Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
MOD OP EDIT: Please put general conversations about Trump here. Anything that is not exceptionally deserving of its own OP on this topic will be merged into this discussion. And let's keep things relatively polite. Thanks.
Comments (24161)
I think saying it is a joke, or an illness.
And you characterize all two hundred and thirty five pages with the few such snippets you can find? That’s irrational.
By all means, friend. I still won’t hold it against you when you finally realize that you’re in on the charade. There is no blind hatred here.
Quoting Lif3r
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Alright, I'll put you on hold. @NOS4A2?
Yes and crazy Americans are making it difficult for us. The present world order of peace and stability for what it is worth has been mutual cooperation which is effectively being trashed by the #Trumfascistas.
Blow up Paris accord. Blow up Iran deal. Blow up trade deals. Like a little petulant child he is smashing the 'toys' he can not have.
Yes the populace will be forced to take up Anarchy. What is happening in Hong Kong is the canary in the coal mine. But all (right-wing) governments are becoming more and more fascist. The powers will not be satisfied until we have a surveillance-state like China.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ex5y5z/is-the-government-watching-you
They are unfortunately stuck with the dumbest sock puppet out of Pandora's box. The republicans are praying every day their dear leader won't fuck things up.
This means something else in the UK.
Quoting Wayfarer
I rest my case.
Both sides are disgusting for different reasons. I can agree with almost every criticism made of Trump while not going along with the agenda of everyone making the criticisms or accepting that the way the criticisms function has much positive benefit. So, it's not because I don't care, it's because I do that I'd prefer to zoom out and focus on what the root cause of American (and, increasingly, European) democratic dysfunction is. And that's a neoliberal-driven plutocracy that escapes scrutiny while everyone's having food fights in the playpen. So, yes, I'm aware that what the Trumpists are doing amounts to a mass assault on truth, but it's essentially just a more brazen (and transparently so) attack on the interests of the public made possible by decades of more subtle attacks that have embittered and disempowered them to the point of desperation. And they are not going away. So I have no problem with you calling out @NOS4A2, but he's preaching to a choir that is never going to listen to your song. And there are some good reasons for their intransigence that you'll never understand unless you change your tune.
Trump is the symptom, not the disease. The disease is corporate fascism perverting the democratic institutions.
Yep.
The disease is corporate fascism perverting the democratic institutions. Now they have even greater tools of persuasion at their disposal. The Facebooks and Googles are the surveillance-state manipulating the weak and vulnerable minds in their political favor.
I'd put it this way, the super-rich have a strong enough combination of economic, technological, and informational resources to transform functional democracies into mere nominal ones that serve their interests and this process is continuously accelerating right under our noses.
Totally agree with you there. Power despises democracy. They are antithetical. Now they have even greater means to pervert it. It will possibly take another 'great war' to return to the universal values that were so lauded after the 2nd world war. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations.
pension reform, social security, health care. All these institutions they are trying to dismantle in order to get their oh so desired tax cuts.
The rich have always fed off the poor and they have bought the politicians to enable them in their greedy pursuit.
Join the resistance. Support the Young Turks and the progressives.
We don't need political labels for this. The basic idea goes back at least as far as Aristotle:
[quote=Aristotle—Politics, Book VI, Chapter 5 ]Poverty is the cause of the defects of democracy. That is the reason why measures should be taken to ensure a permanent level of prosperity. This is in the interest of all classes, including the prosperous themselves.[/quote]
True but these democratic institutions were meant to keep the greedy in check. They are losing control.
These Trump supporters are like frogs in a tub of water. They think the water getting warmer is great until they are all forced to march off somewhere to sacrifice their sorry arses.
Lol I dont want to know
To exonerate himself, of course. I think Clinton testified during his impeachment...
Clinton perjured himself in a lawsuit and was impeached because of it.
I think that's why Trump doesn't want to testify... Same thing with the Mueller report he chickened out... LOL
I'll tell you anyway. To trump means to fart.
Not as bad as I thought. I feared the worst.
These “democratic institutions” have grown sclerotic by way of social democracy. They would have died sooner had they not adopted economic liberalism, which put them on life support, but they shot themselves in the foot with massive regulation and welfare statism. The people want their power back and will step behind the populists to do it.
But please tell me why there's no reason to be concerned.
But isn't that entire premise just completely idiotic in the long term? Where is the self sustainability in a system that is isolated to sheer addiction curing for lack of it's ability to harness the sun or use other means for responsible energy and it's distribution?
Do we even really need all of this energy? I mean great I can watch Netflix and bullshit with the philosophy forum and I can drive to work because I got me one of them oil fart machines. What's the point of all of this shit if it's just run on advertising ?
The doomsday clock has never been right. A clock that never hits midnight is broken, which is ironic for atomic science. Rather the analogy should be a barometer, because it would symbolize the increased fears of atomic scientists and not any actual fact. These scientists are a part of the mass hysteria.
That's just too funny.
Your case is the following?
Quoting Brett
Let's assume that you've shown the "mass hysteria" present in this topic, how exactly does it play into the hands of totalitarianism? Feel free to research Fox News opinion pieces, Breitbart, or whatever, in trying to rationally explain your claims.
It's almost as if there are a varied bunch of people who work in government agencies and have their own political opinions.
US attorney John Durham, who is not limited to investigating the DOJ, disagrees with the conclusion. Given that he has more scope and power in his investigation, his and the AG’s disagreement should not be taken lightly.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/statement-us-attorney-john-h-durham
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-william-p-barr-inspector-generals-report-review-four-fisa
As you felt the need to point out that Horowitz is an Obama-appointee, will you also point out that Barr is a Trump-appointee? I ask only because I read in this a suggestion that Horowitz is biased against Trump, given that he was appointed by Obama, who is a Democrat rather than a Republican like Trump, and so fairness dictates that we also suggest that Barr is biased in favour of Trump, given that he appointed him.
But holdovers of the previous administration are much different than appointees of the current administration.
I also stated that IG Horowitz was limited in scope and power. Durham’s report is quite the opposite.
In a way that suggests that the former are more biased than the latter?
Barr has repeatedly shown that he is fiercely partisan in favour of Trump. This report, which he commissioned, didn't find the evidence that his boss wanted, and now he's attacking the umpire, which is only typical of this administration.
Let's all remember that John Mitchell, Nixon's AG, went to jail.
Pop quiz: who is Prof. Mifsud, and why did Stephen Barr fly to Italy to interview him.
What is 'Crowdstrike', and why did Trump bring that up in his infamous telephone conversation with Zelensky?
If Trump’s holdovers exist in the next administration, I would feel the same way.
Where has all the dignity gone?
We can imagine what the founders envisioned until the cows come home.
The only one bending legal interpretations are the ones impeaching a president based on fantasy.
Does repeating the word fantasy enact some kind of magical incantation?
This go-around started with a whistle-blower report, and a subsequent "transcript" which shows sufficient evidence of a high crime. (it's not a fantasy that the whistle-blower report/"transcript" is evidence, nor is it fantasy that asking a foreign government to investigate political rivals is a high crime).
You're pissing in our ears and telling us it's rain.
You don't think withholding military aid to allies in exchange for investigations into political rivals is impeachable?
You don't think we've seen seriously compelling evidence that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine in exchange for public promises to investigate Trump's domestic political rivals?
The preponderance of the evidence strongly suggests Trump is guilty of that crime. Now we need a court of law to confirm or acquit that guilt.
In an impeachment proceeding, the Senate is the court of law. The House prepares the indictment, based on the articles of impeachment.
I thought you’d prefer the NYT as opposed to Fox.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sunday/trump-hysteria-democracy-tyranny.html
I use the term “fantasy” because the idea he is using it for political benefit for the purpose of winning the 2020 election is imagined, made up, presumption without evidence, and contrary to the explicit reasoning of all parties involved.
I’ve been consistent on this argument to no avail.
In fact, both the whistler blower and Bill Taylor both cite the same NYT article as their evidence. The NYT article on the other hand cites no evidence, and Giuliani’s quote in the article—We’re not meddling in an election, we’re meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do—is completely contrary and exculpatory to that fantasy.
Second, the primary hasn’t even occurred yet, so unless Biden is a foregone conclusion (which is often how the DNC operates) he is not yet Trump’s opponent in 2020.
Non sequitur, as if you've never hedged a bet.
It’s statement of fact that Biden is not the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party. The primary hasn’t occurred yet.
As Giuliani said, if he wanted to meddle in the election he would have waited until October 2020
I’ll ask once more, how exactly does the alleged mass hysteria expressed in this topic play into the hands of totalitarianism?
I’m hoping you looked at the article, and read it to the end where the article finishes with this line;
“The threat of tyranny can be real enough. But those who act as though democracy is constantly on the precipice are likely to miss the path that leads not simply to fuller justice but to true safety.”
“fuller justice and true safety” are the essential words. Missing the path to true safety leads you away from the order of a Democratic society. There is only one version of Democracy which, just so we understand the point, is;
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
“Fuller justice” is the absolute priority of a Democratic society.
Once you move away from that, in in any way, you’re on that slippery slope that leads away from Democracy, that doesn’t lead to better things and ultimately will end in a totalitarian system.
Also, once again, whatever Trump et al. says isn't remotely relevant as to what their actual motives are. Believing Trump is like believing the alleged murder didn't commit the murder because he went out of his way to deny it. Nobody would give the murderer's word any weight. Whenever Trump opens his mouth about any investigation into him, his words (and that of his cronies) carry no weight.
I never drew from it the conclusion you pretend I did. I’m only saying that it isn’t true Biden is Trump’s opponent in 2020, so why keep saying it?
It’s the other way about. Trumps explicit reasoning for what he said is relevant to his motives, but the Democrat conspiracy theory isn’t. The motives are the key because if what he said is true there is nothing wrong—indeed it was moral and right—with what he did. Of course the only people with direct knowledge of Trumps intentions are all consistent, and it lines up with the transcript.
How naive. But I guess you have to regurgitate and stand by every imbecile argument that Giuliani makes in defence of Trump. Because...otherwise you wouldn't stand by your President against the evil "cultural-marxists" here.
Honestly, let's just remember when Trump started his campaign for the 2020 elections.
You believe the accusations of the opposition without evidence, and I’m naive. I’ve never used the word “cultural marxists” so it makes no sense putting it in quotes. Fantasy begets fantasy I suppose.
No offense.
None taken.
What conspiracy would that be?
In my defense I believe it is a credible source insofar as it describes the fears of scientists. My only argument is their fears have turned out to be mistaken and a broken clock is not an appropriate symbol for atomic scientists
But whatever, enjoy you trash and waste. I hope it did you a great service while the next generations are stuck living with and fixing the obvious fuck ups.
Life has never been better. Moping isn’t going to fix anything.
What do you mean by this? The first article (abuse of power) reads:
What I mean is one moment they were pushing bribery and extortion, the next moment they’re pushing “abuse of power”. Why wouldn’t they put bribery and extortion in the articles of impeachment? They’re crimes.
Probably because those kind of crimes require greater evidence.
You’re probably right. What’s curious to me is that people were arguing for it without the evidence to do so, only to abandon the idea when it wasn’t politically expedient. Is there no sense of justice here?
The shift in messaging from “quid pro quo” to “bribery” was the result of DNC focus groups. I suspect it’s the same with “abuse of power”. It’s not so much about truth or justice as it is opportunism and politics.
But Trump isn’t impeaching Schiff. We’re speaking about messaging for the purposes of influencing an investigation into the president of the United States.
And Trump isn't being impeached for bribery. I'm not sure why it matters what was said prior to the impeachment articles being drafted.
Who is being influenced? Are you suggesting that the Democrats' talk of bribery compelled people to testify before the House with false information? Or that they're tricking themselves or their Republican colleagues to vote in favour of impeachment?
I'm afraid I just don't understand this line of questioning. The articles have been drafted. Either Trump abused his power and obstructed Congress or he didn't. Congress now needs to vote on whether or not the evidence supports these accusations.
What say you? I know your opinion on the abuse of power charge, but what of obstructing Congress? Did Trump refuse to comply or order others to refuse to comply with subpoenas? Is refusing to comply or ordering others to refuse to comply with subpoenas an obstruction of Congress?
No, my only point was the Dems were waffling, more concerned with messaging and optics than justice. The fact they use focus groups to see which worked better is evidence of this. In other words, the accused Trump of crimes and then changed their minds upon realizing it wouldn’t work. It’s all a show; it’s all Democrat dinner-theater.
As for obstructing congress, this is the type of fishing expedition I was talking about: accuse Trump of a trumped up charge and then accuse him of obstructing the sham investigation when he protests. I’m not sure what crime “obstruction of Congress” is (Obstruction of Justice?) but I suspect they’ll make the case that he is somehow “violating his oath of office” moving forward. I think that without a crime we’ll be entering the court of opinion.
18 U.S. Code §?1505.Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
He wasn't just protesting. He was refusing subpoenas or ordering others to refuse subpoenas. Even someone who's innocent can be guilty of obstructing justice, so not even that defense works. Congress issued subpoenas; they must be complied with. It's their job to determine innocence or guilt, not the accused. Otherwise Congressional oversight is moot. We've discussed this before.
Also, they weren't the ones making accusations. It started with the whistle-blower complaint which was deemed by the IG to be urgent and credible. It's Congress' job to investigate further, and to carry out their investigation they need to subpoena evidence and testimony. That testimony warranted further investigation.
You seem to be saying that they need proof that he's guilty before they can even start an investigation into whether or not he's guilty, which is nonsense.
In the preceding paragraph the author writes:
The apparent concern in regard to "true safety" is not placing attention where it can do the most good, which in this case is claimed to be the dysfunctional economy. Nowhere in the article does it explain how mass hysteria or tyrannophobia plays into the hands of totalitarianism. You still haven't explained how one may lead to the other. The truth is that you can't explain it, because the claim is irrational, as is your claim that this topic expresses mass hysteria. To put it bluntly, you're being hysterical, which is extremely odd considering your line of critique.
That Trump would be interested in the dealings of Biden's son wouldn't be about the upcoming elections? Gimme a break, you are simply very silly now.
Just going to point out that, over here in the real world, it's perfectly normal for charges to be downgraded during the course of an investigation. So is selecting the most promising charges to proceed.
But obviously impeachment proceedings are highly political. They're not, or only in a small part, about justice.
You concluded that Trump couldn't ask for the investigation for the 2020 election because the primary hadn't occured yet. I'm not pretending anything, you're just terrible at admitting mistakes. Here's a refresher.
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting NOS4A2
QED
Now stop being a partisan ass and use your brain for a change.
That’s a problem for Dems because again they’ll have to prove corrupt intent.
The US constitution does not explicitly grant Congress the power to investigate the executive branch. It has been stonewalling congress since time immortal because it has the power to do so. Congress could hold the branch in contempt of Congress, sue for the documents or hold the office in criminal contempt, but absent that they have nothing.
The IG also deemed the whistleblower to have an an indica of arguable political bias in favor of an opposing candidate. The alleged whistleblower is a CIA Obama holdover connected to Biden. He used a New York Times articles as the basis for one of his accusations, that trump was doing so for his own benefit and for political dirt.
Guilty of what? The problem is there was no crime, no direct evidence of any intention of committing a crime.
Do you believe Ukraine shouldn’t investigate possible corruption because it might hurt Biden’s chance in the next election?
From the horse’s mouth. more fantasy.
Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime.
Which is a non sequitur as I explained. It doesn't follow that because the primary hasn't occured that therefore asking Ukraine to investigate Biden had nothing to do with the 2020 election.
So what, from the horse's ass now?
It does, surely.
I made no such conclusion. The conclusion I did make is bolded for all to see.
https://nyti.ms/38jnf0t
So - you call in an umpire, a third-party source, to investigate a conspiracy that you think you can see - and when the results don't support your conspiracy theory, you attack the umpire.
So typical of these hucksters.
Yep, I see him and Nixon acting very similar...let's deflect attention away from one's wrongdoings and instead attack the process and throw in some ad hominem. He's his own worst enemy; he focuses too much on his image, crowd size, and all the other silly child-like behavior unfitting for a President of this great Country. MAEA-Make America Embarrassed Again.
If I'm earning £30,000 a year and I buy a £500,000 sports car in cash then the government is warranted to open an investigation to determine if I have an unreported income or if I'm stealing, even though there's no direct evidence of there being any crime.
If there's a whistle-blower complaint, deemed credible by the Inspector General, that the President is improperly (or illegally) withholding aid approved by Congress and asking the would-be recipient of that aid to investigate a political opponent then Congress is warranted to open an investigation to determine if the President is abusing his power.
Quoting NOS4A2
Don't you see the hypocrisy in always accusing Democrats and Obama-appointees of being partisan and biased? You dismissing every accusation because they come from a Democrat or an Obama-appointee is the very partisanship and bias that you're accusing them of.
Congress can't just dismiss a complaint based on the political-affiliation of the complainant. They have to investigate to see if there is any substance behind the accusation. Otherwise I guess when it's a Democrat President they can ignore any Republican?
Or maybe you should ignore everything Barr and Durham conclude in their investigation because, being Trump-appointees/subordinates, they're biased in Trump's favour and will lie to protect him and to attack his opponents.
The Executive is bound by laws passed by Congress unless the Constitution explicitly says otherwise. Does the Constitution explicitly protect the Executive from the demands of 18 U.S. Code §?1505?
Quoting NOS4A2
They have sued for documents (and testimony) and the White House has refused. Hence the obstruction of Congress impeachment article.
I agree they are stonewalling congress. But we cannot pretend that stonewalling congress is out of the ordinary or every president would have to be impeached.
My speculations on the motivations of the whistleblower are speculations, and I’m not pretending otherwise. It is true that he could just be deluded by poor reporting, as I’ve previously stated, but that he is connected to Biden and the previous administration, which is the subject of Trump’s concerns with respect to Ukraine, is worrying to any accusation of malfeasance.
The executive branch has “executive privilege”. It’s just not that easy. It’s going to be tricky for the Dems.
Ultimately Nixon acted for the good of the nation by resigning - something Trump would never do.
I feel like I could speak to you infinitely and it would do no good because you refuse to face reality.
Good point. It is a little uncanny, after looking at some old footage of Nixon, how similar Trump acts when he gets defensive...
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/10/opinions/gop-trust-trump-ig-report-dantonio/index.html
Quoting praxis
I’m pretty sure that none of my responses would satisfy you. That’s because you’ve take the position that if you’re not with me then your against me.
Of course there is nothing specific in the article about mass hysteria leading to totalitarianism. What it does indicate is how things come apart so easily because of this tyrannophobia, which, if it continues, I suggest, feeds elements of totalitarianism.
“History raises serious doubts about how helpful this tyrannophobic focus on catastrophe, fake news and totalitarianism really is in dealing with the rise of the populist right, of which this bumbling hothead of a president is a symptom. Excessive focus on liberal fundamentals, like basic freedoms or the rule of law, could prove self-defeating. By postponing serious efforts to give greater priority to social justice, tyrannophobia treats warning signs as a death sentence, while allowing the real disease to fester.”
What is “the real disease”?
