highest office in the land. Let's hope not, but it seems to be heading that way.
They say that 'every story has two sides'. This is one case where that is not so. The Trump 'alternative universe' has no basis in reality - that is the simple fact of the matter. It's the fact that so many people are unwilling or unable to see that, which brings the United States to such a moment of extreme peril. You can't mess with truth, and get away with it.
This deserves a bit more attention. All of the witnesses that came forward for the impeachment enquiry were career professionals and public service officials. Many of them have decades of distinguished service to both sides of politics, having served under both Democrat and Republican Presidents. They came forward, as did the original informant, because what they heard was the clear indication of misdeeds and potential crimes. All of this is beyond dispute.
But Trump's lackeys and henchmen have no hesitation in besmirching reputations, insulting his accusers, and trying to undermine them and make them out as liars. No actual defense of the voluminous facts - two weeks of televised testimony, all attesting to the basic facts of the case, that Trump and Rudy Giuliani were engaged in a 'shadow foreign policy' aimed wholly and solely at proving a discredited conspiracy theory. One of the witnesses said straight out that Trump didn't give a f*** about the Ukraine, that his only concern was with his political schemes.
This is just a projection of Trump's mentality. He's a proven and documented liar and narcissist, and has no way to deal with criticism, let alone criminal accusations, other than by bullying, further lies, and schoolyard insults. Even now, he shows no comprehension of the charges against him, simply fuming that 'it's all lies' and 'a witchhunt' even in the face of overwhelming evidence. How anyone can be persuaded by this, beats me, although I suppose it's in the interests of various agencies that others can be persuaded to believe it.
Shit goes down the drain!
Let's see if another investigation is (seemingly) warranted.
I mean, surely if the Trump presidency had genuine concerns and if the DOJ had genuine concerns about Biden's conduct; then surely the DOJ would be the ones to investigate it? Why is the president of the united states asking another country to investigate a politician from here? A DOJ investigation would have the authority to request the assistence of the Ukrainian authorities into investigating bidens Ukraine connection no? Why the attempts at secrecy and why not trust our own DOJ and Judicial system? What happened to America first?
Burisma is a Ukrainian company. So any investigation regarding Burisma pertains to that company and those who work there. But if they were to discover government involvement and foreign meddling, especially from US politicians, as our allies they would be sure to pass that info to the DOJ or maybe even seek extradition.
I appreciate that, friend. But it’s all good. I don’t mind it!
Part of the methodology is engage, engage, engage. Quietly, drip, drip, drip, through a thousand little channels, just like this. And see how easy it is to win favour, Precious.
If this is not abuse of power, what is?
....Trump is Putin’s stooge. The American president’s contempt for Ukraine’s fate is quintessentially Russian, for, in the mythology of Greater Russia, Ukraine as an independent state is a mere illusion (hence Putin helps himself to Crimea). Never before have I felt with such acuity — except perhaps during the earlier testimony of Marie Yovanovitch, the former American ambassador to Ukraine — how the public service of dedicated patriots is under attack from Trump’s diplomacy as an exercise in narcissism. [/quote]
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/opinion/impeachment-inquiry-fiona-hill.html?
Just to keep some focus on what’s happening outside the Foxverse.
After all, the trolls, flamers and the real simpletons will be taken out to the forest and shot by the admins.
I mean; there is a distinct difference between Biden withholding a loan guarentee and Trump withholding congressionally approved funds.
Also as far as I'm aware, Biden's involvement in Ukraine was to advise the removal of a Ukraine Prosecutor who was not investigating corruption in multiple Ukrainian companies and individuals.
In part because Biden wasn't the one making the decision. He was just the mouthpiece.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/02/correcting-media-error-bidens-ukraine-showdown-was-december/
As far as I'm aware the Vice President doesn't have that much power or say over policy.
Which is why this conspiracy theory that Biden was acting corruptly to protect his son is so ridiculous. Probably yet another Russian misinformation campaign that Trump supporters can't help but lap up.
Someone here has a theory that a couple of these guys here are actually Russian.
I think @Wallows also finds this theory to be highly plausible. Who was it that originally said that? I'll need to go back and look but I'd love to hear the full theory there.
No one is investigating Biden, nor has anyone held aid for any investigation into the Bidens. That’s why this impeachment hoax is so silly.
Assuming the objective of a paid Russian troll is to influence American voters to vote for a destabilizing or Russian friendly presidential candidate, they would be largely wasting their time on a forum like this. They'd get much better results on facebook and the like. So if NOS4A2 is a paid Russian troll, he should be...
Sondland's deposition suggests otherwise.
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/05/776170895/read-the-deposition-by-gordon-sondland-u-s-ambassador-to-the-european-union
As does his public testimony.
https://www.rev.com/blog/impeachment-hearing-day-4-transcript-gordon-sondland-testifies
And then there's Rudy himself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html
And then there's Holmes' public testimony.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/nov/21/trump-news-today-live-impeachment-hearings-fiona-hill-david-holmes-latest-updates?page=with:block-5dd6a4ed8f080fd59fb149fb
And then there's the memo of the Trump-Zelenskyy call.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
The impeachment enquiry isn't a hoax. There is enough evidence of suspicious activity that the facts warrant further investigation.
At this point I can only assume that you aren't arguing in good faith.
Quoting NOS4A2
(NOS4A2 quote is from the "etiquette" thread in the Lounge.)
Guilliani’s efforts were about the ongoing investigations into Burisma, not investigations of the Bidens. There are no such investigations into the Bidens, though they could be implicated in investigations of Burisma and Ukrainian corruption. These efforts were made in his capacity as Trump’s defense lawyer during the Mueller investigation. Nothing to do with future elections.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html
Was the investigations a condition of these so-called investigations? According to Sondland, this aspect was presumed.
Note that this exchange contains your Schiff/Sondland exchange.
https://www.rev.com/blog/impeachment-hearing-day-4-transcript-gordon-sondland-testifies
Holmes: “It’s obvious what the president is pressing for.”
Oh is it?
Again, these are all presumptions, likely media-fuelled, and all you can do is repeat them.
Which investigation of the Bidens are you talking about? Ukraine got the aid, so which investigation in particular was it conditioned upon?
Sure, if that is the case, you might be able to explain what “personal gain” Trump acquired.
It received the aid after the State Department realised that withholding it was illegal and after the whistleblower complaint and announcement of investigations. That's damage control.
The fact that it was withheld and that demands were being made is beyond doubt. So I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
So no personal gain. So the only investigations into political opponents is the inquiry into Trump, correct?
Oh dear, quote-mining for the purposes of slander. That’s so unlike you guys. Oh, look, someone believed it. That’s so untypical.
If you somehow think that because the Burisma/Biden investigations/announcement never happened then Trump didn't do anything wrong then you're very, very mistaken. The fact that his attempts failed so miserably doesn't mean he didn't abuse his powers for personal gain.
Unless you can find one time Trump expressed the desire to “damage a political rival and help his re-election campaign”, you are dealing with presumptions and fabrications. Actually Trump has repeatedly expressed he needs no help, and has expressed his motives as to why he held back the aid. But none of these show up in your accusations. Why is that?
Not sure how a direct quote constitutes slander - unless you consider your statements self-damaging.
Why wouldn’t you quote the whole thing? Unless you consider the context irrelevant.
I do.
Unless you can find one time Biden expressed the desire to fire a prosecutor to protect his son from being prosecuted you are dealing with presumptions and fabrications.
I have never said Biden fired a prosecutor to protect his son. I have only mentioned the conflict of interest of Hunter Biden being brought on the board of a corrupt company while his father, the Vice President, was running point in that country. I don’t claim special insight into Biden’s thoughts and desires.
George Kent had the same concerns:
You've claimed that "it is a clear conflict of interest that deserves investigation"[sup]1[/sup].
But then when it comes to Trump's conflict of interest suddenly investigations are no longer warranted and any further enquiry is a sham or a hoax? We should just take him at his word?
[sup]1[/sup]
Obviously Trump is under investigation here. There is an impeachment inquiry as we speak. I’m saying it’s a sham because of the process.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/rudygiuliani/status/1198307402464059393?s=21[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/rudygiuliani/status/1198309490069790720?s=21[/tweet]
Like this:
I have not the least concern for 'how I look'. And again, 'engaging' means 'feeding the troll'.
Quoting Mark Dennis
My thoughts also. Tasked with monitoring a cluster of minor social media outlets of which this is one. Polite enough to not be banned, apparently flexible in certain respects, but ultimately, ruthelessly committed to the same disinformation campaign which is being fed to, and by, the GOP.
As far as why Russia supported Trump - it's not hard to see why Putin favoured a Trump presidency. Apart from whatever direct advantage can be gained by Trump’s obsequiousness and the possibility of Russia holding leverage over him, Trump is a one-man wrecking ball who is undermining the social cohesion and future economic prosperity of America with every act. You don't have to control him, he will wreck America purely by himself, with the help of his GOP lackeys and the Fox propaganda network. Russia would have been at a much greater disadvantage under a Clinton presidency, as it was likely to be disciplined and competent. Hence the ongoing support.
That’s an interesting way of looking at it. I suppose it helps when Burisma has your son on its board and is being payed 50000 a month for...well, I’m not too sure. But I think this is the sort of diplomacy we should be concerned about.
As for America first, I’m not sure it’s in America’s best interests to be meddling in Ukrainian affairs. Imagine if any leader told Trump to fire a prosecutor or he won’t get a loan.
Sticking our nose in other countries' affairs is what we do. It's our leitmotif. (Cue Imperial March.)
It’s getting interesting. The entirety of that interview is worth the watch.
If Trump did that with congressional approval then their wouldn't be a problem; rounding back to my previous point that the illegal act originally committed was asking a foreign government to investigate a domestic political rival back home. It should have been the DOJ and the Exectutive branch simply does not have to the authority to just defy congress without comminicating it directly to congress.
I certainly didn't read at any point any news or white house or congressional publications stating that the trump administration asked for congresses opinion on putting extra conditions on the fund sent to Ukraine.
I'll be honest though; your line about "The USaa meddling in the Ukraine." Doesn't sound like something an american would say. Its certainly a very Russian thing to say though..
Its not obnoxious and in your face, emotions worn freely with no lack of bravado which is what ive come to expect from American Trump supporters. It's just subversive and disruptive anti american wordplay to me which is so Russian. That and the affect of the way he speaks to me is very Russian. I've played many games of chess with people from all across the world and the typical american is to psychologically attack by making you think they have the utmost confidence in the belief they have already won. Russians don't do that, they are quiet, decisive and only speak to try and make you second guess your own moves. They also play extremely defensively but with strong counter attacks ready to punish mistakes.
Usually my matches with them are pretty drawn out but ive often found the best method is to lock key pieces into defending the king and aggressively but carefully pushing for the ground and spaces around the king with knights. I call it the "Don't stop at Stalingrad strategy". You only do it after your king is castled though and you fianchetto the queen side bishop.
I mean; just a hypothesis but an interesting one I feel.
So if Trump throws Giuliani under the bus then his insurance is to release damaging information about Biden? :brow:
'Thank God nobody is accusing us of interference in the American elections. Now they're accusing Ukraine'. Job done - nice work, Republicans.
A kingside castle?
The rest will have to wait till tomorrow. Interesting thoughts.
As a rule if, I'm playing white I can afford to wait until black castles so I can choose whether or not to castle the opposite side and positions bishops or knights into outlost positions and getting the queens and rooks on the enemy kings side.
Anyway we shouldnt get too side tracked there but happy to talk chess with you via DM.
Speculating about people's motives and backgrounds may lead to the inference you don't have a counter argument. After all, even Russian apparatchick could be right.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosferatu_(word)
Intent almost never can be proved by people saying it out loud, it is inferred from actual behaviour. This is quite common. If you shoot someone but never said "I'm going to kill you" to the victim, people are not going to require you having said that in order to establish your intent and convict you for murder.
In other words, your requirement that he should've been explicit is not supported by how law is practised.
About withholding aid, the legal issues are murky. Even Mulvaney was concerned about this. But there is no problem; Ukraine got the aid. Second, it was the OMB, not Trump, who withheld the funds. This a matter of policy, and not limited to Ukraine:
“ It is incumbent on all federal agencies to properly use funds provided by Congress,” said Rachel Semmel, the OMB spokeswoman. “In an effort to ensure accountability, OMB has requested the current status of several foreign assistance accounts to identify the amount of funding that is unobligated. On behalf of American taxpayers, OMB has an obligation to ensure their money is being used wisely.”
http://archive.is/n8YCG
Trump’s reservations about handing over tax-payer dollars to a country rife with corruption is fully warranted, is in America’s best interests, and in fact is the right thing to do.
It is also common to under-emphasize situational explanations while over-emphasizing internal explanations for someone’s behavior. It’s a common bias.
Trump was explicit regarding his intentions, and exactly zero of his explicit intentions involved finding political dirt or the 2020 elections. This aspect in particular was invented whole cloth.
Definitely murky legal issues about the aid. What isn't so "Murky" is the mounting evidence that President Trump attempted to use that aid to extort and coerce a foreign entity to investigate a domestic political rival back here in the USA. These impeachment deposition transcripts both private and public are damning to this.
Also, the thing about Watergate and the Clinton impeachment most people seem to forget; is that the easiest articles if impeachment to file and convict on are obstruction and intimidation charges during the investigative and judicial process.
Nixon shot himself in the foot over the initial charges with what he did after they were first laid out.
Clinton was only acquitted because what he initially did wasn't illegal it was just very telling of his moral constitution by caving into a flesh weakness in office. He obstructed too though.
All the evidence corroborates that the initial charges against Trump are true and now his propaganda machine is attempting to gaslight the nation over the mounting and substantial testimony to date clearly shown in the public transcripts from non partisan and partisan sources on both sides.
At this point in time the articles of impeachment being written up and each will come with an argument and will require a defence. I don't think the Republicans are taking this seriously but hopefully the silent senators will recognise the truth when they hear it in their own forum.
I’m not aware of Trump coercing anyone. The alleged victim, the Ukrainian president, has said on numerous occasions that no one pressured him. There is no talk of withholding aid in exchange for politically motivated investigations any of the available transcripts. So that accusation is hokum.
Further, that he withheld aid for political dirt and to help his campaign in 2020 is completely fabricated. The primaries haven’t even occurred yet, so Trump’s political opponent in 2020 is as of yet unknown. Rudy Guilliani claims he found out about the Bidens before ol’ Joe decided to run.
About watergate, I suspect that Trump’s opponents in the DNC and in the press are literally live-action role playing their Watergate fantasies. I worry they are trapped in a mass hysteria and they are ruining the country to cover-up their crimes.
And yet several witnesses, who were heard behind closed doors so they could not influence each other, each testified as to what they believed his intent to be and each of them stated the same: quid pro quo. The call itself makes his intent quite explicit:
[quote=Zelensky]I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We. are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically, we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United· States for defense purposes.[/quote]
[quote=Trump]I would like you to do us a favor though...[/quote]
America first seems to have gone out the window in your "American" beliefs. Seems more like its Trump first, then America. He never bought the USA he doesnt own it. Ths president is meant to be the peoples most powerful servant. America is not meant to serve the president.
You steer very clear from the obstruction charge discussion I have noticed.
????????
They each testified to their presumptions, sure, but not to any such fact. Surely they were convinced that he had such motivations just as you guys are, but it was more likely they were convinced of it from some aspect of reporting or dem propaganda than Trump himself. In fact, Trump explicitly said the opposite: no quid pro quo.
It does make his intent explicit. The favor is in reference to finding out what happened in 2016, specifically Ukraine’s meddling. He also stated his intention that he wanted Zelensky to speak to the Attorney General regarding these efforts. No where does Trump state he will withhold aid if they do not comply. Two expressions of intent, none of which have anything to do with finding political dirt or the 2020 elections.
Blind and wild accusations without evidence. This is par for the course in anti-Trumpist circles. All we have to do is look at the track-record to finally realize how flimsy and credulous such claims are.
Can’t wait to see who is duping whom.
Threads like this make me thing he's not a Russian troll:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6815/are-there-any-philosophies-of-the-human-body
@NOS4A2
I'm not suggesting a troll. I'm suggesting a Russian commandeered individual. Russian talking points and a certain affect that while Russian like could just be my past experiences with russians and other eastern Europeans influencing my imagination.
NOS isn't what I would call a troll. Much too polite and not insecure enough to be one really. However I definitely feel there is something subversive about him a little. Maybe just the Vampyre references haha
Russian talking points? Perhaps you can give me an example of one.
Your posts are a litany of them.
Quoting Mark Dennis
A professional. Smart enough to avoid being obvious. Articulate, expert at equivocation, planting doubts, alternative explanations. 'Well, it could have been.....', 'who knows what the truth is...? 'These aren't "Russian talking points", they're just common sense....'
Actually I have open expectations for the senate trial. Would you like to hear some of my theories on what may happen during the senate trial? Its a minefield for trump I can tell you.
As Fiona Hill said, there really is a conspiracy afoot, but it's the Republican Party that are the conspirators.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/trumps-conspiracy-against-democracy/602464/
No. It's completely accurate in my opinion. This is not Republican vs Democrat: this is Democracy vs Dictatorship. That's what you're looking at.
I do see what you are saying but I think the enemy of democracy isn't as numerous as it seems to be, they are just louder.
Many Republicans are repelled by Trump. (On the night of the GOP Conference, when Trump won the nomination, there was a desperate attempt to stop his nomination by Conservative never-trumpers. There were many big names on that list.) But he successfully mounted a 'hostile takeover' of the GoP.
Quoting Mark Dennis
And they happen to be in the White House!!
That’s quite the theory.
Now obviously some things along that road can still go wrong and I still see a good deal of violence happening in some places in the USA :/ not sure how to ease your mind about that.
First of all, multiple people reached the same conclusion independent of each other. That's corroborating evidence. You can call it presumptions, I call it a shared understanding of the intent of the president.
Second, when a murderer goes out of his way to deny he didn't murder someone we should all believe him. Where are you getting this sort of reasoning from? Trump's denial isn't worth anything.
Also Trump:
Oops.
Quoting NOS4A2
I bolded the word that clearly shows one was dependent on the other. He goes into the rest of the favour later in the call when referencing Hunter Biden. I'm on my phone though and it's annoying to look it up.
You and Russian media say very similar things. To and see for yourself. Does that not bother you as an American?
People once reached a “shared understanding” about the geocentric Universe. Most people in this thread reached a “shared understanding” regarding Trump’s intent independent of the same people. But it’s not so independent when you’re reading the same news and falling for the same anti-Trump propaganda.
I didn’t say you should believe him. Have you heard of the presumption of innocence?
Yes, Trump was looking for corruption. You claim he was engaging in corruption.
Actually, the anti-Trump stuff is true. It's the pro-Trump stuff that's propaganda. You can trust me on this.
Remember when Trump was a Russian agent?
It was a neo-McCarthyite conspiracy theory. It won’t be long until they blame this one on the Russians.