I’d be happy to walk back on the word “hysteria” as being a bit too extreme but I see I’m not alone in using that word, because it defines the mood of the hyperbole accurately, so I’ll stick with it.
You asked me how it plays into the hands of totalitarianism and I posted the article to explain that. Posting a few lines from the story about the economy suggests the article is only about that. It is not. Social Justice has a very broad interpretation these days, but we can assume that most people would regard it as “a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society” (Wikipedia), which would involve the institutions of that society.
There are people, myself included, who see the Impeachment process being used as a tool to remove an elected President. You may not agree with this. Whether we support Trump or not is beside the point, what we see happening is the erosion of Democratic norms. In time that erosion runs deeper and deeper and becomes the norm. The hysteria I’m referring to is what we read and hear that feeds this process; political use of peoples irrational fears. There’s nothing irrational about my claim.
Isn't that what the impeachment process is there for, to remove an elected president? If so, then using it for this purpose is not an erosion of norms, it is just a normal procedure. It would only be an erosion, if the process was being used to convict the president of crimes he did not commit. Do you believe president Trump committed no crimes? If not, then why complain about the impeachment? ..
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
As stated in Impeachment articles; obviously not.
Conviction of a crime implies that the criminal will be duly punished. The end, punishment, follows from the means, conviction. So it's not erosive to the justice system, to put people on trial for the purpose of punishing the criminals.
People so lost and in desperate need of a Shepard that they’ll latch on to even the most vile celebrity that claims to speak for them.
Sorry, that’s my last comment.
:party:
The $400 million that was appropriated for Ukraine had been approved by Congress - i.e. 'the people' - and then withheld by the President for his own advantage.
If Trump was being impeached merely because of differences over policy then this view would be correct. But he's being impeached because he breaks the rules of the office.
If that is not ‘contempt of Congress’, then what could possibly be?
America, if you sign off on this, then you will deserve the terrible fate that awaits you. And for the rest of us, the tragedy is: this is America.
Barr is not right.
Tell me another one bro... According to Barr, the entire investigation was based on "a vague statement made in a bar". Further, one witness recants, and the proceeding "collapses", therefore the FBI ought to have closed the investigation at that time. Barr plucks a few supportive pieces of evidence, not mentioning the sea of damning evidence, and reports that this is the way that "I felt", about this. I couldn't sit through the entire interview, it was getting too ridiculous
But what really exposes his twisted perspective is the fact that when evidence arose that the Russians were meddling in the election, Barr says the US government should have approached the Trump campaign rather than approaching the Russian government to tell them to stop. However, he also maintains that there was no evidence of collusion.
How does it make any sense not to approach the Russian government, when the evidence indicated their involvement? What sense would it make to approach the Trump campaign when collusion was not evident Furthermore, why would it not make sense to investigate for any evidence of collusion? When the killer is caught with the smoking gun, it is the due diligence of the police force to investigate the possibilities of conspiracy. Clearly there was motive.
Trump is very likely to win again in 2020. Get philosophical about it.
On the bright side, we know NOS4A2 is just some guy. He's not Russian because he hasnt leaked any UK documents like the Russians did on Reddit recently.
They didn’t tell the victims of the crime and instead investigated them. Barr also said exculpatory evidence was withheld from warrant applications, as confirmed by the IG report, meaning it is likely the victims were known to be innocent long before the FBI stopped investigating them. But they did it anyway.
So why would they do that? Why would they withhold exculpatory evidence from warrant applications? Why would they continue to investigate Americans for a number of years despite knowing long before that they were innocent? To defend the republic, democracy, or some other euphemism?
Exclusive: Top Ukraine Official Andriy Yermak Casts Doubt on Key Impeachment Testimony
As IG Horowitz explains his report in the senate hearing, it is becoming more and more apparent that the FBI completely failed, top to bottom, in this investigation. He correctly says there is no evidence of political bias given the evidence, but the alternative to political bias in order to explain these failures is incompetence. So true believers will have to wonder if they were duped by political bias or admit they merely trusted incompetent agents as they failed in their duties.
I first wanted to say "fuck you!" But... I've decided that that would not be the best reply. Do not say that every American deserves Trump, it's just not true and you ought know better than to say such a bullshit claim.
Ray Charles could see that Trump is the epitome of obstructing justice, and has been since the inauguration. I would be more surprised if something were done, than if something were not. Both parties... the entire bi-partisan governmental system in the States has been monetarily corrupt for so long that it has been legalized.
So...
Say what you like. Cheer for one side or other. Indulge in the day to day entertainment value. Continue to belittle other people as a result of differences in political views fed primarily by propaganda. It's puppeteering at it's autonomous finest....
The problem of course, is that when anything goes... anything stays... and...
Trump if proof.
As I've said more times than I can remember... Trump is not the problem. He is a symptom thereof.
The DNC was hacked and information exposed by WikiLeaks. The victim was the Trump campaign? That's a stretch of the imagination.
I was told Russians were trying to infiltrate their campaign. I make an entire argument and you quibble about one word.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1205100602025545730?s=20[/tweet]
Such a creep.
Not poor little Greta. How dare he?
My guess: sociopathy.
The investigation itself was only opened on July 31.
It wasn’t a briefing so much as it was an opportunity to investigate the campaign.
https://www.rev.com/blog/inspector-general-report-hearing-transcript-michael-horowitz-testifies-on-fbis-findings
They weren’t protecting the campaigns; they were gathering intel, spying on them. Besides that, the strategic briefing was merely a “baseline” of security threats, including both Russian and Chinese threats, and nothing specific nor any warning to the Trump campaign about Russian infiltration into their campaign.
I was addressing your claim that "they didn’t tell the victims of the crime."
Quoting NOS4A2
They were there to "get General Flynn to inadvertently offer information that might be helpful to the FBI in their investigation" as "he was a subject of an FBI investigation at the time."
So if you're alleging that the FBI were using the briefing as a pretext to target Trump and to try to damage his election chances (or whatever it is this conspiracy theory is) then the facts aren't on your side.
I’m only alleging that they weren’t warning Trump that Russia was trying to infiltrate their campaign. They decided against informing the campaign about the information the FBI received from the “friendly foreign government”. It wasn’t a defensive or security briefing. It was a strategic briefing. The facts are not on your side.
It’s because the FBI lied to judiciary committee, lied to Congress, lied to the media. I too thought the same until I read the report, which thoroughly refutes the FBI’s claims. It’s a bloody shame.
Lest the GOP propaganda be given a free run again, it must be stated that the Inspector General’s report found no evidence of political bias against the Trump campaign, and also that the whole investigation was justified on the basis of the facts.
[s]Stephen[/s]William Barr having commissioned this report, then disgracefully turned on its author and deprecated its findings because it didn’t conform to the conspiratorial nonsense that the Republicans have been spouting about the Mueller report for the last two years. But, as always with Trump, there is complete disregard for fact.
See - ‘lack of evidence’ is really ‘evidence’!
You can’t reason with the irrational, and you can’t prevail by force of argument with those who don’t recognise facts.
Stephen Barr? It’s William Barr. Not only that but It was Sessions who commissioned the report. Let’s start recognizing these simple fact before we continue.
No, you changed the subject. Your "entire argument", was irrelevant to what I said. You haven't even demonstrated a clear understanding of the crime that was being investigated, and who the victim was.
Corrected. And it's true, the report was commissioned prior to its tenure, but his reaction to it exactly mirrored his reaction to the Mueller report, when he declared that it had exonerated Trump, when it said explicitly that it had not.
Good grief. Now we have a general Trump, aside from President Trump.
Next we'll have a high priest Trump.
Unfortunately it gets worse. There is a meme of Trump as God-Emporer, GEOTUS. I think it’s a joke, at least I hope it is.
It's what I would call a semi-joke. Many Trump fans think of Trump as this "Third way" saviour between the utterly corrupt Democratic and Republican parties. I don't know why really they would take someone as corrupt as Trump to be this messiah, but they did. A great example was how hyped these people got from "draining the swamp".
So it's not the pre-WW2 surrender definition of God Emperor that the Japanese had, but either it isn't only a sarcastic joke for them.
Yeah I figured it was irony born in the toxic nether-regions of the Internet. I don’t think he rises to the level of corruption. I think it’s more that he isn’t swayed by the political niceties and lullabies of previous politicians. That’s projection on my part, but we’ve seen entire political careers destroyed by minor gaffes, political incorrectness and other nonsense, that it’s not only refreshing to see someone who is immune to it, but also renders useless the power and sway of those who until now thought they were king-makers.
A lot of Trump supporters love this side of Trump. Basically the reason is that they are fed up with the ordinary politics done by the two parties. And why wouldn't they? The two party system has gone on and on. Another thing that many are happy about is that those who they dislike in general are extremely irritated by Trump.
I get it, but that still doesn't make him a great President.
Why is he immune to it? Is it that the voters don’t care if he does it, but do if others do it? Is it that others are too quick to apologise and resign, but could in fact get away with it if they shrug it off and ignore it?
That’s fair. Personally I refuse to judge his presidency until the entirety of it is apparent.
Yeah, I think it’s the latter. The standard of a politician was too high that to attempt to live up to it becomes quickly absurd. It leads to the public/private view and public relations style of politics—politics as a form of acting, deception and fakery.
Historical hindsight will give the best view, yet things can be seen even now.
Let's take one of the biggest train wrecks of the US: the Middle East policy. It already had plunged into a catastrophic train wreck with the 2003 invasion of Iraq and didn't get any better with Obama (with the pull out from Iraq creating an opportunity for ISIS to create it's caliphate). Now Iraq is more close to Iran than ever. And close to Russia:
See The Future of Iraq’s Oil Is Russian
The US involvement in Syria has been a tragicomedy starting with the famous humiliating Obama's red line. Then came Trump. Putting your son-in-law in charge of the Middle East policy with absolutely no idea about politics in the area is truly absurd. That he was played as a fiddle is quite visible: the US secretary of state and other US foreign policy leaders had no idea what son-in-law or Trump were up to. Then Trump gave on a platter what Israel wanted: moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem and recognized Israeli sovereignty over the annexed Golan Heights. In exchange of basically nothing. As an return gift a 'new Jewish colony', basically a dilapidated village simply renamed "Trump Heights". Bravo!
And Libya? One soon to be President was all for invading Libya and shows how totally clueless he was (and actually is):
Now consider this compared to the policy of Russia. Even if there were some rocky bumps on the road with Turkey shooting down a Russian fighter bomber, Russia helped it's ally Syria to avoid a collapse, stabilized the situation and with smart diplomacy gained cordial relations with Israel, Turkey and Jordan. Russian involvement in Syria has been limited and hasn't ended up in quagmire (as Americans hope it would as they have it). Jordania has even bought Russian weapons (like Turkey) and Netanyahu has visited five times Putin's Russia in the last two years (and only twice the US).
Telling picture of the result of US invasion of Iraq: Pro-Iranian fighter posing on his M1 Abrams tank in Iraq
Russians taking over immediately an abandoned US airbase:
In all, Russia looks to be mopping up Middle East as Trump is going home. It's thanks to a basically having a persistent down to Earth approach to the area and engaging with the countries, Russia reaps the fruits it has sown.
The unfortunate thing is that Trump supporters either don't care about the US in the Middle East or think it's a good thing simply to leave. Or it's just bad mouthing of their favorite president by 'Hillary supporters'. Perhaps it's simply so bad that Americans don't even care anymore at all.
Simple answer: How about not being so utterly insane when it comes to the Middle East and Central Asia?
How about not invading countries because of nonexistent WMD's and creating the turmoil of the present? Even more, how can the SAME POLITICIAN that earlier in 1992 had the following clear and truthful vision of the unavoidable quagmire that an invasion would become (please view the short speech clip below)
...AND THEN THIS SAME POLITICIAN GOES AND INVADES THE COUNTRY WITH EXACTLY THE BAD OUTCOMES HAPPENING THAT HE FORECASTED IN THE ABOVE VIDEO CLIP?
How about not basing your foreign policy of the whole area on the feelings of blissfully ignorant wacky Jesus Freaks that see an ordinary modern nation state as this sign of the second coming of Jesus and end times? Nope, the whacky Holy Rollers have to be supported: Hence you give this well off country that is totally capable of defending itself of any regional threat, is basically the dominant power in the region, the most aid that US gives to anybody in the World?
How insane is the idea that you occupy a country well know for it's historical resentment of foreign occupiers is occupied because the financier of a small cabal of 19 terrorists (of whom some were relatives to prior terrorists that attacked the same US target unsuccessfully earlier) was living in the country? The US response was to start the longest war in American history because... otherwise there might be a safe haven for further attacks. That none of the terrorist came from this country doesn't matter.
And when you did get the earlier perpetrators of the same cabal you could put them into an US jail and process them through the Justice System as typically terrorists ought to be done. Not this time. Because a police response would be too wimpy. And when you finally got this financier through a special ops mission, the war of course goes on... because it has absolutely nothing to do with the fateful terrorist attack. Yet the best thing was to invade and is to occupy a whole country. Yeah, nothing else I guess would have mattered because you felt like it.
I could go on and on, but the basic reason is that when Americans can do things for totally whacky reasons, they'll do it if it pleases some voters and plays well in domestic politics for US politicians. What the reality is on the ground on the different continents doesn't matter at all. As the sole Superpower that can pay for everything just by printing more money, there are no limitations what the US can do... so I guess then you do what you do. That's simply insanity.
So I guess what you should do is not to have a foreign policy based on less insane ideas.
And you are totally capable of it, being sane that is. When a war could result in tens of thousands of Americans or more dying, you won't start it. Hell no. Suddenly, the hawks morph into doves. Pre-emptive strikes are off the table. And diplomacy is remembered to be a tool.
That is sanity.
The purpose was to democratize the middle east. That was made public like a decade ago. News travels really slowly to finland?
Quoting ssu
Yea, that didnt happen.
Quoting ssu
Um. Refer to answer #1.
Quoting ssu
Probably not.
The GoP defense is: whatever Trump says.
Did I miss anything?
No, but the ignorance of US foreign policy seems to be an epidemic
.
The purpose wasn't to democratize the Middle East. The purpose was to get rid of a nonexistent WMD program, which the last remnants had been already destroyed in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 by Clinton, which later was found out as the country was occupied. It was about the mushroom cloud, if you would have followed things back then. Secondly, the emphasis was NEVER on the democratization or state building. The Bush administration was adamant on that they weren't in the business of state building. When the Chief of Staff of the Army Shinseki purposed troop levels based on Balkan experience of Bosnia on how many troops should be used to pacify such a large country (Bosnia was a successful operation btw), he was fired. Only years later with "the Surge" troop levels were brought up to what Shinseki had argued for and that did have effect. Of course then it was just a time we the troops were pulled out and all the effort the Armed Forces (without much political leadership from Washington) to pacify the country and defeat Al Qaeda would be thrown away, as the sectarian Iraqi leadership quickly lost the Sunni territories to ISIS (which de facto emerged from Al Qaeda). And Al Qaeda in the Levant, a sunni insurgency fighting the American occupation, had picked the name brand from a small group of eccentric terrorist, which they didn't at all follow right from the start. So absolutely no, some fance words in a speech aren't a policy. A true policy is implemented in hard decisions and the last time the US truly engaged in nation building was during the Balkan wars, a policy the Republicans absolutely hated.
Quoting frank
?
I highly recommend to find out yourself about why the US has such peculiar relationship with Israel.
In fact it wasn't such from the start. Israel's main ally was France, which also helped the country to get it's nuclear weapons. During the Israeli war of Independence, the FBI was stopping Israel from buying weapons from the US. In fact the Eisenhower administration (and earlier the Truman administration) remained neutral and kept the distance of not become too closely allied with Israel. At this time, the only assistance the US provided Israel was food aid. Of course, at this time it had the the Baghdad Pack (CENTO), equivalent of SEATO and NATO.
US Fighters in Iran in 1977 before Iran withdrew from CENTO.
Quoting frank
Again you are simply wrong. President Bush made it TOTALLY CLEAR that the US was in Afghanistan only to hunt and destroy Al Qaeda, not to build a democracy (ie. state building). From start, anything to do with democracy and nation building was not the way Bush would do it. And this basically meant the whole war would be a mess.
From October 1st 2001 from the Atlantic:
Not Exactly a Bush Flip-Flop
From the above article you can see how utterly confused the war effort in Afghanistan was to be right from the start. Even now, the main reason to be in Afghanistan is to "prevent it to be a safe haven for terrorists". Hence you have this totally absurd way of fighting an insurgency that basically your presence has brought up. One trillion dollars has been spent in the war in Afghanistan devoid of a true war winning strategy.
See a great article At War with the Truth
I guess where you Frank live, news doesn't came just late, but perhaps drips only in limited quantity and quality.
If you actually believe the US has been some kind of champion of democracy in the Middle East - or anywhere else on Earth - it's time to put down the philosophy for a spell and do some depth-history.
Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, by Stephen Kinzer, is a good place to start.
https://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0805082409
You'll read it in his own words. I think you're scoffing because you think democratization is a benign goal. It's not. Fit it into the broader Wolfowitz doctrine and you'll see how it's an aspect of American 'imperialism'.
Congress passed a law in 1995 called the Jerusalem Embassy Act, wherein the embassy was supposed to be moved to Jerusalem by 1999. So by the standards of today’s house, subsequent presidents abused their power and broke the law to keep that from happening—well, until Trump came along. So I’m not sure it’s such an empty gesture.
I agree with what you say. The Middle East policy is a disaster and an utter failure. All the more reason to get out of there. Russia neighbors the Middle East, so it only makes sense to let them and other middle eastern countries keep each other in check. So instead of keeping countries like Russia at bay with military force, we partner with them. This a roadmap to world peace.
Trump, through his twitter feed and economic posturing, can bring countries to their knees without shedding a drop of blood. I’d love to see any technocratic politician manage that with empty and ineffective diplomacy.
His supporters will believe this is true regardless of whether or not it is true. He can’t lose in that regard.
Fair enough. To some he’s a folk hero. To other’s he’s a folk devil. The reality is somewhere in between.
I don't have a subscription.
Not sure why imperialism is in quotes.
Perhaps, but I understand the nature of snobbery, arrogance and sanctimony, which is what your little diatribes amount to.
I oppose bigotry and injustice and I champion liberty and free thought. I wouldn’t make a good Nazi in that respect. Since you understand the nature of evil, I wouldn’t mind hearing your arguments as to why Trump is evil.
Thats a false dichotomy, that because Trump is mot a good man, that he is an evil man. Surely you recognise a sprectrum?
Yeah, like cyber security!
:down: :shade:
One does have to remember that the US is (or was) a Superpower. Hence when (if) the US leaves any place, it will create a huge void where other countries will, basically out of necessity, try to fill in the gap. And this can turn ugly. So the thought that the US going back home will solve everything is wrong. It can also open up a can of worms.