I'm reading all sides of the news or at least as many as I can. It's not difficult to find sites that indicate political leanings and I'm assuming that as a lot of the people on here are a lot more intelligent than your average person (including yourself) is reading news from both sides and centrist views as well as looking for unpolitically biased news outlets.
So far most of what you have shared is from Fox. However most of the time foxes agenda rarely matches with other news outlets including some conservative ones.
All news is at the very least news of what someone somewhere is perceiving. It is up to us to ask what are they reading which makes them percieve that?
I will move on and subtract my comments about you and Russia but I know you are at least intelligent enough to perform a simple exercise with some news research. Try and imagine you are from a neutral country and just reading about this stuff now and that you have no familiarity with American Politics. Tell us what you experience and think during this exercise. Even if you thought something like "Trump seems bad here" and then come up with an argument for why that view is wrong and that Trump is actually doing good.
Then I want you to try and come up with an argument for why another 4 years of donald trump is actually good for the democratic supporters who hate him. How is another 4 years of trump going to benefit all citizens?
That’s false. I avoid Fox unless an interview has occurred there because I know this fallacy will come my way. I try to use sources that are acceptable to anti-Trumpers.
Trump’s track-record is good enough reason to vote for him again. Trump’s roaring and record-breaking economy, the jobs, the historically low unemployment, the defeat of the caliphate, becoming the world’s largest producer of oil, prison reform, legalized hemp, and all of this while embattled by frivolous investigations, an anti-Trump press, and a do-nothing opposition. I can only imagine what he could accomplish if the establishment and celebrity-class could break their fevered anti-Trumpism long enough to get out of his way.
Among all the terrible stuff Trump has done, the only part that is potentially comprehensible to Trump supporters is that he took a booming economy and turned it into a trillion-dollar deficit. No president in history has been that incompetent. There have been presidents who suffered catastophes and needed to run high deficits to dig themselves out of them and presidents who have been gifted booms and squandered most of the proceeds on wasteful wars, but no president bar none has managed to take an economy as good as the one Trump got handed on a plate and go that far into the red. It's a uniquely Trumpian failure, the result of which is a bunch of new billionaires laughing all the way to the bank while inequality skyrockets and the inevitable crash rolls around the corner.
What fallacy was that? I'm pretty sure what I said was that I'm assuming you are going to multiple sources but pointing out you aren't assuming that of other people here.
Quoting Mark Dennis
With your original comment: Quoting NOS4A2
So the fallacy you are claiming I'm making is in fact the one you seem to be making. What does cognitive dissonance and projection feel like as a phenomenon to the individual experiencing it by the way? You are probably the best person to ask that question.
Agreed. The whole "Oh but you have to seek investment and right now we are investing in the united states!" is a load of BS too. The investments went to the billionaires and the only thing that is going to come out of that is a negative jump in wealth inequalities and disparities. Dystopian demagogue bs will not win out the day.
What I meant was your statement that what I mostly share is fox is false. Rather, I have mostly used sources that have been proven to employ DNC hacks and have endorsed the opposition party so as to avoid the common genetic fallacy. No, I did not say you committed a fallacy, so another falsity.
Nonsense.
I've never seen the US President be such a sycophant that conforms the Russian president's views as Trumpov has done. Whatever the reason is, I don't know, but sure it is strange.
But luckily Trump is such an inept president that he cannot steer his administration away from normal US foreign policy. Just rocking the boat isn't the same as changing it's course. And of course he first manned his cabinet with generals that weren't friendly to Putin (with one exception, that was gone in days). Luckily!
None of what I have said has been a falsity. Compared to the rest of us you are one of the fox contributors on here. Do you want me to go through your past comments and count them?
Get with the project here. Trump is right now claiming he committed no illegal act, as evidence of it including his own transcripts which he released the the testimony of his staff and emails all show Trump broke the law and now he is breaking more to try to cover it up. This is all publicly accessible corroborated evidence from multiple news outlets on all sides. It's almost getting to numerous to count and your evasion strains credulity to breaking point.
You can't stay on the issues raised at all. We are all just propaganda machines to you it would seem and I find that highly disrespectful to say the least. Why would any of us here wish to lie to you about what many here clearly perceive? Now, I know that there is such a thing as a benevolent dictator but waiting around for the right one is stupid because it's a power no one should have. Not even the greatest person on earth if there even is such a thing. Trump is NOT Benevolent though. Children are dying in camps down at the border right now and Trump is trying to kill Asylum. I've seen footage. Stop trying to gaslight us. I'd really rather not show you distasteful imagery on here but the evidence is out there if you would just break out of your bubble and ask questions of the groups you are a member of.
I honestly don't give a damn about democrats all that much, they have their own problems. I don't care if the next person is republican, dem or independent but it cannot be Trump. So long as Education, Housing and Healthcare are sorted out and real effort is made to fight climate change I'd be happy. No Dictators though, not now, not ever. I'd rather wait around for the right collaboration and conglomeration of people for the job of government than the right single person any day. That is Democracy, That is a Republic and that is the USA.
Yes, while true believers were happy, even giddy, with the spying and costly investigations into American citizens because some Russian trolls dared to tweet on Twitter, Trump had the crazy idea to make amends with Russia. While true believers pretended a hack on the DNC was tantamount to Pearl Harbor, Trump remained a little skeptical. It turns out only one side had the hair-brained idea.
Cognitive dissonance about cognitive dissonance? The mental acrobatics here are impressive in their own way sometimes aren't they? Almost flawless execution haha
I know nothing about any of you, nor am I particularly interested. I am merely pointing out that you've presumed the same as those particular career officers.
We know that the whistleblower "painted a picture" of some sort of malfeasance by using public news reports. In particular, the canard that Trump intended to "pursue investigations that would help him in his 2020 election bid" was gleaned from this NYT article, which he cites in his report. Bill Taylor also admitted this was his source for that canard:
We can check whether the article gives any evidence towards Trump's intentions that both the whistleblower and Bill Taylor gleaned from this article.
The author offers these sage inferences about Trump's intentions without evidence:
A little further on in the article the fairytale is made real in a definitive statement of Trump's motives, which he crafted from thin air.
Of course, this fairy-tale contradicts Guiliani's and Trump's own explicit accounting of their intentions. For example:
So yes, it is safe to say these career officials are idiots and are falling for bad reporting. That the others share the same fantasies makes it all the more a obvious that this is anti-Trump hysteria at best, a coverup of corruption at worst.
What the impeachment is revealing about the Republican Party.
None of which has to do with seeking political dirt on Joe Biden. If you’re arguing he held back aid to make sure we aren’t giving tax-payer dollars to a corrupt country, yes that’s his stated intention from the beginning.
Why do you keep feeding the troll???
Which was illegal and underscores what he said in the call with Zelensky. So we know what he meant with :
He asks him to look into an alt-right conspiracy that had been debunked by every Western intelligence agency and ignore Russian meddling in the US election of 2016. It's insane. Right after he underscored how much Ukraine is dependent on military aid from the US. Leverage
Then be asks him to look into the next unsubstantiated tin foil hat conspiracy with regard to Hunter Biden. Yeah, nothing going on folks.
It's a good thing you're not in the maffia because being as obtuse as this would get you killed.
It also underscores that he never sought dirt on his political opponent. He mentioned a few things regarding Ukrainian meddling, the DNC server and Burisma. Big deal. He asked a favor. Big Deal. He wanted Zelensky to speak to the Attorney General. Big deal.
This has been the modus operandi of anti-Trump conspiracy theorists since the beginning: search his words for crimes because you cannot find them anywhere else. We’re wasting taxpayer dollars, Congress isn’t working, and now diplomatic relations are in disarray, all because you guys cannot grow a thicker skin.
It does exactly the opposite for anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language. The DNC server story is bullshit as Trump has been briefed repeatedly by his intelligence agencies. You simply don't seem to grasp the significance when you make military support dependent on a favour. That's quid pro quo, which, again, he already admitted too. Even without the Biden thing it's already a crime.
Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language can see you’re twisting his words in order to prove he committed a crime. So what’s the crime?
But NOS4A2, I'm not talking at all about the time era the whole Mueller investigation was about. I'm not talking about the 2016 elections or earlier times. I'm talking about what a huge sycophant the US President has been towards Vladimir Putin.
Trump has been making deals for half a century so I suspect you have little clue what you’re talking about. You don’t like the way Trump acts—I get it. But routine snobbery does not cut it, especially knowing that many of us wouldn't be able to manage a confrontation with Vladimir Putin. Like most, they’re quite content virtue signalling from half a planet away.
What does Trump's deals in earlier life have to do with him being a sycophant to Putin as the POTUS?
Trump has a history of business failures so I suspect you have little clue what you're talking about. Obviously he does have skills with negotiating loans with banks. And a successful rich father. But still, that has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's devotion to Putin.
It's you that has the utter incapability of looking at Trump objectively. If anybody says something critical about Trump, all you see is snobbery, a leftist media attack, dems dissing Trump and Trump supporters, an example Trump derangement syndrome. In fact, any kind of critique of the guy makes you defend him. As I've said, you just see others as Trump haters. And basically you parrot your line just the same way as a social just warrior would.
Well, Giuliani, along with Parnas and Fruman, are being accused by a Ukrainian oligarch of "[promising] to use their connections at the Department of Justice to help him in exchange for dirt on Joe Biden."
Perhaps it's not true. Or perhaps they were acting on their own initiative. But then they did all meet with Trump, who allegedly "tasked them with pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden."
But then even if this is all true, clearly it has no connection to the withholding of military aid. Except for the fact that Giuliani, as multiple people have testified, and as Trump mentioned in his call with Zelensky, was the one primarily responsible for arranging for Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into Burisma which, as multiple people have testified, was understood to be an investigation into the Bidens, and which, as multiple people have testified, was the condition to receive military aid. And Trump himself even brought up investigating Biden during his phone call with Zelensky.
But, no, I guess this is all fake news and coincidence and whatnot. And no reasonable person could possibly infer the kind of conclusions that you think of as a Democrat hoax or whatever.
Contain and destroy.
I take no issue with any of that thinking except this part: “was understood to be an investigation into the Bidens”. Sure it was understood, but wrongly. This canard exists in the minds of the credulous, so credulous in fact that they believed it without any critical thinking, and then let fester in their minds, ultimately effecting their jobs and the country.
Two of those people, the whistleblower and the star witness Bill Taylor, used a New York Times article as the germ of the idea that Trump did anything for “political dirt” for the “2020 election”. The whistleblower cited it, as did Taylor. Taylor uses his newly acquired belief in his text with Sondland. Sondland had to correct him. One look at the article, however, shows that that particular idea is invented out of thin air. (Perhaps ironically, the author of that article was the same author of the Ukraine meddling politico story that Giuliani and Trump cite as evidence of Ukraine meddling).
So while Guiliani and Trump have been accused of peddling conspiracy theories for investigations, the DNC, the press, are in the process of actually investigating their political opponent based on a conspiracy theory.
Perhaps you’re just losing the argument. Those pangs are the cognitive dissonance.
You know I still get a notification every time you respond to me, probably in anger, and then you surreptitiously delete it, perhaps reminded of your own hypocrisy.
And both Holmes and Vindman corrected him, testifying that Sondland specifically mentioned "the Biden investigation" after his call with Trump and when speaking to National Security Council staff and Ukrainian officials.
So either Holmes and Vindman are lying or Sondland is lying. If I had to guess I'd say that it's the man who was appointed as ambassador a year after donating $1,000,000 to Trump's inaugural committee and who already had to revise his private testimony weeks later.
‘Of course I did’: Giuliani acknowledges asking Ukraine to investigate Biden
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1199352977934487553?s=21[/tweet]
Trump’s intentions are explicit and they coincide with Mulvaney’s explanation as to why the aid was held, and which they do all the time (Mulvaney added that at the same time they were withholding aid for the triangle countries to no particular outrage. They also withheld aid to Lebanon.).
Mr. Castor: (01:08:42)
I want to turn back to your opener on page five under, when you talk about in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations, correct?
Gordon Sondland: (01:09:05)
Correct.
Mr. Castor: (01:09:06)
And you acknowledge that this is speculation, right?
Gordon Sondland: (01:09:11)
It was a presumption.
...
John Ratcliffe: 00:34:43 All right. Why that’s important Ambassador Sondland, is because none of that is hearsay. None of that is speculation. None of that is opinion. That is direct evidence and ultimately that is what if this proceeds to the Senate they’re going to care about. Unlike this proceeding, which has been based on largely speculation and presumption and opinion. This is direct testimony and direct evidence.
John Ratcliffe: 00:35:08 And to that point, none of that included evidence about the Bidens and none of that included evidence about military assistance because President Trump never mentioned either of those to you, correct?
Gordon Sondland: 00:35:18 That’s correct.
...
Rep Mike Turner: 00:57:05 No. Answer the question. Is it correct? No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations. Because if your answer is yes, then the Chairman’s wrong, and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?
Gordon Sondland: 00:57:23 Yes.
Rep Mike Turner: 00:57:24 So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.
Gordon Sondland: 00:57:36 Other than my own presumption.
https://www.rev.com/blog/impeachment-hearing-day-4-transcript-gordon-sondland-testifies
The fantasies here are your time lines. Did you forget about the whistleblower and the released transcript of the white house call? Do Me a favour, not us a favour. ME.
Stop trying to make it look like some big conspiracy against the president. He is the conspiracy.
Stop disrespecting me by ignoring my arguments. If you can't think of a counter then just admit you shouldn't be supporting Donald Trump. Man up and know when to have the dignity and character to admit you're wrong.
I mean just look at how divided everyone is? How can a man claim to be a good leader when his wards are fighting amongst themselves constantly and over 50% of the voting public wants him gone? What about the fact when he leaves office in either 2020 or 2024 his own company and brand will have been enriched while the USA will be left with a massive deficit in the trillions?
Seriously why are you ignoring me? Do I leave you speechless? Wonder why.
[quote=Charles M. Blow]This is one of the great successes (if that word can be used in this way) of the Trump presidency: He has succeeded in eroding truth and bending reality among those who support him. He has succeeded in commandeering conservatism and twisting it into something nearly unrecognizable.
And now, all of Trump’s supporters and defenders are erecting a protective hedge around him. The cult of Trumpism can’t be allowed to fall.
They are devoted to Trump’s version of the truth and his version of reality. In it, he is a tough-talking tough guy who uses colorful language and sharp elbows to change things in their interest and in their favor. In this reality, he is unfairly and incessantly maligned by those obsessed with hating him as a person and for his supposed successes. In this reality, Trump is being bullied.
Also, nothing said about him is to be believed, no matter who says it and how much proof is presented. Conversely, believing him, a compulsive liar, happens by default.[/quote]
[quote=Michelle Goldberg]There are two very big lies that Donald Trump and his sycophants have used, through aggressive, bombastic repetition, to shape the public debate about impeachment, and about Trump’s legitimacy more broadly.
The first big lie is that “the people” elected Trump, and that the constitutional provision of impeachment would invalidate their choice. In fact, Trump is president only because a constitutional provision invalidated the choice of the American people. Trump lost the popular vote and might have lost the Electoral College without Russian interference, and yet many Democrats and pundits have been bullied into accepting the fiction that he has democratic, and not just constitutional, legitimacy.
The second big lie is that Russia didn’t help elect Trump, and that the president has been absolved of collusion. It’s true that the report by Robert Mueller, the former special counsel, did not find enough evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russian state actors. But the Mueller report found abundant evidence that the campaign sought Russian help, benefited from that help and obstructed the F.B.I. investigation into Russian actions. His investigation resulted in felony convictions for Trump’s former campaign chairman, deputy campaign chairman, personal lawyer, first national security adviser, and longtime political adviser, among others.
Had public life in America not been completely deformed by blizzards of official lies, right-wing propaganda and the immovable wall of Republican bad faith, the Mueller report would have ended Trump’s minoritarian presidency. [/quote]
The Trump deal. Take the money. Let the company go bankrupt. Creditors don't get paid because the money's been taken.
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sandy_final_redacted.pdf
It says that the aid was put on hold in July and that at that time nobody (including Duffy) knew the reason why. Then in early September they were asked about what other countries were contributing to Ukraine, and then an email (from Duffy) saying that “the President's concern about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine” was the reason why.
Given the fact that the White House was made aware of the whistle-blower's complaints in August, and that in August there were "extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the decision and a debate over whether the delay was legal", Sandy's deposition would seem to reaffirm that point I've made before that this is all an attempt at damage control.
Couple all this with the memo on the Trump-Zelensky call, the previous reporting that Trump met with Giuliani, Parnas, and Fruman, asking them to ask Ukraine to investigate Biden, Giuliani admitting to asking Ukraine to investigate Biden, and the multiple testimonies from the people involved that it was common knowledge that the aid was conditioned on an investigation of Biden, it's pretty clear what's really going on.
Says it all.
It was the reason why, as evidenced by the transcript, Trump’s own statements, Mick Mulvaney, and now the OMB (I wonder why Sandy wasn’t called to publicly testify). Actually, recently reviewed emails dispute your point, detailing that the after-the-fact-justification was concerned about complying with the congressional Budget and Impoundment Act, not covering up the president’s alleged crimes.
Given that he withholds aid to other countries—most recently Lebanon, or previously Honduras and Guatemala—it seems clear this is a matter of policy, not criminality nor conspiracy. Given that the whistleblower is a registered Democrat, cited the New York Times as evidence of Trump’s motives, this appears to be a conspiracy theory of the highest order.
[quote=Washington Post]In the early August email exchanges, Mulvaney asked acting OMB director Russell Vought for an update on the legal rationale for withholding the aid and how much longer it could be delayed. Trump had made the decision the prior month without an assessment of the reasoning or legal justification, according to two White House officials.
...
Also included in the review are email communications between OMB and State Department officials and others discussing why the White House was holding up nearly $400 million in military aid and whether the hold might violate the law, one person said.[/quote]
[/quote]
Answer the question about obstruction; If Trump has done nothing wrong why the obstruction?
Also answer why in your mind a good leader is someone who causes massive amounts of civil unrest and massive budget deficits?
Why does Trump break informal protocol with all other past Presidents by not releasing his tax records?
Why is his administration trying to undermine the legislative branches constitutional mandate to perform checks and balances on the executive branch? Why is he talking about civil war?
Do you seriously read every transcript looking for one or two lines that you can take out of context every time that supports your dogmatic fixation with Hitler and Stalin's love child?
What about the times the president has directly told his supporters to "Punch" people in the face and all of the white nationalist rhetoric he puts up on Twitter? What about Stephen Miller's emails? How can you ignore the historical similarities with past dictatorships?
Your stances I feel beg the question; are you a monarchist and were you one before Trump ever hinted that he was going to run for office one day?
What obstruction?
What civil unrest?
Deficits aren’t necessarily a bad thing, especially when a country is working on domestic production.
His tax records are none of our business.