This actually is already totally evident in the Middle East already. Previously the US did show leadership. The US could call the shots and form not only a Western, but a huge Arab & Muslim alliance when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. That Syria was fighting in this alliance showed well that American diplomacy could muster support from surprising directions. Unfortunately from this experience some Americans learnt only hubris and we got the worst cabal in US history that has ever taken over US foreign policy: the neocons. Perhaps it isn't emphasized just how different the Iraqi Invasion was from any other Post-WW2 endeavor for the US. Both in Vietnam and Korea there was a country asking for US help. The invasion of Afghanistan was something new, but that invasion was largely understood and tolerated. The Iraqi invasion was something totally new and lead to a situation where there was no turning back.
The cracks were totally evident during the Obama years. In Libya you had the worst example of the new defunctness when Arab allies of the US chose to back up different and opposing sides in the civil war, an event that ought to have been totally unthinkable. This dispute nearly ended up with Saudi-Arabia invading a GCC member with a large US Naval base, which tells how fractured the Arab coalition is. But also how Arab states are competing now for power and leverage in the new void.
Im not familiar with your system of measuring where he is on the spectrum so its hard to answer your question.
For myself, id reserve “evil” for the most extreme end of the spectrum and I wouldnt say Trump belongs there, not based on the information I have.
Wouldnt be all that surprised though. I wouldnt call most people “good” either, I dont think most people put much more thought into ethics or morality than Trump does.
Seldom would I call a politician evil. No matter what kind of corrupt sexual predator he is. You will be then accusing people of supporting evil. Evil is something one shouldn't even tolerate.
Hence I don't say that Marxism is evil, to give one example.
That wasnt very convincing, sorry.
So you think that anyone who doesnt think Trump is extremely and unusually evil is dumb or ignorant? No one of at least average intelligence and well educated on the subject would disagree that Trump is extremely and unusually evil? Is that your position?
There you go again, the false dichotomy of either you are right, or Trump is a great man. Not the only two choices in assessing the man, not at all.
To answer your question, Id have to know what standards for greatness you have.
For myself, no I wouldnt call Trump a great man, or even a good man. It seems pretty clear to me he is a bad actor, a con man at best...though sometimes its difficult to see a distinction between a con man and your run of the mill business man.
I have had a horrible thought about Trump - that the impeachment will turn out to be the Coronation of the Emperor. Meaning that, if/when the supine Senate Republicans absolve him of sin, then he has completely untrammelled reign, of the kind that he's behaved as if he's had since elected. I think if that happens we will begin to see the real Trump for the first time.
But I've just been reading about Chuck Schumer's letter. He wants to call Bolton, Mulvaney and others as witnesses and table many of the documents that Trump has been withholding. It's going to be interesting to see how that plays out. If McConnell tries to stonewall, that will be a clear breach of process, but if they do testify, one can assume that they won't be able to say anything much exculpatory about Trump. Mulvaney has more or less already acknowledged Trump's guilt at a press conference.
So at least the facts of Trump's corruption will be forever on the public record, no matter how much a corrupted Senate wishes to bury them.
I've had the same thought. I hope it's just a knee-jerk alarmism.
Anyone who has followed the impeachment proceedings can see as clearly as day that Trump's been caught red-handed. All the witness testimony, and all but one of the consulting legal scholars, made it clear there was evidence of impeachable offenses having been committed. Even the original call transcript was damning. And Trump himself hasn't said or done anything in his own defense - instead he's committed the further offense of obstruction and simply asserted that it's all a 'hoax and a witch hunt'. His utter contempt for Congress, the constitution, and the law, is abundantly obvious.
So, as the Democrats have been saying, if the Senate clears him on all of this, then really they've become accessories to an impeachable offense, were there such a crime. It really will imperil the rule of law in America. This is not 'moral panic' or alarmism, it is really happening.
The Great Scapegoat. Blame him for everything; give him credit for nothing. But as far as we know the worst he’s ever done is said things you don’t like—thoughtcrimes. His heresies lead the prudes and hypocrites to expose themselves as they cry wolf.
Yet with all your bluster you have not produced a single evil act.
Now this is great thinking from a fellow PF member, the reason why I participate in this Forum.
I totally agree with your view. The notion that Trump just springs back up after every put down will be seen as this positive sign of his abilities. The constant barrage of negative news about Trump will in the end help him. He is constantly repeating the mantra that everything, everything is a concentrated witch-hunt. It's a conspiracy against him. This actually is a winning formula. No matter how the facts wouldn't say that (like starting with Comey's October Surprise that made a devastating blow to Clintons campaign just before the election, that is totally forgotten in Trump's narrative). To repeat this mantra is simply soothing and makes people to close their ears. It's just the Trump derangement syndrome of the Trump haters. And when, I repeat when the GOP members of the Senate don't go with the impeachment, then Trump can truly say he has been vindicated, that it all was a witch-hunt. And republicans will do that. It will be the ticket for Trump to have a far better chance on winning again.
If you’re ever bored read through these Reddit threads. They are anecdotes of people who have worked for him or have met him. If what they say is true he it seems he is a very nice and likeable man, and not the villain people make him out to be.
People who have met or dealt with Donald Trump in person prior to the race, what was he like?
People who have worked for a Trump company - what was your experience like?
Yes, a guy who worked in a movie theatre that Trump visited is sorted to be the best answer.
Well, now we know how you make your opinion about him. :wink:
Yet how about making your opinion just listening what the man says and following what decisions he makes as President? The character issue is meaningless as we already know after many years what kind of President he is. Just a thought.
@Maw and I had talked about this in this thread and this is my gut feeling as well. Maw is convinced the support for impeachment with voters is such that if the republicans acquit it will cost them dearly in the election, leading to an extensive win for the Democrats. I'm not so sure because Trump's character was quite clear during the previous election and it didn't make a difference.
And Democrats in power will only be meaningful if Bernie wins. Otherwise you get more of the same minus the dickishness.
Im comfortable with the information I already have, and put very little stock in such a source anyway. No offence, but I am not interested in this peddling you do about Trump. Just because I recognise someone like Tim Wood has Trump Derangement Syndrome doesnt mean Im open to your own rose tinted take on the guy.
Unless they rig it again. And who would be there to prevent that, if he’s been acquitted in the Senate? What if he outright declares that the Mueller enquiry and the impeachment hearings really were a coup attempt and declares a state of emergency? He recognises no law above his say-so, and holds Congress in contempt. Who would stop him?
None taken.
He’s doing a great job. It’s hard to believe how much time we’ve wasted hiring politically-correct lawyers to run a country, when we should have been hiring billionaire playboys.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/rudygiuliani/status/1206290920242647047[/tweet]
Doesn't have to. Enough voters think it was so. Repetition is the way to get lies to work.
Needless to say, when you say “we” you’re not speaking for liberals, or even workers in the rust-belt still experiencing a manufacturing recession.
The IG report found 17 failures at the highest levels of the FBI. Mueller mentioned zero of them. Eventually we’ll find out whether it was corruption or incompetence that leads people to believe the inquiry was just.
For Americans in general. The standard I apply most is justice and liberty, but also includes the economy, defense and politics. But not only that its how he’s altered politics. So far so good in my opinion, but that could all change of course. What I dislike about his presidency is his vaping ban.
Yes, I have to concur with your assessment. In a way, my resistance was due to the association of 'evil' with 'evil genius', and many of Trump's obvious evils originate in bumbling incompetence. But, I will definitely concede the point.
He has pointed the country in the direction of those principles and reignited the American experiment. I truly believe this.
I think the United States is the brightest beacon of liberty in the world and Trump is making it brighter. The Statue of Liberty, the American flag and Trump himself flash on the placards of the Hong Kong protesters, for instance, as they protest in the shadow of Chinese totalitarianism.
Yes, the U.S. is that shining light at the end of the tunnel (that signals an oncoming train).
The American experiment is a colloquial term for the founding of the United States, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I mean the principles as laid out by the founding fathers of the country.
You suspect wrongly, and I’ve already stated my beliefs.
What do you want to know? I’ve already answered your questions and I’m willing to justify my answers. If you could make your concerns explicit I could try to address them.
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting NOS4A2
I think the issue is that this is all so vague as to be meaningless. Perhaps you can offer something more concrete, like "his tax cuts has given the average working-class American $x extra a year and helped the economy grow %y" or "he passed this executive order that has achieved this great thing".
I think the ethos of the country is important and meaningful. I’m explaining why I believe Trump’s presidency is a good one in that regard. Why is it meaningless?
Justice and liberty, as I said earlier. Perhaps it is you who doesn’t understand plain English.
You're not explaining what Trump is doing to promote the ethos.
The 'great American experiment in government' was about creating a government with no aristocracy.
He always touts freedom and fairness and justice in his speeches. A good one would be his UN speech.
Words are cheap. Is he actually carrying out policies that practice what he preaches? Maybe talk about them.
As I’ve pointed out his standing up to Chinese totalitarianism is one of the biggest for me. For instance he signed into law the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy act. But he also gets detained Americans out of foreign prisons, for instance the recent one in Iran. As for prison reform, his First Step ACT is monumental in that regard.
I don't know about an "extensive win" for the Democrats, but it's not clear to me how a GOP controlled Senate acquitting Trump of impeachment encourages anyone to vote for Trump who wouldn't have otherwise. Besides, the 2018 midterms was a clear Democratic refutation of Trump: the House's biggest seat swing since the early 70s.
Yes, like every other politician. And then he lets KSA murder journalists because he wants their arms deals. When are you going to get beyond your infantile non-analysis and say something worth reading? Have you just given up?
Edit: I guess Michael said much the same thing. Whatever. Nvm.
Wow, check your gullibometer.
Let me translate your assertion: Trump always lies about freedom and fairness and justice in his speeches.
You know, I hope, that Trump is the biggest, fattest liar ever to disgrace the Oval Office.
The US response to the Kashoggi murder was appropriate.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-bans-16-saudi-individuals-u-s-role-khashoggi-n992311
~That’s more than what the UK or EU did.~
I retract the previous statement. The EU imposed travel bans.
Obviously a token gesture.
One far more effective than any anti-Trump virtue signalling, but sure.
Huh? Effective how? What was the effect?
The point of the Global Magninski Act is to deny individuals entry into the US, allow the seizure of any of their property held in the country, and effectively prevent them from entering into transactions with large numbers of banks and companies.
Another post, another attempted diversion and distraction.
Again: If, as you say, it wasn't a token gesture, what was the effect - what constitutes (as you say) the "effectiveness" - of denying these 16 individuals entry to the US?
False, I said it was far more effective than any anti-Trump virtue signalling. I never said “effectiveness” so your use of quotes is a fabrication.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/13/us-global-magnitsky-act
Yet another diversion.
If it was "more effective" than X, it must have been to some degree effective. If it was to some degree effective, it had, to some degree, the quality of "effectiveness."
Again: If, as you say, it wasn't a token gesture, what was the effect - what constitutes (as you say) the effectiveness* - of denying these 16 individuals entry to the US?
I'm looking for a description of its effectiveness. Be specific.
*I removed the quotes. My apologies. Do you like it better now?
I’m not going to explain to you how sanctions are more effective than hashtags and Guardian articles.
Awesome, since that's not what I'm asking you to explain.
Closing this chapter of Diversiology 101.
[sup]1[/sup]https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-senators-seek-quick-acquittal-for-trump-the-president-wants-more-11576535310?mod=hp_lead_pos5
So they're admitting to being partisan hacks who care more about protecting the Republican party than holding the President accountable for misbehaviour.
What misbehavior? You guys keep saying he did something wrong.
Right, so they seem more worried about the politics and not justice. I don’t think you’re wrong on that one though I would say this has been a partisan charade since the beginning. We’ll find out just how partisan it is with tomorrow’s votes on the articles of impeachment. My own suspicion is it will be more partisan on votes “for” and more bipartisan on votes “against”.
They’ve been trying to impeach the president before he took office. I suspect they’ve chosen this time because their ability to win the next election through democratic means has quickly diminished.
What evidence do you have to ground this suspicion?
It’s complete speculation. Democrat megalomania and duplicity was made apparent in their emails. Given the flimsy case it is almost certain to be politically motivated. Then again, never attribute to malice that which could be explained by stupidity. I could be wrong.
... Like the bulk of your assertions in this thread.
I think it's more the fact that, much like Nixon, he went too far in attacking the Democrats, who have the power to fight back when they're the victims of his corruption. He could have just as easily, and more rightfully, been impeached for about 20 other things in the last three years.
To say the Democrats are doing this because they're afraid they can't win head-on is kind of a joke. Trump's victory was not a landslide. In fact it was rather narrow and a 1 in 4 shot. He lost the popular voted handedly. His approval ratings have been consistently low for three years. True, it's the democrats' election to lose -- again -- but I'd hardly say they're afraid they can't beat him. A much better case can be made about Republicans -- hence the attempts at voter suppression and extreme gerrymandering.
Meanwhile the GOP is actually purging voters
That’s a fair analysis. I appreciate it.
Though I cannot think of one thing he could be impeached for—they were trying to impeach him before he even stepped into office—you are right that Trump shouldn’t be confident in his win. The Democrats are winning in the dark money front.
Nonetheless, Trump might have an easy win in 2020, according to Moody's accurate election model.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/moodys-trump-on-his-way-to-an-easy-2020-win-if-economy-holds-up.html
Pelosi herself made the comment some weeks back that Trump projects onto others all of the faults that he sees in himself, but cannot ever admit. So when he calls others slimy and dishonest and so on, really it stems from a deep-seated realisation of his own many failures and weaknesses, which, of course, in Trumpworld, neither he nor his supporters can ever admit to. Everything Trump does - even the clearly incriminating phone call that triggered the impeachment - is ‘perfect’. If you don’t see it as perfect, then that’s a fault with you, and if there were any justice, you would be punished for it.
The whistleblower alleges that Trump made “a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike,”
Politifact even quotes both. Except the transcript reveals he made no such “specific request” to locate and turn over servers.
The Whistleblower alleges “ The President also praised Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelensky might want to keep him in his position”.
But that’s not true.
But politifact is right about one thing, something I’ve been saying the whole time.
Of course politifact wouldn’t go so far as to say that part is a complete and utter lie, fantasy, fabrication as I have done, but at least it’s there. That’s pretty damning to their whole case. This mischaracterization of Trump’s call, his motives, will sink the dem and whistleblower’s whole case.
As I said earlier in this thread, Trump makes his contempt of congress and the rule of law obvious every time he speaks. He has no comprehension of the notion of 'three co-equal branches of Government' and the role of the Presidency. This is why many conservatives are among the chorus of criticism. Everything Trump says is a lie, and he is bent on overturning the constitutional order. Make no mistake.
There’s your ‘coup’, and it’s for real.
Yes.
It looks like Republicans are just going for it: Constructing then goose-stepping to an alternate reality buttressed by Fox News and Facebook.
The time is ripe for this kind of foray. They're going for it.
I really hope this gets maximum airtime the next couple of days.
I think it says that they know what happened and this silly theater needs to end. We all know (1) exactly what Trump said in the phone call, (2) that the House would impeach, and (3) the Senate will acquit. It's not a fact finding mission. It's politics. If every witness testified he was the piece of shit you think him to be, it won't lead to his conviction and it won't affect the upcoming election.
He said he thought Bush's lies that led to war were impeachable. The rest is spin, where somehow that means Trump's lies are equatable to Bush's and similarly impeachable. That seems a debatable proposition.
I was just watching Trump at his Michigan rally just now for a few minutes and at one point he mentioned “in the Trump presidency 10 months is an eternity,” meaning that people will have a hard time remembering this crap a week after the senate vote, so no backlash for Liberals. Sounds about right to me.
I'm not sure how you got that from "possibly reveal new information [that] might make it more difficult to acquit Trump."
It's not just about the phone call, it's about what he actually did. The phone call wasn't the crime in itself, it led to the discovery of the crime of abuse of power, which involved much more, and which is described in detail in the report and backed up by multiple witnesses. And he obstructed justice by directing his minions not to obey subpoenas and such. Trump's blabbering on about his perfect phone call is just a silly distraction technique.
Then again, the whole thing is probably going to end up as little more than a distraction, so yes, mostly theater.
Yes, meaning the Democrats (no Republicans) condemned his behavior enough to send it to the Republican controlled Senate so that they can say there's insufficient evidence for his removal.
The only question now is whether this maneuvering will more energize the left or the right in the upcoming election. It's doubtful it will change a single vote from one side to the next, but it might cause more people to go to the polls.
This is the interesting question.
Who exactly will benefit from the upcoming impeachment ritual?
As noted by some people, in the end this might benefit Trump and just increase his status among his supporters as the "Teflon-President".
Not really. It's more about the Democrats having wanted to impeach him since he took office and waiting for whatever infraction came along right before the election so that they could do it then. Last I read, Pelosi intends to delay presenting the articles of impeachment to the Senate, I guess so that she can put it off to the eve of the election.
Nothing like prosecuting someone fully knowing there is no chance you will prevail.
If Bill Clinton is an example, it will help the party being impeached. My own thought is that you have a dickhead of a President who is tolerated by the moderate Republicans who will now come out in droves to support him in the upcoming election because there is nothing they hate more than the left that orchestrated this nonsense.
If there is a belief that this impeachment stains his image, it's wrong. This is entirely (as in literally, entirely) a partisan rebuke of a hated President, seen as nothing more by the right than an attempt to end the left's worst nightmare when Trump got elected.
And what's the endgame here? It's well within the realm of possibility that Trump wins, the Republicans win back both houses, and Ginsburg dies and opens up yet another Republican appointment. After this impeachment, there will be zero restraint. Like they say, if you're going to try to kill the king, you better make sure you kill him.
I'm saying that we all know what happened, and there's no reason to present witnesses now so that we can pretend we're actually on a fact finding mission. Everyone knew the House would impeach before they held all their hearings and everyone knows the Senate will acquit regardless of the hearings, so why must we keep up the facade that we're actually having a trial and people are actually deliberating what they might do? Does spinning our wheels serve some important democratic function?
Then what you're saying has nothing to do with the point of the article, which is that Republicans don't want witnesses because they're concerned that new information could provide more evidence of Trump's wrongdoing and make it harder for them to justify acquittal, showing that they care more about protecting their party than they doing about finding out the truth.
There's no point giving me the Sean Hannity "It's all a big conspiracy by Dems" line. He did it. Sondland et al are telling the truth and he's lying. Simple as that. That the Dems are partisan doesn't change anything. And whether or not he'll win the election, who knows. But yes, the polarity is fucking your country up royally.
Yet when it comes to Trump, absolutely anything can happen between today and election day. One year and everything can look different. Who knows. The Trump Presidency hasn't been boring, so likely it won't be boring in 2020.
I'm just waiting when Jeffrey Epstein's surveillance tapes of both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump having sex with underage girls hits the fan. Never a boring day in Trumpland. :halo:
Remember how regarding Kavanaugh you were all like: 'It's dastardly to destroy a man's reputation." I understood what you were saying and it influenced my view of the situation.
That's what Trump was trying to do to Biden... using the power of the presidency to accomplish it. All you republicans who are ok with that aren't making any sense to me. I try to understand what the fuck you could be thinking and I don't get it.
And pigs can fly.