He isn’t.
Nope.
Fake news.
No.
Where are you from in the USA and what is your socioeconomic background?
You do realise you have just lied to an entire community about the state of affairs in the USA right? We can verify everything you are saying and if your best defense is to just bury your head up the presidents ass and take a direct dose of his BS then you are already lost. Whatever you do, don't listen when Trump demands you to take up arms and kill your evil dem neighbour because the neighbour will defend himself or will be avenged by the majority. So seriously, don't do it. My advice once this is all over and the manchild is out of office is to forget and don't ever let anyone know you were once a supporter of Hitler 2.0 and give up fantasies about perfect incorruptible people worth following into a personality cult.
I haven’t lied about anything. You did. Why won’t you verify any of your allegations?
He's not from the U.S. But wherever he's from, he's doing a great job of discrediting White House spin by presenting it here in a form so easily refuted. Maybe he's a closet never-Trumper.
I asked you the questions first so don't deflect. Answer them directly and stop throwing up defenses so transparent that caspar the friendly ghost can't even see them. We have all spent countless hours providing you with well thought out counter arguments to your claims and you've backed down and moved the goalposts on each and every one.
Unless you are suggesting that your memory of this thread is similar to that of a metaphorical goldfish and you are too lazy to simply review the thread and what you yourself have said and others responses to you? That would explain why you keep reverting back to your staple "Where is the evidence?" Argument five minutes after someone has shown you the evidence.
Whistleblower conversation. Now please.
If you cannot counter or engage me respectfully then I suggest to everyone here to just ignore everything you say from now on as you cannot even respect us enough to respond with the equal effort we are trying to give to your lousy responses.
Quoting Baden
I thought as much. I might not be from the USA but at least I actually live here and my fiance is American so I know enough to make reasonable observations on the issue.
Is he from Russia by chance? Haha
I did answer the questions. Perhaps you missed my post above.
Engage you respectfully? Have I attacked you as a person? Have I questioned your motives or pretended you’re a Russian? Have I called you names? Why should I respect someone who isn’t quite deserving of it?
The only one not resorting to fallacy, ridicule and insult, and as such the only one deserving of respect and consideration is Michael.
You're still not answering questions. I've shared reasonable suspicions and given arguments to back them up whereas as you seem to be practing the 5 D's of Dogdeball. Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge. That's all you ever do with us so you'll just have to forgive us if we all get a little frustrated with your gaslighting nonsense.
Everyone here knows that usually the lack of a response is usually because the other party doesnt have one. I've never once turned down the option to answer if I think I have a good countsr so why are you withholding on us if you have arguments that haven't already been refuted? Don't pull your punches now.
I'm fully willing to debate the topic if you ever want to. But yes your irrelevant tirades against me are a complete waste of time.
So which question would you like me to address?
This is just lazy and effortless responses and I'm not playing your game with you anymore. You are not a philosopher you are a political ideologue and follower of a demagogue. I feel sorry for you really but I'm not wasting anymore of my time on this. I am not going in circles with you asking me to rewrite everything again, I can see what you are doing. Goodbye Russian Asset; willingly or unwillingly whichever it may be.
This claim appears false:
And even one of your own quotes calls the OMB's claim into question:
So we have a good reason not to trust the OMB spokeswoman. She's either lying or has been fed false information.
As for having withheld funds from other countries, that doesn't refute the claim that Ukraine were told that their aid was conditioned on publicly announcing investigations into Burisma. I thought we'd already agreed on that, and that our disagreement was over whether or not it was actually an investigation into the Bidens that was wanted?
I don't think we can trust any spokeswoman as a matter of principle, but I think that's a fair analysis.
My use of the quote regarding December 2018 was intended to show that this is something these agencies have been arguing over long before Ukraine.
This tweet coupled with Trump’s signing of the Hong Kong human rights bill could symbolize his coming fight with this generation’s Drago, the Chinese communist party.
The anthem and flag in Hong Kong. Freedom is alive.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/politikurd/status/1200200943356305408?s=21[/tweet]
Drago was a fictional character hyped up full of propaganda... a fitting comparison.
No pro-democracy protester has ever held up an Ivan Drago picture while protesting communist totalitarianism.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/11/29/hong-kong-protestors-wave-swole-trump-posters-thanksgiving-rally/
But there are plenty holding up the fictional character of Trump protesting the fictional tale of communist totalitarianism in China. There is no such Trump, and no such government in China.
Have you ever heard of the Communist Party of China?
Lol, yeah, pretty much. Though if Hilary tweeted that I would like her a great deal more.
Rocky Balboa, is it? I remember that movie where he pretended to have bone spurs so he could dodge fighting in Vietnam and concentrate on being a racist real estate mogul while he raped women on the side and perfected his toupee. True American hero.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/it-s-nadler-s-turn-take-trump-again-n1091991
In other news, it has been reported that AG Bill Barr disagrees with some of the findings in the Horowitz report, specifically that the FBI had enough probable cause to investigate then-candidate donald Trump. According to a lawyer, this is because the Durham investigation has “unearthed some evidence that supports Mr. Barr’s uncertainty of the inspector general’s findings”.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/us/politics/barr-inspector-general-report-russia.html
I’ll look for a source when I’m at a desktop.
According to the NYT, it has to do with the genesis of the investigation:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/us/politics/barr-inspector-general-report-russia.html
Here's the article I recalled:
Yeah, you might be right.
Barr’s supposed uncertainty of Horowitz’s conclusions has already led some Trumpers such as Hannity to preemptively dismiss the coming IG report. We’ll see in another week when the report drops.
Summary
Full
Looks like Nunes is implicated in Giuliani and Parnas' efforts in Ukraine.
It's good when the American President reminds with a visit that the country is still fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan (and basically that a military victory is nowhere at sight). The longest war in American history.
Trump in Afghanistan:
I just wanted to take a moment to point out how silly it is to ask the person/nation being extorted whether or not they're being extorted, given that while Trump remains the president, he must still be worked with.
Why would Zelensky shoot himself in the foot by taking a stand against Trump? What if the impeachment fails (likely) and Trump wins another 4 years? Don't you think Zelensky would be a bit worried about future issues from the white-house for outing Trump?
Even if he could be sure that his involvement would result in a Trump impeachment, this sends the message to other western leaders that he is willing to *narc* on them given the opportunity. Because leaders do have to work together, backstabbing Trump could make other leaders much more reluctant to deal with him directly. Expediency seems pretty important to the Ukraine, which is why parading Zelensky around like a Stockholm syndrom'd toddler at their parents divorce hearing is just stupid.
Perhaps, but it’s even more silly to pretend there was a crime when the alleged victim says there wasn’t one. Zelensky said there was no pressure on various occasions, only one of which was said in Trump’s presence.
Extortion? There was zero coercion or threats in the phone call. Rather, there was jokes and congratulations.
Trump wanted Zelensky to do him a favor though...
Trump did obstruct the aid, Ukraine knew, knew they needed the aid, and they knew what Trump wanted. The situation Ukraine is in means that withholding the aid amounts to coercion.
Quoting NOS4A2
It doesn't matter whether he said it in Trump's presence or not. That he made statement means nothing because Trump is still the president. The accusation is that Trump tried to coerce Zelensky into making a public statement in support of Trump by witholding aid and a WH meeting, and the evidence against this is a subsequent public statement Zelensky made in support of Trump? Don't you see the stupidity there?
Again, if it is true Zelensky was being pressured, saying so publicly would amount to a declaration of war against Donald himself, which would create too many complications for them. Why would Zelensky publicly attack Trump even if the accusations are true?
A favor? Oh my. Is it or is it not fair to ask a favor of someone you give weaponry and money to? Especially one of the most corrupt countries on the planet?
It does matter if Zelensky said it in Trump’s presence because it refutes your claim that Trump is “parading Zelensky around like a Stockholm syndrom'd toddler at their parents divorce hearing”. He’s not.
Yes, that’s the accusation based on the presumptions of a few bureaucrats who read too much New York Times.
An interview? Oh my. So what threat did Trump make?
But Trump doesn't give Ukraine money, the U.S itself does (via congress in this case), so not only is Trump leveraging US property for his own gain, he is compromising the national interests of America and her allies to do so. On top of that, the favor Trump wanted amounts to interference in the 2020 election, which is yet another impeachable cherry on top of it all.
Quoting NOS4A2
How is Trump trotting Zelensky out like a leashed dog evidence that Trump isn't pressuring Zelensky? If anything it looks like Zelensky is just kowtowing to avoid a personal conflict with the most powerful man in the world.
This is like saying Trump exonerated himself by saying "no quid pro quo" after he learned of the whistle-blower report.
How stupid are we, really?
For his own gain? Another presumption. For the 2020 election? Fabricated from thin air.
Rather, Trump explicitly stated the reasons why he legally held back aid. Why are these reasons not taken into account?
He didn’t trot out Zelensky. I’m pretty sure They’ve only met once. If your evidence of Trump pressuring Zelensky is Trump tweeting that Zelensky said no pressure, you might need something more substantial.
Corruption huh? And not specifically Burisma investigations targeting Hunter Biden?
Not specifically public announcements of investigations?
We don't take Trump's denial of wrongdoing into account because, obviously, he would deny wrong-doing. Do you think Trump is honestly the most trustworthy source to refute the allegations of Trump's corruption and subsequent dishonesty?
I feel like accepting your argument would amount to sticking my head completely inside of my own ass-hole.
Nixon clearly stated he wasn't a crook.
Since there's evidence of wrong-doing (the WH report, the transcript (do us a favor though...), subsequent testimony corroborating Trump's intent, etc...) we're going to need more than trumps denial of guilt to find reliable truth. If anything, this just speaks to how important it is to continue the inquiry and begin a trial which can really get to the bottom of it.
Meanwhile, Trump obstructs the process daily, calling it a hoax witch hunt and forbidding WH staff from answering legally issued subpoenas.
But he has nothing to hide right? I mean, he stated as much. Why don't we just blindly accept every word that Trump says?
Undeniable open and public attempts to discredit and derail. He's done everything he thinks is rightfully in his power to put an end to all investigation of anything having to do with him. If that doesn't count as impeding the investigation, of impeding congress from carrying out the responsibilities clearly laid out in the constitution, and/or of obstructing justice... nothing else possibly will.
It wasn't legal though. The State Department knew that which is why they started releasing it.
Devin is probably aware that one of the many defenses in defamation suits is essentially an appeal to truth. CNN lawyers are currently earning their retainers in a mad scramble to find evidence that establishes the truth of the claims CNN originally published. If old-Nune was actually involved, this could backfire spectacularly.
That said, apparently he went out of state to file it where there are no 'anti-SLAPP' measures... Could be that he knows he is innocent and can prove it, or that he wants to use litigation as a way to silence/censor CNN on the subject while the lawsuit unfolds, possibly over the course of several years...
But damn, what an opera (albeit slow and uncomfortable)...
I doubt that. This is the story in question.
The crux of it is: "A lawyer for an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani told CNN that his client is willing to tell Congress about meetings the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee had in Vienna last year with a former Ukrainian prosecutor to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden."
There is absolutely no legal issue here (unless they lied about the lawyer, Joseph Bondy, telling them this).
Nunes' lawsuit is going nowhere. I know he's just a cow farmer or something, but even he must know that he has nothing. It's just theatre.
So it's just a shitty attempt to silence and censor via frivolous litigation, which is exactly why he filed it in a state with no anti-SLAPP laws. (strategic lawsuits against public participation, for those who didn't see the John Oliver segments about them).
For anyone who does not know, anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide a way to terminate frivolous lawsuits that merely attempt to silence 1st amendment protected speech (exactly the kind of speech CNN was engaged in) via bad faith litigation.
We're starting to surpass the already cartoon-esque levels of obvious villainy.
Did Devin think that threatening CNN with a half a billion dollar lawsuit would scare them into silence? (the article remains up after-all). Did he not realize that doing so would just accelerate the blaze?
Add cartoon-esque stupidity to the list...
According to OMB lawyers, withholding aid was legal so long as it was temporary.
He was in Libya and Malta according to the suit, not Vienna as CNN reported. CNN reported that Parnas and Nunes were in contact around that time, which would be late 2018. Rather, call records (Schiff is investigating fellow house members and Trump’s personal lawyer now) show Parnas contact Nunes in April 2019. Either Parnas is lying or CNN is lying.
Personally I don’t think Nunes has a case for the reasons you mentioned.
They weren’t making fun of Trump. No discernible insult or mockery was recorded. Another media plot to disrupt Trump, and thus America, on the world stage.
Must be that you’re so habituated to ridicule that you can’t even recognize it anymore. :razz:
Ha. Could be true. But the guilty party disputes the narrative and I cannot find any insulting language in the discussion, so...
There was no insulting language (vulgarity?) in my previous post. Nevertheless, I was ridiculing you.
That’s diplomacy. Politicians lie in public because it serves some end. If you want to know the truth look at what they say and do when they don’t think anyone is watching.
Except Australia looks more red than usual. ?
I said there was no insult or mockery because I looked at what they said.
Doing a poor job of it as well. No wonder you thought they were ridiculing Trump.
Oh? You’ve actually complemented me in the past for it, if I recall correctly.
Truth is so often inconvenient for the Trump supporter.
I’ll retract it then. Poor job.
BuT SyRiA wAs AlL AbOuT SeNdInG tHe TrOoPs HoMe
Schiff’s Surveillance State - WSJ
I would say that. But I would argue investigating fellow members of the house, a journalist, and Trump’s personal attorney is a different activity than inquiring into the impeachment of the President.
The House Intel committee tells The Daily Beast that they did not subpoena the phone records for Devin Nunes or John Solomon.
Parnas and Giuliani were the targets because they're central to the Ukraine quid pro quo allegations. The fact that Nunes, Solomon, and anyone were on those calls is because they happened to have called or been called by Parnas or Giuliani, so your criticism here is mistaken.
The Editorial Board at the Wall Street Journal need to get their facts straight.
There they are in the report, in the public eye. None of that hand waving changes the fact that Schiff was using “secret subpoenas to obtain, and then release to the public, the call records of political opponents.”
He used subpoenas to obtain and release to the public Parnas' and Giuliani's call records. Nunes' inclusion is incidental.
Saudi Arabia is totally different!
But the scary thing is that when it comes to Trump supporters and Trump himself, the facts don't matter. Neither Trump's defenders nor Trump himself will engage with or attempt to defend him against the facts of the crimes he's charged with - the accounts of all of the diplomats and public officers that have testified. They are serious and principled people, and they're not lying. They're trying to do their jobs, and protect public order. But they are the ones being attacked for conspiracies, being undermined and vilified by those in positions of high office who dismiss the facts as hatred, prejudice, and fake news. And this might actually work, for Trump. The 'trump base' is now so thoroughly corrupted, so immune to reason, that they don't know facts when they look at them. They were rightly named deplorable, and the entire movement is deplorable, along with Fox State Media.
If he's acquitted by the Senate, surely he will see this as vindication, and having been absolved of these proven crimes, then what will stop him? The lies will have won, the bad guys will have won. It'll be like a dreadful Hollywood dystopia, with no happy ending. The hero doesn't ride off into the sunset, instead she's put in solitary confinement for crimes against the state.
That's the lesson. Facts don't matter, power does.
Don't underestimate the disdain for government in the USA. This goes way back to the government's anti-communist practises, Kent State shootings, and beyond. With the war of independence, the civil war, etc., it's in the blood of the American, as an essential ingredient of the "melting pot".
This disdain for government has been well documented, highly popularized, and romanticized by the media in the sixties and seventies, with memes like "flower power", and the Hollywood image of "The Wild West". It has assaulted us with demonstrations like Oklahoma City 1995, and it now insults us with the Trump presidency. One important fact which we ought not overlook, American citizens who hate the rule of the democratic government, are still allowed to vote. Therefore the American government has no inherent defence against anarchy. Self-destruction of the government is completely acceptable, so we ought not be afraid of it.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1202791650726154240[/tweet]
Written by some anti-Trumpers at the WSJ, yes. Poor job.
"They buy a lot from us".
Of course, Trump's most notable export to Saudi Arabia was a licence to murder American journalists. Although I think they overpaid for that as he's likely to be giving it away for free soon.
Yo NOS4, Just a real simple obvious question. I know you're a Trumper till death, so maybe you can tell us this:
If Trump is innocent, why won't he allow both the subpoena'd witnesses and documents exonerate himself? It only adds to the other articles in the impeachment, of obstruction of justice.
My guess is because it’s an unjust investigation and a fishing expedition. If he participates it increases the likelihood they’ll get him on process crimes, like Bill Clinton.
Appreciate the reply. I think it's real simple, he should allow them to testify. In fact, now that you mentioned Clinton, Trump himself should testify just like Clinton did... .
Any reason why?
[url=https://protectdemocracy.org/update/legal-scholars-publish-letter-on-impeachment/]Protect Democracy.
Why is it 'unjust'? Trump willingly released the transcript of the initial phone call with the President of the Ukraine, on the grounds that he thought the transcript would exonerate him. Recall the number of times he's said it was a 'perfect phone call'? But to any objective observer, the transcript itself contained clear evidence of wrong-doing - asking Ukraine 'do us a favour', when 'asking for favours' was the very crime at issue. Then you've got a qualified informant saying that there's credible evidence of abuse of office, and a transcript which corroborates that. So investigating that - how is it unjust? How is it a 'fishing expedition'?
Trump then orders all of his subordinates not to co-operate with the enquiry. If there's nothing to hide, then why is he hiding everything? His only defense against 300 pages of expert testimony is that it's a 'witch hunt' and 'a hoax'. Neither he nor his lackeys have any defense whatever against the fact of the case. All they have is lies, insults, obfuscations, and evasions.
I actually wanted Trump to win the election, to grind his unhinged organ for all to see, and to then get impeached in inglorious and lasting infamy. I've said it many times over the last few years: Trump is the entire pack of cigarettes we're being forced to smoke; it's a drastic measure to course correct political culture, and instigate categorical reforms...
It's taken twice as long as I estimated for us to get this far (I drastically over-estimated the stubbornness that is inherent in a two party battle-front), and it now occurs to me that we're at a developmental cross-roads:
If Republican house and senate representatives keep sticking their stink-holes in the air, in their chorus of party uberalles, the republican base which desperately needs this experience (as cathartic ipecac) might just be successfully inducted deeper into the shit (in which case, we're probably in for a double dose of flimflam's patented Trump-oil).
If Nunes, McConnell, Lindsey et al., don't flinch, and if Fox News continues to (treasonously) obfuscate, then I think America is inexorably fucked, which will inexorably fuck the rest of the world, and likely be the beginning of the end of democracy.
@NOS4A2 it's not that I think Trump will himself fuck America (in degrees beyond what he has already done), it's that the cultural principles which hoisted Trump to office (and more importantly, which cause Republicans to cling to Trump's ass-hole), being thereby amplified, will erode American politics beyond repair or reform. The moment a national or global emergency/crisis of large scale and immediate threat emerges, powers will be taken which will then never be given up; we're standing on a greased incline.