Trump is so much an existential threat to national security and “our democracy” that she doesn’t want the trial to proceed at the pace of the inquiry.
What does the 6th Amendment have to do with it? Impeachment isn't a criminal trial.
She wants a fair trial, and McConnell has already made it clear that it won't be a fair trial, given his comments that he isn't impartial and that he will coordinate with the White House.
The simplest answer is that the Republicans don't care what Republicans do to advance the Republican agenda. Everything they say and do makes perfect sense with that understanding. Just look at McConnell. Denies Merrick Garland a hearing because "it's an election year" but then says he won't deny any potential Trump nominee even it it's an election year. Or Graham's remarks during Clinton's impeachment compared to whatever he says now. If you try to understand it as anything more than "my team must win by whatever means" then you'll get nowhere.
No, she wants an unfair trial, the same as the inquiry.
No, she wants a fair trial, the same as the inquiry.
Right, the inquiry was fair, the senate trial is unfair. Of course the senate trial hasn’t happened yet, and the inquiry was a Democrat show trial.
Yes. McConnell has said "Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can" and "I'm not an impartial juror."
That's direct evidence that the trial won't be fair.
It’s a political process, not a judicial one. The idea that only Dems can be partisan is absurd.
I assume you meant non-partisan? I don't claim that they are. I think that they certainly have partisan motivations, but I think that the facts are nonetheless on their side: Trump abused the powers of his office and obstructed Congress; this warrants removal from office; McConnell's comments show that as it stands a trial in the Senate won't be fair; they are justified in waiting until a fair trial (with witness testimony, as is usual during trials (criminal or otherwise)) is certain.
What, exactly, is your concern? That the Democrats will have witnesses lie under oath in an attempt to trick 20+ Republicans to vote to convict him? Or that witnesses will truthfully testify on Trump's wrongdoing and that 20+ Republicans will realize that they cannot justify acquittal? The article I sourced earlier suggests that the latter is a concern among the Senators themselves.
I meant partisan.
Well, no, none of the articles of impeachment are mentioned in the constitution, and none of what he has done warrants removal, or else every president would need to be impeached. They did claim bribery there for a hot minute because it sounded good with a focus-group, but I suspect after dangling that lure in front of their base for too long, the knew the errors of their case. They could dangle anything and their base will bite. The democrats threw an unfair show trial and now they want fairness. That’s rich. They’re not going to get it nor should they.
Then I'm confused, because I never suggested that "only Dems can be partisan".
"High crimes and misdemeanors" is, which covers such things as abuse of power and contempt of Congress, as shown in the impeachments of Clinton and Johnson and the almost-impeachment of Nixon.
Impeachment and Removal
Clinton committed perjury, a crime. Andrew Jackson violated acts and allegedly the constitution. Either way they were acquitted. How has Trump abused his power? He hasn’t.
He abused his power by illegally withholding aid approved by Congress to compel a foreign country to investigate a political rival.
And he obstructed Congress by refusing to comply with lawfully issued subpoenas and by ordering others to refuse to comply with lawfully issued subpoenas (which is a crime, as per 18 U.S. Code §?1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees).
Yes, which is to say they were found not guilty. That's not the same as the charges not being impeachable offenses.
How do you figure that? If using (or trying to use) government money to undermine a political rival isn't an impeachable offence then one can excuse nearly any kind of behavior. I imagine if one happen to be a king or if somehow a ruler and the government were the same thing so actions wouldn't be treason but as far as I know that isn't the type of government we have.....at least not yet.
He temporarily withheld it, which is legal and something they do all the time, and assisting Ukraine in tackling corruption is an obligation of treaty, namely, the Treaty Between
the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.
Yeah I don’t get the whole idea that one cannot investigate the corruption of a political rival because it might ruin his political chances. Do you think the possible corruption of Joe Biden should be avoided because it might undermine his campaign?
Just because someone is a democrat or doesn't support Trump and/or the Republican party, it doesn't automatically make that person a criminal or corrupt in some way. Because of this it isn't a given that Joe Biden, his son, or the rest of us are all going to secret cult meeting in the middle of the night to sacrifice virgins in the name of Satan or whatever it is Trump and his supporters think we are doing.
Also the problem is Trump was trying to use military aid (instead of his own money) to bribe the Ukrainian president to dig up dirt on his political rivals. If that isn't an example of plutocracy/crony capitalism in action then I don't know what is.
A lie.
"The illegal hold happened in August when Duffey was told by DOD that they wouldn't be able to spend funding by the end of the year if the hold continued and they ignored that. That's when the illegal action was," former Senior OMB lawyer Sam Berger told CNN.
Berger added that the Trump administration also failed to explain to Congress in a formal rescission notice why it wanted to withhold funds that Congress had approved. "It's a formal document that explains the money you want to withhold and why. It's a formal process and there's no question they did not do this" Berger said.
It’s not because he’s a Democrat, but because his son was being payed vast sums of cash by a corrupt Ukrainian company while his father was the point man in Ukraine.
Not a lie. General counsel of the OMB released a legal memo explaining why:
“For decades, OMB has routinely used its apportionment authority to prevent funds from being used,” Paoletta wrote, according to the Post.
“Often, in managing appropriations, OMB must briefly pause an agency’s legal ability to spend those funds for a number of reasons, including to ensure that the funds are being spent efficiently, that they are being spent in accordance with statutory directives, or to assess how or whether funds should be used for a particular activity," he reportedly continued.
I don't see the situations as at all similar, where you had the Senate conducting an overreaching attack on a potential Justice and Trump trying to investigate Biden for what might be (if true) something that could affect the election. Regardless, no one is saying that Trump ought be impeached because he dared attempt to tarnish the reputation of the good Biden family, but it's because he attempted to do it through an abuse of power as President.
I will say also that I'd likely be more forgiving of Biden for his past transgression than most in terms of whether he ought be excluded as a candidate. I do have a problem with the way we dispose of people for imperfections. My decision not to vote for Biden will be because I disagree with his policies, which is in part why I don't really care that Trump is a pretty useless piece of humanity.
The whole impeachment thing is a political process. It's simply not an objective fact finding mission. You have partisan people pushing forth political agendas, and the greatest nonsense is the talking point of the Dems where they say their objective is to protect the holy Constitution, a thing greater than themselves that transcends all party affiliation. No one on the right takes it seriously. It's seen a a coup.
What this means is that if the left wants this taken seriously, they either have to obtain bipartisan support or they need to go about some other order of business. This has been a profound waste of time that will have no impact other than to shake up the election process one way or the other. I trust the politicians to be political, and have no reason to think any one of them actually thought all this wrangling would result in Trump's removal, so I have to believe the real reason for this was to help them politically, regardless of what their pretense might be.
American polarity leads to theater and gridlock, whereas Britain's leads to severing ties with Europe and having a good piece of its nation making efforts to secede. I think it's a strength of the American system that during periods of great strife the status quo becomes impenetrable.
And none of this was proven just as Obama it was never proven that some kind of manchurian candidate or pretty much all other ridiculous right wing conspiracies that are concocted to discredit nearly anyone who runs against republicans or is in office.
Also you are completely ignoring the fact that it IS against the law to misuse government money like it is part of your own personal slush fund even if what you think you are doing is the right thing which is why Trump and his lackeys tried so hard not to let anyone find out what they were doing. Anyone with common sense knows that if anyone else than Trump did what he did then they would both lose their job and have to serve some time in jail. Instead all he is getting is a slap on the hand which both him and the republican are bitching and moaning that it is too heavy handed by the democrats.
If the average american government worker so much as gets or gives a nice pen (or a lunch) to a vendor for help for whatever they are liable to being prosecuted to either being bribed or attempted bribery. However if your a politician, lobbyist, or have some other similar position where "campaign contributions" begin ends and bribery begins is a bit of a gray area.
They aren't similar because the Senate had a lady claiming to have been raped by Kavanaugh. Nobody but Trump cronies are claiming Biden was guilty of profiting from corruption in Ukraine.
You're allowing that Trump might have been right to attack Biden because Biden might have been corrupt. By that logic we should have ditched Kavanaugh because he might have been a rapist.
Quoting Hanover
I thought I would vote for Trump as a sort of sabotage-America-vote. It's too much trouble, though.
That's exactly not what I'm saying. I'm saying my vote against Biden will be based upon his political positions. I doubt the validity of Trump's accusations, but I'm not terribly interested in them either, considering I've noted I'm not voting for Biden regardless.
Anyway, take me at my word, I really don't believe in discarding human beings for their personal failures. It's an endearingly liberal part of my otherwise harsh personality.
Yep, I guess so.
Yes, it's political, but he's guilty as fuck anyway, so let's talk about that instead of Partisan Dems! which is just a Republican distraction technique.
Edit: Or maybe let's not. I think we both know the deal anyway.
Oh. But I don't think the drama was meant to influence you. It was for swing voters.
Quoting Hanover
OK.
The conspiracy that Trump is a Manchurian candidate, that he colluded with Russia, made it to the highest parts of the government. To the chagrin of many it was proven false. This was literally concocted by the Democrats as their Russian-sourced dirt was used as the impetus for the investigations. There was no such investigation of Obama.
Other administrations misused funds and none of them went to jail as far as I know. Meanwhile Trump is getting impeached. So I’m not so sure your common sense is working in this regard.
A lie.
Where was it proven false?
He's guilty of wanting dirt on a political rival and flexing his muscle to get it by insinuating money would be withheld indefinitely if assistance wasn't provided. In the end, the money was given and weapons were provided in excess of what the prior administration gave, despite not having received the dirt he wanted. Then a big to-do was held where all the people who have wanted him out of office since day one convened and held sanctimonious hearings before a half-concerned public and Trump refused to participate. For that, he's charged with abuse of power and obstruction of bullshit.
Then there's the nebulous matter of what constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor worthy of overturning an election, with the left saying it's the above and the right rolling their eyes.
So, when you say "he's guilty as fuck," that doesn't mean much, considering it's not clear that even if he's guilty of doing the things he's accused of that it constitutes a worthy removable offense. The decision of whether this is a removable offense is wholly (as is literally wholly) political. If there were actually a law with specific elements that had to be satisfied that I could weigh against some facts, then this whole inquiry might be more interesting. Instead, it's just a bunch of Democrats screaming at Trump, who care just about as much as when Trump screams at them.
I'll go on as record as the distinguished Senator from Hanorville as agreeing with every fact submitted by the Democrats and voting that Trump remain in office, as I believe his actions fall within the typical behavior of the typical Congressman on a typical Wednesday, yet he at least votes in a way that is ideologically similar to my own.
So there's an igloo formed of human shit, and for some reason the only way to enter it is to dive into it, and then a bunch of people lop off their genitals so they can complete their dive, and then, when they do, they cry out "I'm in a 5 star hotel"?
I mean maybe, but I just don't think this is going to happen.
There was this long investigation by a man named Robert Mueller that found no such crime, namely, because no such crime existed in the first place.
A lie.
I suppose you mean to say Trump was "totally exonerated"?
Because he got caught.
It's the equivalent of saying a bank robber should get let off the hook because he was stopped before he could get his hands on the money.
A lie.
"Mueller: President Trump was not 'totally exonerated' in Russia probe and can be indicted after he leaves office"
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/24/mueller-testimony-trump-was-not-totally-exonerated-in-russia-probe.html
“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities”.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report.html
So much for your conspiracy theory.
If it's just politics, - no justice, just theater -, why are republicans crying out for the show to be stopped now? If it's all just politics, the new game, same as the old game, then aren't republicans just being sore and hypocritical losers?
When Mitch et al. blocked Obama's supreme court appointment, he was just doing politics: resisting a democratically elected president in a purely partisan agenda... That's what the impeachment trial is right? So why should democrats lose a single wink over spilled republican milk?
There is probably a lot more to this matter than what you make of it here. The Democrats may have layered the strategy. The Senate has a complex election system, with representation by state. It is likely that some Senators will have a tough decision to make. Some Republican Senators will face the prospect of not getting re-elected if they side with Trump. There may be a shake up of the Senate, or there may be division in the Republican party. Either way, the Democrats come out ahead.
Faster faster; tremendous: best!~
There's no longer any knowing,
Which direction we are going.
There's no knowing why they're crowing,
Or which way the boons are flowing.
Is it warming? Is it snowing?
Are more hurricanes a-blowing?
Not a feck of light is showing.
Shall we assume the dangers must not be growing?
Are the circus lights just a-glowing?
Or is the grisly she-reaper mowing?
Yes, the danger must be growing,
For the crowers keep on crowing.
And they're certainly not showing
Any signs that they are slowing...
37 Republican Senators have already gone on record as opposing removal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/senate-impeachment-votes/
They need 67 to remove. It was over before it began.
We know Trump is extremely unlikely to be convicted by the Senate. The issue is which Republican Senators will be inclined to vote against Trump to ensure personal re-election, and what kind of division this will create within the party. And if they do not vote against Trump they face the prospect of being replaced by a Democrat.
The real question is the number of Democrat detectors there will be. In the House, 3 Dems defected and 0 Repubs. I'm not sure why you think it'll be any different in the Senate.
Was Trump, in your view, "totally exonerated"?
That is a straw man argument since as far as I known news source (left wing or otherwise) has made such claims. What they have claimed is that Russia has been trying to meld in US politics and in the 2016 election they used such melding to help Trump get elected. Why they prefer Trump over Hillary isn't clear but rumor has it that Putin has a video tape of Trump with some escorts (as well as other things) which could be used as leverage if Trump decided to make things difficult for Putin. Whether there is any truth to this or the idea that Russia believes Trump as president will undermine the US is a bit speculative...all that is really known is that Russia did interfere and while Trump isn't directly guilty of collusion with them, he is far from being innocent in the whole matter.
Quoting NOS4A2
Are you talking about administrations that did it and didn't get caught like Trump and therefore were more difficult to try to impeach or are you talking about some that was caught doing something along the lines of what Trump did and the Republicans were totally asleep at the switch at doing anything about it. Which is very hard to believe since they like to shit storm over any little thing that happens.
Also the argument that Trump should be able to get away with it because it is possible that some other administration "might" have been able to get away with something almost just as bad is similar to the argument that any murder should be set free since there have been people in the past that have managed to get away with murder.
When one throws truth out the window in lieu of whatever works... rhetoric, propaganda, double standards, etc., and the American people already see that as normal...
There ya go.
Something to note... the Republican talking points are always fairly simple sounding, easy to understand, and everyone is on the same page saying the same things about the same stuff.
That matters more than most realize I think... indoctrination works the same way...
Those witnesses need to be heard, particularly if they have been previously ordered to not obey subpoena.
Mitch McConnell's statements about coordinating with the president and already having the exact some position as the president on the matter, when he's supposed to be acting as an impartial objective unbiased judge on the matter is dereliction of duty...
It's not supposed to be.
Dereliction of duty.
But it is.
The process is a literal show trial. Like, actual political theatre. That anyone at all is invested in it is utterly bizzare.
Hmmm...
Seems a bit more to me that perhaps the reason it all seems so bizzare is because the very fact that someone like Trump has won, and is being protected at all costs by the Republican party even when that protection is a clear and undeniable contradiction to the US Constitution shows that there are some very compelling reasons governing their behaviour...
And it's not because they like Trump personally, although they seem to have gotten over the fact that a tactless unreserved rude crass spoiled rich kid attained the power of the presidency...
That it is a known fact that Russia successfully interfered with the election, but nothing at all has been done about making sure that it does not happen again..
OUGHT MAKE US ALL WONDER WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON IN WASHINGTON?
He won't tell unless we do.
No this has nothing to do with what I said.
Not quite predetermined but with an atmosphere of predetermination. The odds are not x to zero.
The fascinating bit is the contest of simulacra. The Trumpists are attempting to foist on us a doozy of a simulacrum.
I'm saying... simply...
The Republicans and their donors ARE invested.
It's not bizarre unless the above is not being seriously taken into consideration.
I see at least three major differences. There's no need for any Democrats in the Senate to defect because conviction is highly unlikely. Also the population represented is different as Senators represent an entire state. And, I think there are a number of Republican senators who have expressed dislike of Trump in the past..
It'll be history, and there is always people who care about history
.Quoting Hanover
I forgot to mention the most important thing. There's sure to be at least one republican Senator who want's Trump's position. That's why Trump wants the trial to blow by as fast as possible, and the Democrats want to drag it out a bit, let the wannabes stoke the fire..
It's not like the US blew up Iran in 2019. That would be historic.
Three democrats voted against.
Speaking of investment, DNC dark money is huge right now. The PACs are working overtime for a return on it.
So, back to your business. Nothing to see here so far except for a bunch of House members bickering.
Anyone who would claim that Trump is not divisive is probably not worth arguing with.
It's apparently even divisive to claim he's not divisive.
OH YES HE HAS. The articles of impeachment have been passed, by record margins, and he is, and forever will have been, impeached, regardless of what happens in the (corrupt, spineless, supine) Senate.
“These kinds of totals aren’t unheard of,” Maguire added. “I do think they’re unheard of on the liberal side. I think that’s what’s so striking about this.”
So before pointing out this dark money, let's remember the republicans have been responsible for 70% of dark money in every election cycle since Citizens United.
Not until they've transmitted the articles to the Senate does the impeachment occur. That requires an act of the House, not the Senate.
I am aware of the unprecedented nature of the impeachment proceeding, occurring without a single vote from the other party,
This impeachment was not by record margins. In the Jackson impeachment, the House voted 126-47-17 (abstains) to impeach, which is 66%. Trump's was 230-197, which is 54%.
No, I just didn’t think LuckilyDifinative’s argument would be amusing. I’m sure that yours would be hysterical though, if you would be so generous as to share it with us.
Whataboutism.
They believe he’s the second-coming of Hitler, so it’s not a stretch for them to believe he can divide millions of people like Moses does the Red Sea.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1208240210364051456?s=21[/tweet]
It definitely would be, but I'm not an organ grinder monkey here for your entertainment. I'm a real person with real feelings.
Suit yourself.
Quoting NOS4A2
He memes and shitposts for political reasons, numbnuts.
This is not true. He has been impeached, the Senate trial then decides whether he should be removed from office. But the passing of the articles of impeachment means impeachment.
The Senate has not been asked to decide anything and there has been no request by the House that Trump be considered for removal from office. Sure, it's a simple act for Pelosi to hand the articles to the Senate, but until she does, the Senate has nothing to consider.
He was impeached in the public's imagination. That's all that matters.
Since the public will think it was a witch hunt post acquittal, democrats won't profit at all from the impending show trial. May as well hold the articles indefinitely.
Capital-P Politicians aren't the only politicians. Con-artists are politicians too: power is their art and their science.
Trump is the consummate con-artist-politician. A born carnival barker.
After P. T. Barnum: this is Trump's circus and you - Nosferatu - are its sucker.
Is he the sucker? Or are we, for giving him a stage and willing actors? Who do you think stands to gain from keeping up the appearance of a debate?
We're carnies. He's the barker.
There is no way I see to stop being a carny. I might as well exercise my wit and prose.
I know how that sounds, but the rest of the world has ostensibly been watching Trump get away with apparently criminal acts, and since America is supposed to the best and baddest and most free democracy around, it sends the message that democracy doesn't work. America still sets global precedent, and even though many Americans care more about short term expediency than highfalutin ideals, it's the highfalutin ideals (if sound) that give us long-term civil stability (both as nations and as a global community of nations).
Even with the lower house's impeachment, it is still a strong reprimand that will give future presidents pause. If every time a president commits impeachable acts we all say "but if we try to impeach then they will just get a boost in the next election cycle" then no president will ever be impeached unless the upper and lower houses have a majority against the president's party, and America will effectively become a two party dictatorship where both sides take turns jerking the wheel to spite the chassis...
Think about what "most free democracy" means and you'll see why democracy doesn't work.
And yet the leader has already spoken as if it is fait accompli?
I see why it means: democracy is not perfect, but I'm not sure why you're saying it doesn't work...
And the reason that the articles have not been forwarded, is because Schumer and McConnell haven't been able to agree on the rules. McConnell has basically stated outright that he intends to acquit Trump with as little commentary as possible, whilst Schumer is demanding to hear from Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton and perhaps a couple of others. McConnell has said that it's 'pointless to re-run all the hearings', which is another of many lies, because those individuals have been gagged by Trump. So the Democrats are quite rightly taking their time, rather than cave in to a rubber-stamping exercise by the corrupted Senate.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Indeed there is. And I strongly suspect that the longer this is drawn out, the more lunatic Trump's behaviour will become. It would not be at all surprising if he did something so outrageous that he has to resign, or, if Mulvaney or Bolton do testify, that their testimony is so conclusive that he has no choice to resign. But in any case, myself and a few hundred million others are really hoping that he does, because if he's acquitted by the Senate, then what you're seeing will not be an impeachment, but the coronation of the Emperor.
Political, yes. But philosophical? You can’t say trump has a philosophy besides a fairly uninteresting brand of opportunism.
There's no rule that every discussion on this forum is confined to philosophy, current affairs is also a subject of discussion. You will note there's a long-running thread on Brexit also.
As Churchill grimly remarked, 'democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.'
The "most free democracy" will provide more freedom than what is good.
The House can try to manipulate the process in the Senate, which will have no impact on the final result. Regardless, Trump has yet to be impeached, which means that not only is conviction incredibly unlikely, but it's becoming unclear whether Trump will even be impeached by the House.
It was only a matter of time before they impeached Trump for word crimes. It was too difficult for them to find actual crimes, so they reduced themselves to scouring his statements for transgressions of speech, and then lying about them to make them seem worse than they are. Whether it was Schiff’s parody, or Escobar’s and Lee’s “misquotation”, they can never seem to get those words right.
Of course! I’m being facetious
Philosophy is useless if it cannot be applied to all things
Do you have news media in your part of the world? It would seem not, from your comments.
//ps// you only have to google Trump Impeached by House. //
So, as we’re here, let's review the Republican Party's defense of Trump.
Important point: there is none. Trump himself has not uttered a single word in defense of the charges brought against him. His only statements on the matter is that the impeachment is a sham, a witch-hunt, and a hoax.
As is typical with Trump, all of these statements are lies. The impeachment enquiry is a properly-constituted, legally-mandated and factually-grounded warrant for the investigation of crimes in high office. Abundant, some would say damning, evidence of crimes has been revealed through the process thus far. In reality, Trump's conduct is indefensible, so the only way to proceed is by sending out a barrage of falsehoods to bury and distract from the facts - which is what the Republican party is doing. And you can't help but notice that constant repetition of the falsehoods is parrotted by many people. So this fallacious excuse for a 'defense' is working, is because people are willing dupes.
The Lies Have It: Republicans abandon truth in Trump impeachment defence
Republican Impeachment Lies are protecting Trump, but they could destroy America.
Trump Has Been Impeached. Republicans Are Following Him Down.
How to Disengage With the Republican Conspiracy Theories Swirling Around Impeachment.
Finally, the suggestion that 'impeachment is a waste of time, because the Senate is going to acquit' is another lie. Impeachment by the House has already left an indelible mark on the Trump presidency and proven beyond reasonable doubt that he has engaged in impeachable offenses. Secondly, if the Senate trial were to be conducted fairly and openly - which is exactly what Mitch McConnell is working furiously to prevent - then it's quite feasible that evidence will emerge which torpedoes the adamantine shell of Republican mendacity, leading to Trump's removal from office.
Noah Feldman:
"Until a few weeks ago, no one, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that impeachment could be complete even if there is no communication to the Senate. And no historic example of this new idea has been brought forward in the current discussion. This issue isn’t merely theoretical or “academic” in the pejorative sense. It has major political implications for the current stand-off between Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell."
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-22/trump-impeachment-why-can-t-the-senate-start-a-trial-now
Why are the articles of impeachment not being sent to the Senate? Read the news accounts. McConnell and Lindsay Graham have both openly stated that they are making no pretence of impartiality and that they’re taking their leads from the White House. Schumer is insisting that testimony be heard from Bolton and Mulvaney. So the Democrats are saying, as of this morning, that this is further evidence of a cover-up and obstruction of justice, and I think that is self-evidently true.
The man who made the claim was one of the Democrat’s witnesses, Noah Feldman. The republican witness disputed his claims. Don’t you have news media where you live?
Just typical of the way facts are routinely manipulated by Trump lackeys.
No, Clinton's articles of impeachment went to the Senate, at which point he was impeached. Trump hasn't been impeached.
Apparently the House, having no respect for the most fundamental of Constitutional principles, namely the separation if powers, refuses to cede the power to the Senate to hold its trial as it sees fit. If the Founders trusted a single body to both impeach and try a President, they they'd have written the Constitution that way. They attempted to protect against the very abuse of power we're now seeing.
What we have is a serious abuse of power, holding hostage the articles to gain an advantage in an election so that a political oppononent can be subjected to an investigation. Where have I heard such charges before?
A most delicious irony.
This is from the legal scholar who the Republicans called for the hearings. Explain to us where he says Trump has not been impeached.
The truth is obvious here. The House accomplished something the Senate will undo, so they want to delay it or possibly stop it by complaining the Senate can't be fair. It's all politics, so hop off your high horse and just admit both sides are just selling different brands of bullshit but you prefer Brand D over R.
If the Senate can't try him, he's not been impeached. Whoever says to the contrary is wrong.
Abuse of power is what got us here in the first place. You can call it a "political process" like Mitch McConnell et al., but in reality when he turns around and says "I'm not an impartial juror, and I will take cues from the president's defense lawyers", it unambiguously undermines the whole separation of powers line that republicans love to flout.
If the lower house found that the president abused power and obstructed congress(and once they transmit the articles), is the senate not obligated to orchestrate a fair judicial process to get to the bottom of it?
So when Mitch says he is going to take a steaming shit on the congress by biasing the judicial process in the senate, it's actually a constitutional crisis for which there is neither precedent nor obvious solution.
I wonder... Is it a crime to violate an oath to be an impartial juror in an impeachment trial?
The Constitution says nothing about articles of impeachment either, so I'd suspect the could impeach by just saying it. Maybe the Senate can start the trial now, considering you're saying the impeachment is complete.
You sort of made up the thing about Senators taking an oath to be impartial jurors. They represent those who elected them. Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yeah, except Senators aren't part of the judiciary, they are part of the legislature, so they don't act like judges, nor do House members.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
They can do whatever they want to. It's their chamber and if you don't like it, vote them out. If this were an actual judicial inquiry there'd be an actual law cited as having been violated, with specific elements to be proved, and impartial jurors selected to consider it.
Very nicely put.
Republicans do know where they have to stand. During Nixon's time, they were far more confident where they stood. They could throw away Nixon and be confident that they would have enough popular support in election (even if the Dems got Carter later). Now they aren't so confident about themselves anymore, hence they will defend to the last man Trump, even if they hate the guy privately.
You’re now entering the realm of parody.
Article 1, section 3, clause 6:
When sitting for an impeachment trial, the senators shall be on oath or affirmation... The senators are essentially judge and jury, but they also aren't meant to decide what is and is not an impeachable offense (for they are already detailed in the constitution, and it's not the senate's prerogative to set precedent in constitutional law, or to ignore it's stipulations (the constitution is modified by state ratification, and interpreted by the Supreme Court.)). Because the senate is the sole authority in impeachment trials, I'm not sure if the Supreme court would or could actually rule on what is or is not an impeachable offense, but that certainly doesn't mean that senators get to cherry pick absolutely any kind of interpretation they wish( at least that's not the intent outlined in the constitution).
For example, here are the oaths that the senators agreed to for the Clinton trial:
"Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the united states, not pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?"
In other words, if it is abundantly clear that the president abused his powers, but the senate decides to nullify his guilt by acquitting him anyway, then they will have violated such an oath, and even without swearing any oath or affirming any intentions, will have undermined the constitution. Clause 6 is meant to make it clear that the judicial process that is impeachment demands impartiality. Impeachment is not a political tool, despite the deepest hypocritical desires of the Republican bloc.
That's called "situational irony"...
Dereliction of one's solemnly sworn duty...
Technically there is no actual formal "jurors oath" as far as I know (or at least no defined penalties). I think in a typical civil, state or federal case, it would be obstructing the chamber (obstructing its justice). Contempt or Obstruction maybe, but probably not perjury. That said, impeachment trials are unicorns, so this is probably something the Supreme Court would get to decide.
The oath to take the public office they preside over includes upholding the Constitution... which most certainly includes performing their role as judge regarding the guilt/innocence of the accused based upon the facts and testimony brought into evidence...
A judge who is fulfilling his/her duty does not openly and publicly state that they are already of the exact same position as the accused prior to allowing the trial/hearing to proceed. When the accused is the president and that president has already ordered specific witnesses to not honor subpoena, and that judge says what McConnell has said...
:down: :angry:
That is dereliction of duty.
But it's the Senator's role to interpret and apply the constitution during an impeachment trial. If what @Hanover suggests is true, then the Senate essentially has the authority to do whatever they want, where the only recourse is voting them out (even if they gerrymander or seek to rig elections in their favor apparently). If the senate gets to decide to any degree what the constitution means or when it should be ignored, then yes, that's fucked. Another level of irony given it's the republicans who are obsessed with appealing to founder's intentions in constitutional interpretation...
[hide]
What sort of interpretation could possibly include proclaiming what McConnell publicly proclaimed prior to trial? He publicly announced that his position was already aligned with the accused. The accused has been openly publicly denouncing the entire constitutional process and ordering specific people(witnesses) to not honor the process itself...
Everyone is equal under the law. No one is above the law.
I can just hardly restrain my grin when, at this stage, Republicans will still make an appeal to the constitution, let alone the idea of separation of powers, to argue that impeachment is a useless partisan tool.
Is it mere shortsightedness? Self service?
Or is it just the classic miasma of emotional dogma?
It's called gaslighting.
Edit: I'm referring to Republican politicians here btw, not suggesting we insult our esteemed interlocutors in this discussion. *Ahem*.
But I much prefer a goold old fashioned pants-yank :)
Let the whole world see their resplendent new robes...
Your attempt to directly analogize a judicial proceeding with an impeachment fails on many levels. The President has been accused vaguely of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that the House has itemized as "abuse of power" and "obstruction." There are no specific elements that must be proved for those crimes and they were created by the House ex post facto. That is the way impeachment is done, legally and constitutionally, but in a real judicial hearing it would be fundamentally unfair. There would also be a clear burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt), but here none is specified, a serious problem for an accused. There are also no rules of evidence, meaning hearsay, character attacks and the like might be admissible, as might be consideration of evidence outside the proceeding.
This is, by its nature, a free for all dependent upon the subjective whims of the Senate, very doubtfully reviewable by the courts. Impeachment is democracy turning in on itself, where our representatives vote out our representatives. It's therefore designed to be nearly impossible, requiring both houses to agree, with the upper house requiring a super majority. The brick wall the Democrats are running into was built there over 200 years ago, and I'm thankful for that. The ballot box is where revolutions happen in democracies not by the party that lost a most bitter election.
You just really don't fully understand the judicial process. How does this case get to the Court? Who has standing to bring it? Someone is going to sue a Senator for failing to exercise his discretion in what they believe required (under what law?) and they're going to do what? File for equitable relief (a writ of mandamus) or they're going to ask for money damages? Are you moving for contempt? You think a judge can disqualify a Senator? You just don't realize how little sense you're making.
No, the problem is I'm right, even if the Democrats are right that Trump deserves removal. The Senate gets to be wrong and that'll be the final word. I'd say the same thing if the Senate removed an honest President for no good reason at all. This idea that there is a philosopher king protecting us from our dumb ass selves is just the silly stuff of philosophy forums.
So when the trial begins, the senators are going to swear an oath to uphold their subjective whims?
Quoting Hanover
They could always be impeached for it (which would also happen in the senate... See the problem of partisanship being applied to impeachment?) Senatorial whims have nothing to do with it. They're oath bound to uphold the law... Impeachment is the primary tool we have for dealing with representatives who violate the law, subvert the constitution, or betray the the people...
So let me get this straight:
The founders gave the senate the power of "impeachment", the most critical and sensitive type of judicial proceedings in the land, which ought to be carried out with the highest possible degree of care and and impartiality (because it affects the welfare of everyone, and the health of the nation), because they expected them to just hold mock trials based on partisan whim?
There are thousands of pages, and many hours, of witness testimony, which attest in enormous detail to Trump’s attempt to extort a foreign power by withholding aid to elicit help for political gain. Many of those witnesses were appointed by Trump and are generally witnesses of repute and professional standing. Really, the evidence against Trump is overwhelming, which is why the Republicans can’t defend him. All they can do is attack the process and obfuscate. Like you are doing.
The Constitution is the only tool that can be used to remove one who is unfit from the office of the presidency. A corrupt president who has acted in impeachable ways will attempt to divert public attention away from this fact of American government. A president whose been falsely accused knows that there is no evidence otherwise. I mean, it's not like he's walking black at night! A president who faithfully executes the powers afforded to the office must allow the impeachment process to be enacted by those with the power to do so. That holds good regardless of innocence/guilt.
What sort of precedent would be set if the president ordered people within his administration to not honor an official subpoena to appear as an integral part of a constitutional process that the president himself has sworn to uphold?
That is to use your power as a means to obstruct and/or otherwise impede an ongoing constitutional process. It is to interfere with the specific intent of not allowing someone to tell their story about the president's own behaviour(which is precisely what's being investigated). It is to impede and/or obstruct the investigation.
That's precisely what this president has done. This behaviour screams for proper privately intrusive investigation. No one is above the law, Mr. President.
This particular process is one of emergency measure that only need be enacted in times when the president's behaviour leaves no reasonable doubt that he is not fit to be occupying that public office; that he is not faithfully executing the powers granted to the office of the presidency. Allowing the other braches of government to do their job, especially when it is such a specific job that only arises under very specific conditions - such as carefully investigating the president - is something that all presidents must do.
That's precisely what this president is not doing.
The impeachment process is the only defense that this republican nation has against someone who thinks, believes, and publicly says that he can get away with and/or do whatever he wants to do, because he is the president.
That is our president.
What sort of precedent would be set if the very parties responsible for dutifully enacting the closing proceedings laid out within these constitutional measures... these impeachment process guidelines... were to know that the above were true, and subsequently refused to faithfully enact those duties? What if they neglected to execute one particular responsibility bestowed upon them and only them... to look at the charges levied against the president by means of weighing all the relevant evidence, including the testimony of the very people which this president ordered to not appear in spite of subpoena?
What kind of precedent are we setting here?
Mitch McConnell knows all this. By not allowing these witnesses to appear and give testimony about the charges he is himself is complicit in the obstruction charge as well as dereliction of his own sworn duties, impeachment responsibilities notwithstanding...
But isn't it cool that presidents can use the state apparatus to subvert the democratic process and give themselves an unfair advantage in upcoming elections? Isn't the right to do that what we should really be protecting?
*Squirts gas over American public. Grabs Zippo.*
Sorry, but word crimes are actual crimes, especially when you're the president of the United States of America, because your words actually have power.
Quoting Hanover
Why is it not the discretion of the House, to deliver the papers when they see fit? It does not make sense that the Senate can force the House to deliver the papers at any particular time.
Quoting ssu
What does this say, that the Republicans are convinced that they cannot come up with a better candidate than Trump? That's pathetic.
Quoting Hanover
The accusation is not at all vague, it's very clear. The evidence presented is somewhat vague though, because key witnesses have not yet testified.
Quoting Hanover
And Mr. Putin has an extremely rejoiceful Christmas!!!
And this is non-responsive to my post. My comment relates to the vague Constitutional standard and the legal description of the allegations contained in the articles, not the factual basis of the allegations.
For example, if you're charged with theft, there will be a clear law setting forth the several criteria that must be met for a theft to occur. The jury willl then determine if the facts establish a theft.
In an impeachment, there are no such criteria to be met. There's just a vague Constitutional standard that the House then sets forth into a more specific allegation after the offense is committed (ex post facto). Whether the House's articles actually describe a "high crime and misdemeanor" will remain an open question for each Senator to answer.
You act like there's this clear impeachment process, yet one doesn't exist. If there is one, why is the House trying to negotiate a process with the Senate? In a courtroom, the State doesn't have to negotiate a procedure with the accused. Explain that.
You're just making stuff up. There is no "clear law" setting forth the criteria of theft, or any such crime, just like there is no clear criteria for high crimes and misdemeanors of a president. If there was such clarity the lawyers would be without a job. And it's very clear that there are a lot of lawyers making a lot of money in this world.
I think the Mueller investigation showed that this isn't always the case. Part of the reason that no member of the Trump campaign was charged with an offense against 52 U.S. Code §?30121 was "because there was no way to place a value on the information that never materialized at the Trump Tower meeting." The law just doesn't provide any criteria for "other thing of value."
Although that's true, they can refer to actual laws being broken which does make it much less of an open question. For example refusing to comply with subpoenas which is an offense against 18 U.S. Code §?1505. So although the first article of impeachment is somewhat vague, the second is pretty clearly defined.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It is, and when they do, the President will be impeached, but not before. As you guys have gone on and on describing the great need for this impeachment and congratulated one another on each other's rhetoric, you'd think the House would actually impeach this President instead of playing politics.
The Georgia law on theft, for example:
"A person commits the offense of theft by taking when he unlawfully takes or, being in lawful possession thereof, unlawfully appropriates any property of another with the intention of depriving him of the property, regardless of the manner in which the property is taken or appropriated.".
Each provision of this statute must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If a statue is unclear or vague, it will be struck down as unconstitutionally void for vagueness. As you can imagine, if the government were permitted to vaguely define laws, the citizens would never know what is legal or not, and could be subject to unpredictable prosecutions.
Don't class me as "you guys", I've already accepted and mentioned political strategy which the House Democrats might be employing. Political strategy is a big part of the political process. There's no problem there. It's when you take that strategy beyond acceptable, or lawful practises (Nixon for example), that there is a problem.