And the rest of the world watches closely to see the outcome of this great political experiment; the outcome of which, either way, will send unambiguous signals: leaders, dictators and strong-men will see that they too can get away with it, and maybe even decide that they ought to. Dissatisfied populations will simply see the failure of democracy, and either be more accepting of the bull shit governments they're living under, or decide that they should merely erect a dictatorship of their own.
TL;DR: the upcoming trial of president Donald J Trump is perhaps the most culturally and politically critical test of "the rule of law" in all of human history. If we fail this exam, I fear we're going to eventually drop out...
P.S: Maybe I'm over-blowing it, maybe not. I do believe we're seeing one of the most critical moments in American history.
How fuck the rest if the world?
He's going to be acquitted, he'll claim exoneration, he'll run in 2020 and we'll all party hard when he loses.
But if he wins, just remember he's not the worst president we ever had.
The economic or militaristic failure of America would have so many complex ramifications across our inter-dependent globalized markets and security infrastructures that the entire world would enter a period of adjustment as a result. And while at the end of it more people might be better off, in the interim it would be marked by loss. (and since we're dealing with so many other global issues over the next century, I don't know if we can afford it)
Secondarily (purely politically) the goings on of America serve as example and litmus test of what to do or not to do. It's what (or was) what many populations aspire to have, and what many governments aspire to be. The more America fails, the less true that becomes, and the more other nations start trying non-"democratic" approaches to governance...
Quoting frank
I'm straining to to understand how this could be true...
That almost happened in 08-09. The US could definitely crash into a ditch and default on its debt in the midst of a decade long depression out of which China might emerge as the world's top dog. Could Trump cause that by himself? I dont think so. That sort of thing happens because of drastically concentrated wealth (I think).
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I'm not super comfortable with your iconic view of the US. We talked about that before.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I think Andrew Jackson was worse (Indian Removal Act). There was no 24 hour news cycle then though.
This is a very critical moment. I’m just of the mind that American politics needs eroding. We’re watching the death throes of the politically-correct, public relations, corrupt Ivy-league style of politics as they lose their grip on power.. The elites are exposed. Washington is no longer getting rich at the expense of the rest of the country. Good riddance in my opinion.
Jackson was actually the only candidate that came to mind as potentially worse. Trump seems to be a kind of digital-age Jacksonian (with the rabble rousing and all). That said I don't know enough to make a salient comparison beyond their populism.
Quoting frank
I can't recall the specifics of your discomfort, but I'm guessing at some point I said "It's the best worst system we have"....
Keep in mind I am a reformist, and I am interested in large scale and radical changes to current democratic processes. That said, there's no societal dry-dock where we can afford to park our affairs while we work out something better; we exist on the open water and any changes we undertake mustn't cause us to sink in the meantime.
Quoting frank
It's more about mismanagement, priorities, and complacency than concentrated wealth (some would say that such occurrences are what helps to concentrate wealth in the first place), but it's all related in complex ways. Essentially I agree with you, and I never said Trump will single-handedly cause a catastrophe. He's more like a poison; the longer he is in the system, the more he will ruin it, and the more America's eventual fuck-up is hastened.
Consider that if Trump gets another 4 years, it might have the side-effect of cementing the Republican party as dip-sticks for a septic tank of corporate interest... Let's say this leads to fewer environmental regulations and lower taxes (higher profits for Walmart!). The wealth gap will grow, quality of life will stagnate and decline, and we might not be prepared for the effects of climate change or the end of oil. That puts America into a vulnerable situation, where natural disasters are ruinous, civil unrest is rising, and the union itself is called into question.
But for you, trump is a knight in shining armor who came to slay the black knight and his dragons.
For me, Trump is the naked emperor, parading through the streets as if wearing feathered robes of highest quality.
Tell me, what do you see when you look at Trump?
~ CNN.
We shouldn't judge though, maybe it's on the count of Trump's bone spurs!
That's because you're a troll.
Richard Nixon was a gentleman compared to Donald Trump.
I don’t see him like that at all. I just see him as Donald Trump, the same billionaire playboy we’ve known for decades. He’s as American as apple pie.
The time of word-politics is over. The euphemism, the glittering generalities, and the lullabies of our talking presidents may have worked for those placated by such politics, but in the meanwhile the country was being taken advantage of. Those times are over and the course of the American experiment is being pointed in the right direction.
If apple pie was born into extreme wealth, and then proceeded to fail at everything but entertainment, then I would agree with you.
How has trump rebuked the elite power mongers? It's seems like he was one of them all along (or worse, he is their useful and idiotic clown).
Our swamp runneth over...
Fail at everything? He’s the most powerful man in the world. If that is failure I’d love to see what you consider success.
He did it by showing they are in fact not elite. There is nothing elite about them save that they can spin a better yarn.
The man wouldn't even release his tax returns, likely because it would show he doesn't even have a billion dollars (or at the very least, that he has paid no taxes in roughly the last decade because he has been hemorrhaging wealth). For all we know, he as done nothing but make shitty deals and lose daddy's money for his entire life. And now he is fucking America itself, just like he did to most or all of his so called businesses.
As far as winning the election goes, he did manage to prove that there is a serious hatred of Hillary and DNC corruption, but that's about all he proved (maybe he also demonstrated that abusing "sudafed" is a good way to stay energized for campaign rallies). For many voters, Trump was the extreme version of spoiling the ballot. He is a monkey wrench thrown into the works. Otherwise, i don't see how pandering to southern conservatives with nonsense about a wall somehow sticks it to the elites.
The elites got their tax cuts after-all. Is taxation on the ultra wealthy the real evil we need to confront?
P.S, success would be not becoming the single greatest national embarrassment in American history, not compromising American interests, or at least not being impeached for obvious corruption and greedy criminality. Not only is he a criminal, he is really bad at it. He's bad at everything except entertainment, which was how he defeated the ultra-charismatic likes of Ted Cruz et al. back in the 2016 Republican primaries.
If Trump is your vision of success, what would constitute failure?
Tax returns? The man paid $38m in 2005, more in one year than you or I would ever pay in 5 lifetimes.
Most of his businesses? There are nearly 500 business entities currently running under the Trump organization. If most have have failed as you claim, why won’t you prove it?
He’s fucking America? America hasn’t seen an economy like this in over half a century. Jobs, wage growth, record low unemployment, the biggest oil producer in the world—America is winning.
A criminal? Name one criminal offence he has been convicted of. You can’t, because there are none.
Why would you omit these facts?
Because beneath the typical anti-trump propaganda is a story you’d never tell: the truth.
He owns a lot of properties, and in years where he doesn't spend or lose too much money he sees a return. In 1978 he was apparently worth 100 million dollars, which if invested then in a typical retirement savings fund would be worth 6 billion today, so his returns since then definitely have not been great (generous estimates of his wealth are around 4 billion, mostly in NY real-estate).
Quoting NOS4A2
Well, Trump owns the Trump Organization, but he does not own all the Trump Organization's organizations. He merely leases his name (his brand) to many of them. His brand is one of the few valuable things he has to offer (especially in entertainment), despite various and infamous failures which have damaged it. The 4 bankruptcies resulting from failed casino ventures are one. His failed foray into American football is another. Trump University was shuttered in 2010 after a class action lawsuit was filed against him claiming fraud and deceptive practices, which he recently settled (im not sure if there are still on going cases regarding Trump U).
Check out the website, which is still active for some reason: Trump University. It's literally just an image file of a login screen...
Isn't it perfect that a bull-shit artist founded a school of bullshit art, and that the school itself turned out to be bull-shit?
What have we learned?
Quoting NOS4A2
Slashing corporate tax rates makes stock markets rise, but it doesn't help the non-elites like you reckon it should. Trickle-down economics doesn't seem to be working.
Why then does homelessness appear to increase between 2017 and 2018, where before it has always decreased (since the great depression)? Obama didn't cause homelessness to rise, so what gives?
Quoting NOS4A2
Well... He has been sued many times, and lost many times. Back in the day he and his father were convicted of refusing to rent to black people. The Trump U fraud is also demonstrably criminal. In 91 he and others were found guilty of conspiring to avoid paying union pension and welfare contributions to workers. Before that he was involved in an undocumented and unpaid worker scandal (and another unpaid worker scandal has just emerged). He has also been fined for anti-trust violations, and many other reasons...
Fines are issued for criminal acts, therefore he is a notorious criminal according to the legal definitions of "crime" and "criminal".
Quoting NOS4A2
I notice you didn't bother to address the bit about Trump being a national embarrassment of unprecedented scale, which is rather my point...
Right off the bat an anti-Trump talking point I’ve heard many times, even in this very thread—Had Trump done such and such with his money he’d be a lot wealthier. Of course this sort of counterfactual thinking is unprovable, more a catharsis for those who believe they could do a better job.
“Trickle-down” economics is a Democrat-invented mischaracterization of supply-side economics. Right from the get go we expose ourselves. Of course it’s a straw man.
4 bankruptcies out of nearly 500 businesses. So much for “most of them” being failures.
Neither Trump nor his family have been convicted of refusing to rent to black people. He was sued and it was settled. No, Trump has not been convicted of any crimes. His Trump U was a civil, not a criminal suit.
It’s perfect that with all the bullshit you oppose you serve up a big steamy platter of it yourself.
He’s also a very litigious man. He will, or at least would, sue at the drop of a hat.
A Democratic dynasty wouldn't put us in a much better position. We need fission and fusion power if possible. Democrats wouldn't support that.