Quoting Hanover
That looks circular to me. Where's the "clear law" setting forth the criteria of theft? To say that theft occurs when someone unlawfully takes something does not provide a clear law of when theft occurs. your "law" is self referential. The law is broken when someone acts unlawfully. What determines "unlawfulness" in this instance? That is what is required here.
There is a legal means to enforce a Congressionally issued subpoena. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-congress-subpoena-explainer/explainer-congress-no-longer-runs-a-jail-so-just-how-powerful-are-its-subpoenas-idUSKCN1S02K8
The remedy against someone who disputes the legitimacy of a subpoena is enforcement, not the overturning of an election.
Your suggestion that there is no difference between the vagueness of the impeachment process and the clarity of a criminal prosecution isn't interesting. It's wrong on far too many levels to divert into. It's not a position anyone takes, and to the extent you think I'm arguing that impeachment is invalid because of its distinct standard, you're wrong.
Actually, it's your claim that there is clarity in any criminal trial, which is wrong at the most basic level.. Therefore the division you attempted to create is completely unsubstantiated, and you ought to recognize this.
What's the relevance of this? I was just explaining that the grounds for impeachment aren't always "vague" and "open". There are legal standards that can be used should Congress wish to apply them.
Quoting Hanover
Impeachment isn't overturning an election.
Trump rails against windmills: 'I never understood wind'
John Bowden
TheHill
Dec 2019
Incidentally: On Bullshit
I can only hope that these recent events get enough Americans off their lazy asses to vote. The democratic nominee will be important as well...
Trump stands no chance against Bernie. I'm awaiting those debates, and I hope that they are many and about what's wrong in American politics and how it got to be that way...
Trump is the poster child of corruption in American politics. He's a symptom of much deeper problems. The manifestation of cancer caused by monetary corruption and long standing traditions of glorifying immoral behaviour and rugged individualism.
What “actual crime” did Trump commit? First it was bribery, extortion, “a classic Mafia-like shakedown” as Schiff called It, and of course the media’s obsequious base followed right along. Now it’s...obstruction of congress? Sorry, but there never was any actual crime to begin with, just a snivelling, well funded political corporation known as the DNC living out its fantasies.
The deliberately vague nature of the description of impeachment in the Constitution is attributable to the fact that the framers couldn't, and knew they couldn't, envisage the circumstances in which such a remedy might be required. So the description is high-level and open-ended, stipulating only 'high crimes and misdemeanours', although it does specifically mention 'bribery and treason', both of which are clearly arguable for Trump (anyone remember the infamous Helskinki Press Conference, where Trump sided with Vladimir Putin against his own intelligences services live on international television?)
There is considerable evidence of impeachable acts by Trump, including hours of testimony by State Department employees (or ex-employees, as some have been fired for impeding Trump and Giuliani's allegedly corrupt intent.)
Hence, he's being impeached.
Quoting Hanover
This is not ordinary civil law. Impeachment is a unique measure intended to provide the other co-equal branches of Government with the means to remedy crimes and abuses by the President. (Judges can also be, and have been, impeached.)
In regard to the negotiation of rules - Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote a letter to Mitch McConnell requesting that John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney be called to testify (amongst several others) on the basis that they were in the position to know what had happened. McConnell immediately rejected this request saying that it would amount to running the whole trial again. The falsehood here is that neither of these individuals testified, and furthermore, Trump had issued a blanket ban against any form of cooperation (which incidentally suggests Trump's guilt, as had such testimony been exculpatory, then Trump would have no reason to suppress it.)
Furthermore both McConnell and Lindsay Graham made statements to the effect that they are 'taking direction from the White House', that they had no intention of acting impartially, and that, in effect, they were guaranteeing a rubber-stamp acquittal of Trump with minimal testimony. (Although McConnell has been forced to backtrack at least partially, saying that he will leave the possibility of further testimony open, depending on what happens when the senate trial starts.)
So I think it is quite proper for the Democratic Party to refrain from forwarding the Articles of Impeachment for consideration until these concerns are addressed. If Trump is acquitted in the Senate, he will doubtlessly crow about 'total and complete exoneration', and God knows what he will do then. Suspend the Constitution? Declare a state of emergency? Who could stop him, if he's been allowed to treat Congress and the Constitution with such blatant contempt?
Quoting NOS4A2
Aside from the clearly illegal conduct which form the basis for the actual charges, Trump has committed many impeachable offenses in office.
Donald Trump has hit the Corruption Trifecta
Referring to the request to 'keep the email quiet', this mirrors the movement of the original Call Transcript to a top-secret server immediately after the Zelensky call was concluded, which is unusual for transcripts of such allegedly routine (or 'perfect') phone communications.
All of this suggest conspiracy and cover up, although in the alternative universe which is Trump World, all conspiracies and cover-ups are executed by the CIA, FBI, Ukraine, the Democrats and the media, in that order.
Dahlia Lithwick
I sympathize with all the Trump voters who wanted a radical change, but have gradually come to see that not just anyone will do.
When the aim is to correct the problems of monetary corruption within American government, electing someone who has practiced corrupt business practices governed by personal financial gain, electing someone who openly brags about bribing government officials, is to elect someone who already is part of the problem. Expecting someone who has personally benefitted from corrupt elected officials to actually take action to end such corrupt practices is expecting someone to shoot themselves in their own foot.
Wake up America!
[i]I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. I’ve studied it better than anybody I know. It’s very expensive. They’re made in China and Germany mostly—very few made here, almost none. But they’re manufactured tremendous—if you’re into this—tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint—fumes are spewing into the air. Right? Spewing. Whether it’s in China, Germany, it’s going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything—right?
So they make these things and then they put them up. And if you own a house within vision of some of these monsters, your house is worth 50 percent of the price. They’re noisy. They kill the birds. You want to see a bird graveyard? You just go. Take a look. A bird graveyard. Go under a windmill someday. You’ll see more birds than you’ve ever seen ever in your life. You know, in California, they were killing the bald eagle. If you shoot a bald eagle, they want to put you in jail for 10 years. A windmill will kill many bald eagles. It’s true.[/i]
source
He is correct that the world is tiny compared to the universe. (That may be the only correct statement in his rant).
It was you who said that Trump committed "word crimes", and you implied that word crimes are distinct from and therefore not "actual crimes". This is false, as hate speech laws clearly demonstrate, word crimes are actual crimes. If you accept that Trump committed "word crimes", as you said, why not accept that Trump ought to be punished for such word crimes?
The universe is at least three times bigger than the world!
"The majority opinion, by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, held that the courts may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer because the Constitution reserves that function to a coordinate political branch. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution gives the Senate the "sole power to try all impeachments." Because of the word sole it is clear that the judicial branch was not to be included. Furthermore, because the word try was originally understood to include factfinding committees, there was a textually demonstrable commitment to give broad discretion to the Senate in impeachments."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States
Referencing Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
Impeachment is not just for violations of statutes, as you seem to imply. In Federalist 65, Hamilton discusses impeachment and refers to "offenses which proceed from the conduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse of violation of some public trust."
Violating the Constitution certainly qualifies as an abuse of the public trust: the President is Constitutionally required to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed".
Hate speech? Sorry, bub, not in America.
The person I was responding to implied Trump committed actual crimes. He didn’t.
Which part of the constitution did he violate?
You seem to be a little daft. I think it's quite clear that president Trump most likely committed the crimes he's been accused of, abuse of power, and obstruction of Congress. Even though what is probably the most incriminating evidence, has not been revealed, the evidence which has been published is significant..
Yes, these are fundamentally "word crimes". A person of authority, being in a position of power has the capacity to give orders. And, to use Hanover's analogy, it is just as clear that for a person of authority to give an unlawful order is a crime, as it is clear that for a person to unlawfully take what belongs to someone else (theft) is a crime.
You, NOS4A2, are undeniably wrong, to suggest that a "word crime" is not an actual crime.
You seem a like a pantywaist. Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned in the Constitution.
Oath of office, in Article II, Section 1: "I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and Article II, Section 3: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in conjunction with the 5th Amendment's due process clause.
How did he violate the constitution?
The Constitution doesn’t specify what counts as high crimes and misdemeanours. You’ll have to look outside the Constitution to understand what the framers meant by the phrase.
So not only are they not crimes, they are not even mentioned in the constitution. This is really all we need to know about the whole affair.
Trump also seems to have violated the Impoundment Act, and to have done so for corrupt purposes, which violates faithfully executing the laws. For that matter, he violates faithful execution of the law whenever he proclaims the legal guilt of a political opponent (including claims they are guilty of treason).
He never investigated any US citizen. The hold on aid was lifted before the expiry date.
The evidence for obstruction is overwhelming in both this impeachment proceeding and the Mueller investigation. Watch the congressional hearing testimony concerning it and what counts as high crimes and misdemeanors. Or keep on sticking your head in the Fox news sand...
High crimes and misdemeanors are mentioned in the Constitution. I'm just saying that you have to look at something other than the Constitution to learn what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means. Just like the term "bribery". Only "treason" actually has a Constitutional definition.
Repeating the Democrat’s talking points doesn’t make them any more true.
Taking the action of initiating an investigation is wrong. It doesn't just become wrong when the next step in the chain is executed.
I’m aware of and agree that one needn’t commit any crimes to be impeached, but because there is no apparent crime nor constitutional violation we have entered the court of opinion.
The (accused) constitutional violations are that of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The House has decided that they are examples of high crimes and misdemeanors. You'll have to look into what the framers meant by the phrase to determine if they're right.
The United States has a mutual legal assistance treaty with Ukraine.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/12978-Ukraine-Law-Enforcement-MLAT-7.22.1998.pdf
As for due process, there has been no investigation, and therefor no due process has been violated.
It is the weakest impeachment case in American history. It’s a dangerous precedent. This will be an indelible stain on the Democrats for years to come.
It's not about democrat talking points... the irony... as I said... listen to the relevant testimony, particularly the testimony of the professors of Constitutional law and how they explain the interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors"...
Are you aware that Clinton was only found guilty of lying about a blowjob?
His testimony is not at all about what's true, but rather it's about convincing the audience, by whatever means necessary...
I have listened to the testimonies. Not sure what your point here is.
Perjury is a crime.
That is obstruction.
Fer fuck's sake.
Trump has executive privilege.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
"Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications."
The problem is that precedent only points to executive privilege being applicable only selectively. Trump has asserted absolute immunity from oversight. You could argue that this needs to be ruled by the courts, but that overlooks the nature of what the courts do: they don't make law, they just infer what the law is. In this case, it's a virtual certainty that a President does not have absolute immunity from oversight.
Off the top of my head
According to testimony two of the three direct conversations with Trump contained explicit denials of a quid pro quo, including one in August, before the whistleblower complaint was sent to Congress.
The supposed victim, president Zelensky, has denied being pressured on countless occasions.
Andre Yermak, a close aid to Zelensky, denied discussing quid pro quo with Sondland.
The idea that Trump was pressuring Zelensky for political gain was siphoned from the presumptions of a NYT article, and not anything Trump or his administration said.
A president does not have the privilege of obstructing an investigation into his behaviour...
More Fox rhetorical drivel.
Yes he does have executive privilege, which includes denying congressional subpoenas.
That’s right.
That’s right, people were easily misled by bad reporting and using that bad reporting as evidence. You’re in that camp too, Tim.
Did I say anything about the Constitution? No, I was concerned with your claim that "word crimes" are not "actual crimes".
Do you see that you are undeniably wrong? Word crimes are actual crimes. Therefore, If president Trump was involved in word crimes, as you said he was, he is a criminal.
A guilty person denying a crime is not exculpatory evidence. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that is inconsistent with guilt. For that matter, the corruption of Trump's act is not contingent upon there being a direct quid pro quo.
[Quote]The supposed victim, president Zelensky, has denied being pressured on countless occasions....Andre Yermak, a close aid to Zelensky, denied discussing quid pro quo with Sondland.
[/quote]That's exculpatory with regard to a direct bribe, but only implies Zelensky and Yermak did not get direct pressure from Trump. However Zelensky clearly knew that it was in his country's best interest to do whatever Trump asked - so it's still consistent with an abuse of power. Trump's requested "favor" is abuse of power even if it wasn't tied to release of funds. Withholding funds, and then using them to reward Zelensky for that "favor" is even worse.
What words give evidence that Trump “sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid”?
The Dems called no fact-witnesses. There was no investigations. There was no cnn interview. The aid was released. There was no pressure.
I never made such a claim.
Only selectively. He does not have absolute immunity from subpoena, as he claims. Do you sincerely believe that would hold up in court? Past precedent even shows that executive privilege is applicable most narrowly when there is an impeachment investigation.
I’m not sure it will hold up in court, but Obama, Bush and Clinton all evoked executive privilege to stonewall congressional investigations. Should they be impeached?
Irrelevant to this situation. Red herring.
Even if they ought, it does not fucking matter here. In fact, if they ought to have been but were not, then we certainly ought to follow the rules now, for that has been part of the problem... if they ought to have been, that is.
Again, you cannot provide evidence that Trump “sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid”.
It’s completely relevant. Executives exercising executive privilege is a matter of course, not an impeachable offence.
The request to investigate is wrong when the request is made; it does not magically become wrong only after the request is executed. It's wrong irrespective of whether it was tied to aid; that's a separate issue that makes it even worse - but again here, it's wrong to have ordered it and does not become virtuous when he's caught and releases it.
I had mentioned the impoundment act, which allows delays only for certain specific reasons, which must be documented. This is still under investigation, but preliminary reports indicate the letter of the law may have been broken.
Why is a request to investigate potential corruption wrong?
Trump is not the OMB. If the OMB violates the impound act, they should have been taken to court. They weren’t.
So you finally accept that word crimes really are actual crimes? And, do you see that it was inevitable that president Trump would get impeached for word crimes, because he is a criminal?
What exactly would obstruction look like to you? What would count as such?
As far as I know, none of the three you mentioned gave a direct order for witness to ignore subpoena into an investigation of the president's own behaviour.
The mere "potential" that there is wrongdoing is not probable cause to investigate. Furthermore, the evidence points toward this being politically motivated, not a virtuous act to uncover corruption. We could review the available facts, if you like.
The evidence points toward this being directed by Trump.
At minimum, a preponderance of evidence supports the hypothesis that Trump engaged in wrongdoing. Do you deny that? If so, then we should definitely review the evidence. It seems to me that arguing for Trump's innocence depends on assuming the biggest conspiracy since O.J. Simpson was framed for murdering Nicole. ;=)
Dereliction of duty bordering on treason.
Trump welcomes interference, if it's in support of him. Did you read about Putin's recent press conference, and Trump proudly tweeting a positive quote of Putin's?
No. This was my argument.
“It was only a matter of time before they impeached Trump for word crimes. It was too difficult for them to find actual crimes, so they reduced themselves to scouring his statements for transgressions of speech, and then lying about them to make them seem worse than they are.”
By “word crimes” I meant transgressions of speech. No, he is not being impeached for any crime.
I’m glad you say this because this statement accurately describes crossfire hurricane and the Mueller investigation. Except Trump did not ask Zelensky to investigate anything, only to speak with the Attorney General and Rudy Giuliani, both of whom are doing investigations.
As for it being politically motivated, I would love to see those facts.
Trump never told them to break any laws. In fact it appears they were trying to do everything by the book, as emails suggest, and not engaging in any efforts to break the law.
“ People familiar with the Office of Management and Budget’s handling of the holdup in aid acknowledged the internal discussions going on during August, but characterized the conversations as calm, routine and focused on the legal question of how to comply with the congressional Budget and Impoundment Act, which requires the executive branch to spend congressionally appropriated funds unless Congress agrees they can be rescinded.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-review-turns-up-emails-showing-extensive-effort-to-justify-trumps-decision-to-block-ukraine-military-aid/2019/11/24/2121cf98-0d57-11ea-bd9d-c628fd48b3a0_story.html
No, zero evidence supports the hypothesis that trump corruptly sought dirt on his political opponent to influence the 2020 election. But I’m open to hearing it.
Ive finally caught up on the thread, and aside from being disappointed in myself for bothering Ive also become curious as to what any of you are getting or hoping to get out of continuing discussion with Nos.
If you truly believe he is a troll, then shame on you for feeding him, right?
If you think him dishonest, putting defence of Trump before truth, then why continue?
If he is ignorant, am I wrong that you all think him hopelessly so? He has proven himself immune to all arguments any of you have put forth...hadnt he? So why continue? What are you getting out of it at this point...just a place to vent and Trump bash with Nos as the piñata? Im genuinely curious.
And to you Nos, the same question. What are you getting out of it at this point? You must realise by now that everything you say including an actual valid point you might make would be ignored or otherwise dismissed out of hand. A troll, a liar, an idiot etc etc. Is what they call you and as far as I can tell precisely what they think you are, to varying degrees.
So what are you getting out of it at this point (im assuming you are not a troll for the sake of this question).
That's the "two wrongs make a right" defense, which is ludicrous.
The IG ruled that there was probable cause to initiate the investigation, and no errors by Mueller have been identified. There was indeed malfeasance in the renewals of FISA applications for Carter Page, perhaps rising to the level of criminality - and if so, the responsible parties should be charged. Nevertheless, the IG did not find a political motivation for these. How widespread is the abuse of FISA warrants? Is it common, or was this the first time? Time will tell, but even if it does turn out to be something unique to investigating people associated with Trump (a big IF), that will not excuse Trump committing such errors.
Quoting NOS4A2
According to the memorandum documenting Trump's call with Zelensky, Trump said, "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
What does "looking into it" mean, if not an investigation? We needn't speculate, because Trump told us, on Oct 3:
[i]Q Mr. President, what exactly did you hope Zelensky would do about the Bidens after your phone call? Exactly.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I would think that, if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer.[/i] (source)
Quoting NOS4A2
Here's some, off the top of my head:
1) Trump named the Bidens in his conversation with Zelensky, which looks bad on its face.
2) Trump did not discuss corruption in general with Zelensky, in either of their phone calls.
3) Biden is a key political rival and therefore Trump stands to gain politically by a public declaration of an investigation into the Bidens,
4) Among the public facts, there is a lack of probable cause to investigate either of the BIdens. (numerous people make money off their connections, including Trump's kids and Rudy Giuliani; are they all to be investigated for this?) Contrast that with Trump's action, which has more than the mere on-its-face request to Zelensky). There is also no evidence to suggest Trump has non-public knowledge about either of the Bidens that implicate their involvement in corrupt acts in Ukraine.
5) According to Sondland, Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly declare an investigation into the Bidens - a political benefit to Trump, but of no positive benefit toward exposing corruption
6) The Defense Department certified to congressional committees on May 23 that Ukraine had met established benchmarks toward reducing corruption.
7) The Trump administration had approved sending aid to Ukraine nearly 50 times without holding it because of corruption concerns.
8) Testimony by David Holmes, and confirmed by Sondland that in a call between Trump and Sondland, Trump said, "So, he’s gonna do the investigation?” Ambassador Sondland replied that “he’s gonna do it,” adding that President Zelenskyy will do “anything you ask him to.” and in response to a question about the call, Sondland noted that Trump only cares about "big stuff" - which means things that affect him personally.
9) Fiona Hill testified that she and John Bolton perceived something wrong (the "political errand" of pushing for investigation of a political opponent of Trump's) was being advanced by Mulvaney, Sondland, and Giuliani - referring to Giuliani as a "hand grenade").
10) Sondland testified that he brought it to the attention of both Pence and Pompeo that Ukrainian aid had become tied to the issue of investigations, and neither of them denied it. If the notion of there being such a tie was so far fetched, one would expect some pushback.
Quoting NOS4A2
Trump never told them NOT to break any laws. Trump appears unconcerned about what the laws are and equally unconcerned about breaking them (consider Rex Tillerson's comment about his interactions with Trump: “So often, the president would say here’s what I want to do and here’s how I want to do it and I would have to say to him, ‘Mr. President I understand what you want to do but you can’t do it that way. It violates the law,’" and Tillerson indicated that this frustrated Trump).
Mueller's investigation also supports this tendency of Trump's:
The President 's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.
Both of these are suggestive of Trump's general disregard for the law.
Sure, the OMB people didn't want to break laws, so they looked for legal ways to implement Trump's desires - at this point, it's not completely clear if they were successful. It would be great to get testimony and documents that would help us know.
I've been interested in American politics since a child. I used to read Time magazine when quite young. I was part of the anti-vietnam movement. I read a lot of news media on my iPhone, it's a hobby of sorts.
You will notice I generally avoid interacting with Nos as I think he or she might be an agent tasked with disseminating Trump-friendly disinformation on this and various other minor social media sites. As the Mueller report found, there are disinformation units run by Russia that actively propagate pro-Trump disinformation. Nos is very good at it, always staying inside the mod guidelines and politely contributing to a smattering of other topics. ("Lost in the barrio, I walk like an Indian.")
I mostly post excerpts from various media - NY Times, WaPo, Slate, Daily Beast, The Atlantic Monthly in particular - with some commentary. I do this to provide a counterbalance to the disinfo being propagated by NOs. Also because as I have followed Trump's malign ascendancy since the outset, I have become quite knowledgeable about it, and a lot of people don't understand the details. So it's a minor act of public education. And also sounding off about something that I think is a terrible blight on American culture. (I have near and dear relatives in America.)
There's a potential he'll bring up something I'm not aware of, or at least I might understand his point of view a bit.
No.
The point I'm making is that if Trump was actually so concerned with corruption, he would have done everything in his power to insure that our next election could not be interfered with in the same way as 2016.
He has not. Thus, he clearly is not. The claims of him being concerned about corruption are a ruse...
Pure unadulterated bullshit!
What would obstruction look like to you? What would count as Trump obstructing and/or impeding the investigations into himself?
:brow:
You claim that nothing has been done. What would have to be?
So Nixon was also prosecuted under criminal law? How does that work? And why, since obstruction of justice carries a criminal penalty, wouldn't the Democrats use the regular criminal process, which avoids the possible political blow back.
Also, and not related to you I think, but the idea the Democrats are doing this to overturn the 2016 election results is silly because the vice president, also a republican, gets to replace him. Nevertheless, I see that argument continuously repeated but it's nonsensical.
Actually, first it was Agustino. Remember that? Now Agustino seems to have gotten fired, acquired some morals, or found a better job, so NOS4A2 has been hired to fill the position
No, Nixon was not prosecuted under criminal law.
Indictments are done by the Justice Dept, but that won't be done because the Justice Dept's Office of Legal Counsel has decided that a President may not be indicted while in office because it could impair his ability to do his job (this predates Trump). The only way to hold a President accountable for illegal acts is through impeachment.
I see. Apologies, I grouped you in where I should not have.
Also, you realise the Russians also spread disinformation from the left as well right? Russia is interested in creating conflict and chaos, internal strife etc, and they troll from and to the left as well as the right. Renee Deresta has good material on this subject, and the “Internet Research Agency” which is the Russian professional service whose goal is to amp up pre-existing animosity.
Am I wrong in my assessment that you do not trust him or his information? Also, what is it about his view you do not understand?
Where is NOS4A2? Oh that's right, I've noticed that NOS tends to take the weekends and holidays off from his job.
Quoting Benkei
No. Nixon wasn't prosecuted. There's a long standing DOJ policy not to prosecute sitting presidents, but there's no Constitutional prohibition. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-us-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3
Seven of Nixon's aides were indicted ("The Watergate Seven"). In the 1974 Nixon case (not to be confused with District Court Judge Nixon's impeachment in the 90s cited in another post), Nixon was forced to produce tapes pursuant to subpoenas arising out of the criminal case involving his aides.
I cited to in another post a link regarding Congressional subpoenas and their limited enforcement mechanisms compared to those issued by a court.
Quoting Benkei
"Overturn" may be an exaggerated term (as if it will cause Hillary to become President), but the argument is that the Dems are refusing to accept that Trump really is the President and that the battle for the 2016 presidency is over.
The validity of these memos has been rejected by a federal judge: https://www.scribd.com/document/429138545/Read-judge-s-ruling#from_embed
"The Court is not persuaded that it should accord the weight and legal force the President ascribes to the DOJ Memos" and the memos "do not constitute authoritative judicial interpretation of the Constitution concerning those issues."
The IG report revealed vast, systematic errors, and found the explanations for them to be inefficient. Mueller, with his vast investigative powers, found no such errors or malfeasance. He never mentioned that the Steele dossier was utterly false. The special counsel team had to know the truth about the Steele dossier and false FBI claims to the FISA court, but they chose to look the other way and keep us in the dark about it. Why?
According to the transcript he never asked Zelensky to open any investigations into the Bidens, nor did he tie any such investigations to the aid, which was released anyways. He specifically referred to the 2016 election and Ukraine’s involvement, and suggested Zelensky speak to Barr about it. In the end Barr never made that call but Durham travelled there and currently doing that investigation. It was Zelensky who brought up Guiliani and his investigation.
None of those points give evidence to political motivations regarding seeking dirt or influencing the 2020 elections. I’m looking for a statement or any expression of motives, that he wants dirt so it can help him in an election.. anything but guesswork and mind-reading. And it’s absurd to suggest someone cannot be investigated for possible corruption because he is Trump’s possible opponent in the 2020 election.
Of course Trump doesn’t know about the obscure impounding Act. That’s why he has the OMB, the general counsel, advisors and others. They are tasked with following through on Trump’s policies in a legal fashion. And, according to them, they did so.
I’m your huckleberry.
The omnibus clause is the factor. If that’s proven one is guilty of obstruction of justice.
Mueller was not investigating the investigators, so it's irrelevant that he didn't uncover the FISA errors. Sure, the FBI placed more credibility on Steele's information than was warrranted, but it's false to claim it was "utterly false", since much of it has been substantiated. Your claim that "the special counsel team had to know the truth about the Steele dossier" sounds like something taken from the script of Mark Levin or Sean Hannity- negative speculation based on zero evidence.
Most significantly, it's the same old crap even bringing this up in the context of what Trump did - as I pointed out, two wrongs do not make a right. I pointed this out in my post, and you repeat the same absurdity. No errors made by the FBI or Mueller comprise an excuse for Trump to do something wrong.
Quoting NOS4A2
LOL! You're ignoring the Trump quote I have you in which he ADMITTED he expected Zelensky to open an investigation!
Quoting NOS4A2
You're denying the obvious. Apply the epistemological process of Inference to the Best Explanation: there are two possible explanations (primary motive) for the available facts: political motivation or a motivation to address general corruption. Which of the two explanations is a better fit for the facts? If you're just going to emulate Congressional Republicans and duck the facts, then you aren't engaging in an honest debate.
Quoting NOS4A2
The President bears responsibility - ignorance of the law is not an excuse; he has White House Counsel to advise him. I see you have no rebuttal to the points I made about his indifference to the law.
It is completely relevant that your coveted Mueller report is as dodgy as the dossier many have pinned their conspiracy theories on. Of course, the scope of the investigation involved “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”. FBI malfeasance and corruption.
My claim that “the special counsel team had to know the truth about the Steele dossier” sounds like the Wall Street Journal editorial board, who made the exact same argument, not Levin or Hannity, neither of whom I have ever watched. But routine fantasy is the going rate here so it’s no surprise you would reach for it when you couldn’t find anything else.
Because it’s a stupid angle. He said that Zelensky (and China) should open investigations into the Biden’s possible corruption, and he’s right. But given that you had to find quotes to journalists, and not Trump asking Zelensky to open investigations, doesn’t do your case any favors. He never told Zelensky that he should do investigations. He never told Zelensky that he “expected” him to do investigations.
I’m denying the obvious? Nonsense. You’re making things up, or worse, passing off DNC propaganda as your own thinking. Your little false dichotomy is also piffle. You have zero evidence of motive save for the screams of career Democrat politicians.
He didn’t do anything wrong. He broke no law. He committed no crime. Your eschewing of the presumption of innocence and due process is laughable, especially when you cry about Biden’s due process out of the other side of your mouth.
From the United States Department of Justice...
Trumps only agenda is to influence both the Mueller investigation and the current impeachment proceedings...
He is guilty of exactly that, and the evidence of that is overwhelming.
The omnibus clause is in bold.
You don't get to just make up your own facts here. The United States Department of Justice created the omnibus clause. Here it is in it's entirety...
That is the omnibus clause...
True, I meant the relevant clause is in bold. It must be done “corruptly”.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1724-protection-government-processes-omnibus-clause-18-usc-1503
The term "or" provides the segue for different ways to be guilty... "corruptly" is just one 'way'... endeavoring to is another...
That one is already proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump admits of it.
Yes, as the Justice Dept. iterates, “The United States Supreme Court appears to favor a broad reading of the omnibus clause.”. That’s the highest court in the land.
When in doubt, simply repeat it. At what point does this become a mantra?
But it's bigger than that!
He swore to uphold the Constitution, which includes upholding the processes outlined therein. His blatant negative and disparaging remarks about Constitutionally outlined processes and those in charge of executing them is undeniable and it serves as prima facie evidence of his gross dereliction of duty as well as obstruction.
Endeavoring to suborn perjury.
Endeavoring to influence a witness not to testify or to make himself/herself unavailable to testify.
Giving false denials of knowledge and memory, or evasive answers. False testimony may be a basis for conviction, ; however, false testimony, standing alone, is not an obstruction of justice.
Falsifying a report likely to be submitted to a grand jury.
Destroying, altering, or concealing subpoenaed documents.
Endeavoring to sell grand jury transcripts.
Offering to sell a guarantee of a jury acquittal to a defense counsel.
Endeavoring to influence, through a third party, a judge.
Deliberately concealing one's identity thereby preventing a court from gathering information necessary to exercise its discretion in imposing a sentence.
Obtaining secret grand jury testimony.
Submitting false or misleading information to the grand jury. .
Refusing to testify before the grand jury.
Now there is something that causes me pause...
Obstruction of justice requires acts designed to thwart some aspect of the government's judicial function. Investigations conducted by the FBI, Internal Revenue Service or some other governmental agency do not constitute judicial proceedings...
So...
I'm not sure how this applies to impeachment proceedings, if at all???
18 U.S.C. § 1505
Although as has been mentioned, impeachable offenses need not be specific crimes. The above notwithstanding, Congress can determine that obstructing Congress counts as a "high crime and misdemeanor."
Perfect. I stopped short. Thanks for that much needed clarification.
There are many Trump supporters and non supporters alike who buy into the witch hunt explanation. They believe that there are some government officials who are doing everything in their power to remove Trump, and these people will do whatever it takes to get the job done.
That language applies equally to Devon Nunez's behaviour(coordinating with the accused and sharing the details of the investigation with the accused and/or their representatives) regarding the initial oversight committee.
I think the relevant code here is U.S.C. 192. I suspect the defense will be the separation of powers, and that congress has no such authority over the executive branch.
The relevant code has been put forth already. To deny their relevance is to neglect their importance. The Constitution was deliberately written in protest to the power of the monarchy. I grant the founders enough common sense to include the ability to effectively remove a president who has has proven themselves unfit for the office.
The relevant code is the one Michael offered, and it is the guarantee that the people can remove a president who does not satisfy the sworn promise to the people that they will uphold the Constitution and it's processes, including but not limited to congressional oversight... impeachment proceedings.
True, but he evoked executive privilege, something many presidents have done. It is a check on the power of congress.
I, for one, believe the witch hunt analogy. Also, the “boy who cried wolf” is an accurate portrayal of the Dems and a large faction of the media, hence their credibility wanes.
There is no proof for being a witch.
There is more than enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty of obstruction. That obstruction is more than adequate ground for further concluding Trump's guilt of gross dereliction of duty. Trump has breached his contract with America to faithfully uphold the Constitution(and it's processes) and executing the powers granted to the office. He is obstructing Constitutional processes by virtue of endeavoring to influence them in at least the following way...
There are key witnesses in the White House who can verify/falsify this charge. It has been charged that Trump has ordered them to not testify. Those charges need to be argued for. Part of that argument includes hearing from those who purportedly received such orders.
All right, let's go Huck. I could be on your side if you could be on my side.
I was hoping for a serious discussion about the facts relevant to Trump's actions. I thought this might help me more objectively view these facts, perhaps learn of some additional facts, or possibly just hear a different perspective. Obviously that's not going to happen since you just dismiss the facts en masse as "propaganda". OK, I give up - no meaningful discussion seems possible.
I'll close this out by giving my perspective on the situation. As I said, I am convinced the evidence shows it likely that Trump was asking Zelensky to investigate Biden for political reasons. I acknowledge this is based only on the limited facts that we have, but Trump's stonewalling is to blame for that. He can get away with this because of the devotion of his base - they won't even consider the bare possibility that Trump did something wrong. For that reason, they dismiss the evidence without even considering it. Trump provides the rationalizations (it's a witch hunt, or propaganda) and diversion (what about Hillary/Biden/Steele/Mueller? - tangents that have no bearing on evaluating Trump's actions) I remain convinced that the facts point to Trump being guilty of doing something he shouldn't have, and I also believe anyone who actually examined the facts would draw the same conclusion - not to "beyond a reasonable doubt", but at least to raising sufficient doubt about his innocence that they would support efforts to overcome the stonewalling.
I do not think Trump deserved to be impeached for his action with Zelensky. Rather, Congress should have censured him. Unfortunately this option wasn't available because Republicans in Congress are afraid to say Trump did anything wrong - he demanded they treat his actions as "perfect". This works because his base accepts what he says, and his base are their voters. I have concluded that impeachment was necessary because his base made it necessary. He will not be removed from office, but at least he'll go down in history as one of the few Presidents to have been impeached. It is hyper-partisan because Republicans are hiding from reality. -
You dismissed what I said as sounding like it came from Hannity or Levin, and that I’m “emulating congressional Republicans”, then cry foul when I punch back a bit. Pretty typical.
But I respect your perspective for being a bit more nuanced than the breathless fear-mongering. For what it is worth I will offer my own perspective. Anti-trumpists have cheapened impeachment, blatantly lied and mischaracterized Trump’s call, whether for their own political gain or because they are hysterical. They dangled crimes in front of their open-mouthed goslings only to pull back when the focus groups told them to. So it’s no wonder their base think he is guilty before he is given a fair trial.
All they want is that is that Scarlett letter of impeachment, a purely symbolic gesture, so they can further enable the hysteria of their followers.
What "cheapened" impeachment, if anything, was Clinton's impeachment. That ship has already sailed NOS4A2, the precedent has been set, the cheapening has already occurred, and your claim is false.
But clearly the constitution allows for the president to be impeached for "misdemeanors", so perhaps it was even the intent of the founders to make impeachment cheap. It may just be the case that the intent was to make sure that the president remains a person of the highest moral integrity and therefore petty crimes are impeachable offences. In this case, impeachment was meant to be cheap, from the beginning.
Then you ought be all for the Senate proceedings including hearing the testimony of those purportedly ordered by Trump to not testify.
The Democrats have deployed the impeachment proceedings in exactly the manner, and for exactly the reasons, that the articles were written into the Constitution.
You have a rogue inhabitant of the white house expressing contempt for the rule of law and the powers of congress - but say anything against it and you're 'hysterical'.
Laurence H. Tribe, 30th Sept 2019.
And here you are sharing the words of an anti-Trump conspiracy theorist, Lawrence Tribe.
How The Left Lost It’s Mind
2 professors Walk into a Dumpster Fire
But rather than resort to the genetic fallacy, and rather than point out his consistent conspiracy theorizing and susceptibility to fake news, his political affiliations, all we need do is point out that he believes Trump is guilty before it has been proven in any matter of a fair trial. So much for the constitution.
(Hey, he's talking about you.) Anyway, it then goes on to wonder, could the same kind of nonsense infect 'the left'?
I have no doubt there are 'rabid leftists' who are just as prone to nonsense as their mirror-image counterpart. But things have changed a bit since it was written. And The Chronicle article is all innuendo and hearsay, it's completely trivial in the circumstances.
Quoting NOS4A2
The article in question was a comment on the impeachment process. But Trump, as I pointed out before, could plausibly be impeached on many grounds apart from the Ukraine matter, where the facts are clear and established beyond reasonable doubt. All Trump has done in response is spew lies and schoolyard insults, and all the GOP is doing is capitulating to his bullying.
Let it drag out the whole of 2020, rather than rubber-stamping his acquittal and handing him imperial powers.
Just curious. Simple question.
What is your stance on whether or not the Senate should subpoena witnesses(if necessary) when it begins the next step of the impeachment process, including but not necessarily limited to those people who Trump purportedly ordered to not appear/testify?
I think the case should be dismissed. But then again I I also want a senate trial where everyone testifies, including the ones Whitehouse counsel didn’t want to testify, but also Schiff, the whistleblower, and Hunter Biden, just to see it all blow up one way or the other.
So, you don't have a stance...
There are no grounds whatever to call Schiff as a witness, he's a serving member of Congress, and the only reason for his involvement is to prosecute the argument. It is analogous to a criminal defendant trying to call the prosecutor as a witness; more absurd nonsense and obfuscation. As for Hunter Biden, whatever his vices, sins and flaws, he has no case to answer and nothing to contribute. The whistleblower is protected by federal law, which is just as well, as the day after the story blew up, Trump implied that he should be executed.
Can the Democrats learn from the UK elections or will they mimic the path of Labour and leave the World with four more years of Trump?
Will they choose some American version of Jeremy Corbyn and go with let's say Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, or the other way around, a Warren/Sanders ticket? I would suspect that many progressives would be happy with those two candidates. Meaning a lot of vocal supporters would be fine with them. But how about the whole field of Democrat leaning voters, which likely is quite heterogenous bunch. Even if a lot of Democrats simply hate Trump, could the "woke progressivism", either real or imagined, turn off enough voters to choose either voting for a third candidate/party, opting to stay home or even... voting Trump?
Now I know that the UK and US are two totally different political animals, however I've noticed that they do partially mimic each other. Thanks perhaps to the shared language and shared social media environment. And naturally there's a huge difference between Johnson and Trump for starters.
Opinions?
It'll probably be Biden, who doesnt excite the Democratic base but could win in Wisconsin because he's not a moronic blowhard.