We'll deal with peak oil and climate change when we get there.
Actually we can just look at the return rates that have been realized by low risk investment funds since the 70's. He has performed more poorly than the market average, objectively. Like his steaks, Trump is sub-prime...
Quoting NOS4A2
How is it a straw man? Corporations have continuously gotten better at allowing fewer profits to leak down to their employees and competitors. It's only in the recent few years that management theory has begun to seriously consider that businesses should focus on creating value for their customers, employees, and society, rather than simply being a profit vacuum for shareholders. In any case, the wealth gap is fucked, and poverty is becoming a reality for more and more Americans.
What good is a Walmart job if it is part time, offers no benefits, and has no chance of ever improving?
If the cost of living is rising, but the earning power of the lower class is not rising, then homelessness will rise.
Quoting NOS4A2
Trump doesn't own 500 businesses, he leases his name to over 200 businesses in the Trump organization. It's more of a brand sharing consortium than the actual work of Donnie. He only runs a few of the businesses himself (or has run) as far as I know. Apparently he made some good hotel deals back in the 80's, but that's really the only major success of his I can find.
Quoting NOS4A2
Actually the court did convict them, but that conviction was appealed and a settlement reached.
We know that he refused to rent to blacks. That's a crime. He did the crime, so he's a criminal.
Littering is a crime, and if someone is a prolific litterer, then I am only speaking the truth by calling them a criminal. Civil torts are crimes too: who'da thunk it?
Quoting NOS4A2
What can I say?
I'm not stupid enough to have taken a clown seriously, so I don't find myself in the current predicament of needing to defend it.
Sometimes i wonder if always Trumpers would rather see America fail than admit to what Trump actually is. He was elected to drain the swamp of liars, but he is lyingest president of all time. So they cling to the idea that it is all one big attack by the democrats, and make unfathomably hypocritical post hoc decisions and justifications about what they think is right and decent...
P.S. Want to know how I knew Trump's presidency would come to this? It's not because democrats are reliably sore losers (they are), it's because Donald Trump is reliably ridiculous, short-sighted, narcissistic, and megalomaniacal. He is an absolute clown, his campaign was an absolute circus, and his presidency has been nothing short of an intensifying continuation of that circus. There's only so much mental contorting Trump's supporters can do to keep the faith, and there's only so much that the likes of Pelosi are willing to sacrifice for the sake of political expediency (she did not want to impeach because Trump was going to be the dem's 2020 spring-board, but it became clear that not-impeaching (or at least not trying) was too costly to American values and American interests).
Nuclear power and beyond is controversial for those who are interested in it; I don't think democrats are in a position to discount possible energy sources as solutions. (the stigma around nuclear power is not unearned, and debating modern safety standards is really really complicated; I at least believe that the dems would be open minded, and I believe the republicans are more interested in keeping regulations on fossil fuels low because jobs).
Quoting frank
Not being proactive about mitigating problems, and preparing for their effects, is how catastrophic failure occurs in large organizations. Peak oil and climate change are visible on the horizon (the expenses of climate change have arguably begun to roll in). Human society is not invincible, and there is really a serious risk of mass death if we aren't prepared for the future (a bigger risk than ever before given our population size and the unsustainability of our current activity). I'm mostly worried about food shortages emerging from combinations of eroding soil quality, erratic weather and climate changes, and sourcing the energy we need to run our massive farms (apparently our mono-cultural style of farming is mainly what destroys soils (to where we only have roughly 60 harvests left before it becomes useless)).
Now is not the time to conserve the status quo, therefore, where applicable, fuck conservatism. We need radical values and methods changes, so fuck the democratic party while we're at it (the self-serving panderers that they are).
We are entering an era of migration crisis. Donald Trump is the foreguard of Fascism ready to defend nationalism. The jack-boots marching can be heard approaching from a distance.
Here’s a scenario:
Rudy: Hey Congress, want to hear what I’ve got?
Congress: Not unless you’re prepared to address it to the Judiciary Committee as exculpatory evidence!
Rudy: Hey you’re Impeachment is crooked, I’m never going to appear there.
Congress: In that case, thanks but no thanks.
Fox News: DEMS SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OF BIDEN CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.
Yet it is just this which has been torpedoed by Trump. Trump’s constant stream of half-truths, untruths and lies has corroded the framework of common facts. And that’s why he’s such a threat to democracy. He and his lackeys have no regard for facts - only for what can be sold, or told, as facts, to maintain political power. So here Americans have legally appoint someone to office, who then begins to methodically unravel the foundations of the democracy that put him there. And once those levers are no longer effective, then he can hold on to power by undemocratic means, having flouted democracy.
That’s what we’re seeing here. If Trump is acquitted by his Senate lackeys then what restraint can be put on him after that? Having gotten away with crimes which 500 professors of law and 400 retired federal prosecutors say are definitely impeachable, Trump and his henchmen will be in an ideal position to drive a stake through the heart of American constitutional democracy. Hey, you’ve got people here rooting for it.
Anyway, I think the Democratic Party is doing a great job in pursuing this matter to the bitter end. They have to do it, as they say, as duty the constitution. The problem is, all they have is the law, and the facts; and they’re up against people for whom neither of these matter.
That’s a good little racket. Keep saying fascism is coming and when it never arrives you can say you helped keep it at bay. Any time now...
What are the parallels to the 1930s? Is it the booming economy?
The only parallels I see are to the various points of moral panic and mass hysteria.
Quoting ovdtogt
Yes, I’d like to see the parallels with the 1930’s myself.
That is all you need for strong authoritarian leadership.
Study the rise of Fascism in Germany and the parallels are obvious.
I imagine the fact that Impeachment is being considered by the Democrats would be one strike against your comment, also the fact that the Republicans, an elected body, may block it, is another strike against your opinion.
Edit: spell out the obvious.
I imagine the fact that the Senate in no way is going to convict him confirms my conviction. And the fact that the Republicans are totally and the Democrats mostly, are corporate Fascists.
I guess my point went right over your head.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-george-monbiot-misinformation?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&fbclid=IwAR3DdI1mSbzqTDb5rQIEjj9_JugbF-s8OKXvZOEwLiMQAJbFqkxwXaB_zwI
Corporate Fascism.
"""Its purpose is to portray the interests of billionaires as the interests of the common people, to wage war against trade unions and beat down attempts to regulate business and tax the very rich. Now the people who helped run this machine are shaping the government."""
Seriously..how old are you man?
Tell us more about the parallels between Trump’s America and Nazi germany.
Google it man..do your own homework.
You made the claim and I should back it up for you...How old are you?
Do you want me to tell you how to wipe your arse too?
You show such a degree of ignorance. I am not going to waste my time on you.
No, there are no parallels beyond the fever dreams of those wedded to propaganda.
Quoting ovdtogt
You made the statement so it rests with you to prove it. Which of course you can’t do because it’s ridiculous.
One day this OP will be used as a document in the study of mass hysteria. The comments made on this OP right from the start are full of hysterical nonsense about the end of the world, fascism, catastrophic consequences and war. It’s mass hysteria that plays into the hands of totalitarianism, which is what this OP amounts to. Look at the way any difference of opinion is attacked. And this from supposedly intelligent, reasoning people.
Would you mind pointing out these comments? There’s two hundred and thirty four pages so I’m sure you can find something to support this claim, but it might take you a while to find it.
Yes mass hysteria. Let's seek appeasement with Donald Trump. The fascist leader of the fascist Republican party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
Appeasement in an international context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an aggressive power in order to avoid conflict.[1] The term is most often applied to the foreign policy of the British governments of Prime Ministers Ramsay MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain towards Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy[2] between 1935 and 1939.
Quoting Wayfarer
Hmm, so the Opening Paragraph was:
Quoting René Descartes
Or perhaps earlier before this format:
Quoting René Descartes
Yeah....mass hysteria.
I'm just waiting how Americans will feel after both Trump and Bill Clinton are shown have been participating in Epstein's underage girl sex ring / racket.
Jobs growth soars in November as payrolls surge by 266,000
There’s one for Fascist hysteria? What about the rest? The one from wayfarer was on page 218. Are you working from the end towards the OP?
I’ve come to believe it’s more live action role playing. They get to live out a fantasy of an oppressive force while at the same time remaining completely safe and comfortable, and all of it to disguise the moral depravity hidden within. The impeachment, for instance, is a fantasy.
Note that labeling criticism of Trump as 'hysteria' is just another way for the Trump trolls to defuse legitimate criticism. It's the same as when the GOP lackeys saying that the Democrats are acting out of hatred. It trivialises any criticism. You're seeing our live Trump troll doing this in real time.
Is that you on Level 3?
I was actually saying it’s different than hysteria, that you’re engaging in a form of escapism. You, for instance, have zero stake in American politics, yet you’ve adopted the identity of an American democrat. So it’s no wonder you get so upset when you see them losing.
[quote="NOS4A2;360861"Y]ou, for instance, have zero stake in American politics,[/quote]
The world has a stake in America being taken over by a criminal cult.
Quoting deletedmemberMD
It’s not hard.
Oh is that right? Then why are you guys looking like you’d drink the cyanide koolaid to get him out of office. It’s a depraved moral panic and it puts all of us at risk.
Quoting NOS4A2
Exactly.
[quote="Wayfarer;360862"]The world has a stake in America being taken over by a criminal cult.[/quote]
You’re just making it easy for me.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/968856971075051521[/tweet]
But it will at least lay bare some facts for all to see.
I'm posting as a public service, and as an antidote to your noxious rubbish. When I can be bothered.
You think the idea of Trump leading a cult is a joke?