That said, present consumer confidence is a predictor for a Trump win.
Completely different situation. Sanders is very popular and polls better against Trump than most other candidates. Corbyn ended up being very unpopular, largely because he was caught in the Brexit vice not because he was progressive.
(I could see Warren turning off independents and white rural voters though, especially as she'll be portrayed both as an elitist and a commie.)
As typical, voters vote basically on the economy, which actually hasn't so much to do with the Presidency, but has to do with the business cycle.
Quoting Baden
What democrat wouldn't be portrayed both as an elitist and a commie btw.
Well, to take an example from US history, democrat candidate George McGovern was very popular with liberals and students.
You must be looking at nation-wide polls. A New York Times poll of likely voters in 6 battleground states paints a different picture, with Biden ahead of Trump in 5 of the 6, Sanders ahead in only 1 of the 6 (plus one tie), and Warren behind in all 6. (NYT Pol)
Surprisingly, polling in Texas (deep red Texas, where I live) is all over the place. One poll has Biden beating Trump by 4 percentage points, and another with Trump beating Biden by 7 points. (Texas-Biden). Trump vs Sanders looks better for Trump (Texas-Sanders), while Trump would win handily over Warren (Texas-Warren).
FWIW, all 3 of them are miles ahead of Trump in California (vs-Biden, vs-Sanders, vs-Warren).
It's possible that Trump might lose the popular vote by an even bigger margin than last time, but still win enough electoral votes to win.
Several have jumped on me before for saying this, but I still believe Democrats' chances are best by nominating a centrist like Biden. At any rate, that's who I'm planning to vote for in the Texas primary.
But it's the Party, all those superdelegates etc, that make the decision. So let's see what happens. Biden the "boring" might indeed just what only you need to win Trump.
Quoting Benkei
You and I don't have much to do with this, of course, yet the topic is interesting.
So Benkei: If then the democratic party chooses someone else than a centrist, won't that be a similar move as the Labour party made in 2015 with chosing Corbyn and not going with a Blairite or others (Burnham, Cooper, Kendall)?
- judicial appointments, particularly the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsberg
- Protection (or restoration) of the ACA
- rejoin Paris Climate Accords
- Resuscitate the Iran nuclear deal
- better chance of meaningful immigration reform
- restore standing with allies
- stop relaxing of environment regulations
- Terminate bully pulpit for a white nationalist/conspiracy theorist/overt narcissist
Superdelegates are 16% of the total number of delegates, and won't be allowed to vote on the first ballot. I'm comfortable with that.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-says-he-would-defy-subpoena-to-appear-before-senate-in-trumps-impeachment-trial/
That is grim.
The UK elections have little to nothing at all directly to do with what Americans need to learn...
The problems in American government that led to Trump are solved by looking at America. Trump is a symptom. Americans need to learn that. The way was paved for Trump's rise. Reagan, Arnold, and Jesse were all similar candidates in that they appealed to voters who did not trust career politicians.
The problem now includes the governmental and political pundits' near complete disconnection from a very very large swathe of Americans.
This is reflected by the commonly held belief that all politicians are "in it" to line their own pockets. That none of them could be trusted to do what they promised. That all of them have some ulterior motive. That all of them are monetarily corrupt. That all of them sided with those whose interests were in direct opposition to the average American voters' best interest.
Those beliefs were and are still true in the overwhelming majority of cases. Hence, Trumps claims to drain the swamp, played off of these beliefs.
Trump tapped into that... as well as other common beliefs.
Biden is just another Democrat who has been monetarily corrupted by major multinational corporate interests. In the most important ways, there is little to no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties have enacted legislation that caused demonstrable financial harm to workers and everyday citizens. Both parties have bailed out the financial and business sectors by virtue of increasing the tax burden of the workers and everyday citizens. Both parties have taken drastic measures to end public assistance programs. Both parties have failed the American people.
Indeed. Socialism for the government workers, elected officials, and the financial/banking sector and pure capitalism for the everyday citizens.
Nothing in there about restoring American confidence in the government to act on behalf of all Americans by virtue of eliminating the financial corruption that impedes that. Nothing in there about eliminating the legally paved path to bribery. Nothing in there about eliminating the unparalleled power of free speech afforded to those who are not American citizens by virtue of Citizens United. Nothing in there about eliminating the ability of unelected operatives of corporate interests to write American law. Nothing in there about adequate anti-trust laws. Nothing in there to fix the underlying systemic problems of today's American government.
Prima facie evidence that you either do not know what you're talking about when it comes to who can be impeached and on what grounds, or you are deliberately misrepresenting your own belief.
Yet the erosion of people's agency is seldom solved by those with extremist views. In my view the cure is good governance and solutions that work, not populist rhetoric or idealist views.
Quoting Benkei
A bit off the topic, but I cannot restrain from commenting this...
The 'socialism for the rich' was indeed one of the most ugliest outcomes of the financial crisis, however that bankers would go to jail and that the governments would wield the power they have isn't at all far fetched. With the 80's Savings & Loans bankruptcy the US did exactly what the authorities ought to have done and back then bankers did go to jail, but of course now you had an ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs as the acting Secretary of Treasury, so Wall Street banks had firm control of power. The Nordic banking crisis of the 1990's is also a good example were the governments didn't choose just to bail the rich out, but did reform the banks and the worst actors went out of business. And then there is the best example of Iceland: they bit the bullet, the stock market lost 90% of it's value, the GDP dropped 10% and the crisis lasted until 2011. And that was the end. After that Iceland has enjoyed economic growth. This is what basically happens when the market mechanism is let to handle the bursting of a speculative bubble. It's hard, but quick. Iceland shows what happens, when the government takes the right choices. Yet when you have 'socialism for the rich', then you prevent the market mechanism to solve problem.
Well, I didn't think my list was exhaustive, but it does seem you have some lofty expectations. Are you suggesting any Democrat would make all these things happen, that some particular one will, or are you just saying we have a shot at moving toward those (very fine) objectives?
IMO, It would be unwise, and worthy of contempt of Congress, if Biden simply doesn't show up for a subpoena. On the other hand, if he took it to court he could get out of it - just like McGhan. There would be no ruling until after the Senate Trial is over, which would make it moot.
Creativesoul, you have just aptly defined the landscape where populist movements and basically populism, be it from the right (or the left, in some other cases), cherishes and where populist fervor can get a stranglehold on politics.
Yet this is no wonder in a country where the political power is firmly in the hands of just two political parties, which enjoy such a total dominance over communal, state and national politics, that other political parties seem to be a joke for the majority of the people. Hardly surprising that such entrenched and firm power devolves into corruption, distrust of politicians in general and simply apathy.
Quoting creativesoul
Trump was surprised how "the drain the swamp" thing echoed, but anyone else that understood the political landscape it's no wonder. To fight corruption is an issue that both left-wing and right-wing activists would happily agree on. Naturally they hate each other so much, that they don't even notice this.
Quoting creativesoul
Then the issue would be to have TOTALLY DIFFERENT PARTIES. Period. No matter how much any candidate is "outside" the system, as the candidate of the two parties there simply won't be any change. Voting Trump hasn't changed anything. And voting Bernie won't either.
But because the vast majority of Americans (perhaps) think that God has given them these two parties and they have to make a choice between them and voting a third party is equivalent of throwing away your vote, the will vote for the two parties and the two parties will remain in power.
And here I though this was impeachable conduct.
I just pointed out the fact that that list did not include any concerns at all about the systemic problems in American government. None.
Lofty?
:brow:
Those are not the only two options...
Putting these problems on center stage... in clear simple terms... will separate those who are and have been a part of the problem from those who are a part of the solution. Those problems must be openly discussed as a means to inform the American electorate and begin the path towards being able to trust elected officials once again. We need elected officials who make it their aim to correct the systemic problems, and actually do so. We need to get rid of the elected officials who stand in the way of this agenda. It is NOT a partisan issue.
For an elected official like Trump. Biden is currently not.
No.
There's a long game to be played...
The issue would be to point out how both parties have erred against what's in the best interest of Americans, and demand change in that regard. The starting point is to show Americans what has happened, how it ha happened, and who voted for those measures. We define the problems, show their consequences, and then make concerted efforts to correct the aforementioned problems.
Force elected politicians to choose between what's best for the overwhelming majority of American people and what's not, by showing them the damage that has been incurred as a direct result of not doing so. Stake it out... clearly.... force the politician to show their hand, and deal with them accordingly in the next election cycle.
It may take several election cycles to get enough elected officials on board via voting out the ones who stand opposed.... no matter who they are... no matter what party affiliations they may have.
But what about the law?
The impeachment process is about Trump's purported abuse of power and obstruction.
Joe Biden has nothing to do with any of that. There is nothing he can say that is relevant to what's under consideration.
It won't happen anyway. There are no grounds for compelling Biden's testimony in the impeachment matters. May as well subpoena Oprah.
Regarding the Iceland bit...
The lending institutions in '08 could have been saved by simply paying off the mortgages. It would have been a helluva lot cheaper, and caused a helluva lot less harm to average Americans.
That hate of political party is not natural. It's learned... it's taught... it's fed...
There are a surprisingly large number of things that most Americans will agree upon that neither party currently stands for.
What counts as populism?
Sure, it is. The president has a duty to uphold the law. If either Biden is guilty of corruption then Trump was right, and it is the Democrat’s who are abusing their power to obstruct justice.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
There is Nothing wrong with investigating corruption.
That's not what Trump is charged with.
A subpoena would compel either Oprah or Joe. They can't ignore it no matter how ludicrous it is. Keep in mind Trump has decided his people can ignore subpoenas based on his judgment. If anyone can similarly ignore subpoenas, they lose their power.
That's some of the dumbest shit I've heard so far.
The impeachment is not attempting to stop Trump from upholding the law...
Yes. The point is that neither Biden nor Oprah have anything to do with what the impeachment proceedings are looking into.
Good. Let's look at Trump's financial records.
I would go with the more narrow definition of it being the juxtaposition of "the elites" being against, oppressing or forgetting "the people". And the populist is the one fighting for the people against "the elite".
Another similar definition is "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."
Good thing that's not the only possible popular stance in these situations.
Talking in terms of "the elites" is fraught with misdirection.
Talking in terms of what's in the best interest of American citizens and what's not is much better.
Nos constantly recirculates Alt-right conspiracy theories. There's an entire media landscape out there that does the same.
Quoting Relativist
It would the same tactic: smokescreens, distractions, whataboutism. Anything other than the facts, which are damning and which in any normal situation would have long since resulted in Trump's resignation.
Sure they are. The inquisitorial Democrats pretend he is seeking dirt on a political opponent to influence the 2020 election, completely sidestepping Trump’s actual queries about Biden’s possible corruption.
You're an idiot.
Wait till McGahn testifies...
You mean debt relief? Well, I think the trick was to stabilize the global monetary system, but NOT to get that trillion dollars into the real economy.
Quoting creativesoul
I fully agree.
The two parties have to give the appearance that they are SO different. Yes, it's your obligation to vote for them as otherwise those evil lunatics from the other party will destroy America!
Wait till Biden testifies. Hopefully your double standards will become more apparent to you.
You're either delusional or dishonest. Neither is acceptable.
Neither of which is true. There go those standards again.
But if you don’t want to discuss the topic, I understand. Cognitive dissonance can be ruinous to mental health.
Exactly.
The problem in populism is the juxtaposition of 'us against them'. To think that the so-called 'elite' is some unified group with a clear agenda and objectives is something that isn't actually true, just like it is absurd to think "the people" is one unified group. To be against the agenda of some political actors is basically ordinary politics. We do obviously disagree, but in a democracy that is not the reason to divide the people into two opposing camps that do not and cannot work together.
Rank-and-File Workers Get Bigger Raises
Well, real median household income is higher than in the end of the 20th Century. Whopee. Of course this rise started during the last Obama years, but still has gone up.
Quoting NOS4A2
Workers aren't an unified class, weren't even during the last Century. Even if especially one political side thinks it represents the workers.
And I think the real divide goes more with race than even with education.
Race isn’t a unified group either. But democrats have embraced identity politics in more recent years, to the detriment of the worker in my opinion.
But given that “wages for rank-and-file workers are rising at the quickest pace in more than a decade”, one cannot really treat this as the work of Obama.
If you have record low unemployment, then salaries ought to rise. Yet then again it's a sign that the business cycle is reaching it's peak.
Quoting NOS4A2
Playing it too much for the 'woke' crowd indeed can alienate the traditional blue-collar workers.
Yeah, workers have options for employment now that they are in high demand. They can afford to be picky about what job they want. As such, wages must be raised to remain competitive in the job market. The oft-dreaded “trickle-down” economics seems to be working in that respect.
Both parties have enacted legislation that caused and is still causing demonstrable financial harm to American citizens. Trump's administration is stepping on the gas...
The right to organize is being attacked from all sides...
The discussion needs to be had. There's a 'woke' America regarding systemic racism and there needs to be a woke America regarding systemic corporationism(government corruption). Harming everyday citizens in the guise of the greater good. Trump is guilty of both... racist action and outsourcing what could be American jobs to another country...
He's a con artist.
The options for the average non college educated citizen are a joke. No decent health insurance coverage. Employee pays the brunt of that. No pension. No benefits. No legal recourse.
No American manufacturing to speak of compared to the time before all of the trade agreements.
The American public now has way more choices... of shoddy inferior quality products to choose from.
Trump's claims about supporting American workers are bullshit, pure and unadulterated. He has a history of breaching contracts and using undocumented and/or foreign workers in lieu of American workers.
Show these facts side by side with his bullshit claims and there will be another kind of 'woke' American... woke to Trump's bullshit.
So why vote for either party? A What legislation you specifically have in mind?
Quoting creativesoul
He has a history of other quite dubious things, but who cares about the "character issue" anymore? We have had plenty of his 'character' as President. I'd concentrate on his presidency.
:brow:
Who cares if he is trustworthy?
Hopefully everybody.
We can judge sitting president from his actions on the job. All I'm saying.
That sentiment is one consequence of the problems I'm speaking about. When neither candidate from either party is willing to tackle the underlying corruption, and all that that entails - head on - and all effected/affected Americans see the quality of life erode right before their eyes as a result... You get apathetic voters.
Good job, mankind :up:
What would you do if YOU were President?
Personally, I don"t think it's possible to rescue manufacturing jobs (if that's what you're after). You can slow down the losses a bit, but the market currents are too strong to reverse the trend. I'm referring to automation and utilizing lower cost foreign labor. I favor providing opportunities to train for better alternative jobs - i.e. help people, not market segments.
Exactly what I think any and all presidents ought be doing. Exactly what I've been saying needs to be done, and quite a bit more. Keeping the promise made to the American people to act on behalf of their best interest.
Rescue manufacturing jobs...?
:meh:
Do you mean that there is no possible course of action to be taken that would result in an American manufacturing and infrastructure boom?
Surely not.
It would require a carefully staked out and principled course of action. It requires a "take it or leave it" ultimatum placed upon anyone and everyone who wants to benefit from following American law and being an active part of American marketplace. If you sell goods in America or to Americans, then the rules governing American business practices, including workers' rights and environmental practices, must be adhered to and/or exceeded in every aspect of your business practice.
That's one much needed measure.
It's commonly believed that the United States government cannot deliberately invest into and cultivate another thriving, bustling, and economy boosting American manufacturing sector.
I say that's bullshit. It not only can... it should, and will if the people demand it. The manufacturing sector provided less fortunate, amongst other Americans, a nice worthy valuable piece of the American pie.
Strawman. Red herring. Non-sequitur.
Either market segments are people, or manufacturing is not a market segment, or I'm not talking about helping market segments. Take your pick.
The manufacturing sector is comprised of the people who've suffered demonstrable harm as a result of American legislation. There are other segments of people who've been harmed by different sorts of legislation.
Job training is good.
Fucking an entire population of people out of good paying jobs that provide generation after generation a comfortable life and peaceful retirement is not fixed by providing training for a much less valuable job with far less benefits, far less pay, no retirement, and far less comfortable a lifestyle.
Yet, that's what has happened.
Suppose a US manufacturer wants to source parts from a Vietnamese company. Will this only be allowed if that Vietnamese company pays their worker at a scale similar to the US, they work a 40 hour work week, with annual paid vacation a year, a medical plan etc?
Quoting creativesoul
What makes you think that? Here's why I say this: Manufacturing jobs in the US have been on the decline for decades, and not solely because of competition for cheap foreign labor - automation was a big driver. But those lost jobs have not resulted in unemployment - they've resulted in people having different jobs. What's wrong with that? What's so special about manufacturing jobs that we must save them? As I said, I think it makes more sense to focus on jobs in general, not some particular types of jobs, like manufacturing. That sounds a bit like Trump promising to save jobs in the coal business, despite the fact that demand for coal is declining or flat, and automation is eliminating jobs. How is this different from saving the jobs of Blockbuster video clerks who rented VCR tapes?
Quoting creativesoul
What legislation is that? Do you mean the legislation regarding job safety, minimum wage, and other things that benefit them - but drive up the cost of labor in the US? Or do you mean the absence of the sort of legislation that you discussed that requires foreign companies to follow our standards?
Sure - these people jobs, but that doesn't imply they must have MANUFACTURING jobs.
They must follow and/or exceed American regulations(laws) concerning the lawful production of goods and services.
American law resulted in losing American manufacturing, over the decades. Those job losses resulted in unemployment, suicide, depression, and overall greatly diminished quality of life and liberty to Americans. The overwhelming majority of those people who lost those good jobs have taken new jobs that allow a far less comfortable life.
All at the hands of elected officials, and none of which was necessary.
That's what's wrong with that.
How about substituting what I am saying in your question... then you wouldn't have one.
:brow:
More red herrings and non-sequiturs...
If you would have read past that... you would not have had to ask.
Sigh...
:roll:
Listen, I suspected earlier on in this conversation that you were going to attempt to talk in meaningless rhetorical political gibber-jargon...
What I'm saying cannot be properly expressed in such shallow terms as "nationalism" or "populism"...
So do us both a favor and quit trying to stuff ten gallons into your five gallon bucket.
And... to be perfectly clear...
I'm not just advocating for deliberate investment and cultivation of manufacturing jobs. It just so happens that those are the ones being spoken of at this time, because those are the ones lost by virtue of American elected officials not keeping their word to act on behalf of what's in the best interest of the overwhelming majority of Americans while simultaneously making America look like it's not willing to follow it's own rules.
The broad based economic benefits of having a strong manufacturing sector have not even begun to be mentioned. They are many.
Look at the correlations between manufacturing losses and disparity of wealth. They are not accidental... it is no coincidence. It's not the only reason, but it is certainly one.
There are two very basic falsehoods and obvious myths that persist in US politics and with a large section of American voters.
1) The idea of the Omnipotent President. As if things would be different only if we got the right President to change things around. This myth of the omnipotent presidency is promoted by Hollywood and by media and naturally by any presidential candidate ever, yet it should be obvious to anybody the limitations of the presidency. Trump might tweet this or that nonsense, he might want to be best pals with Putin, but his influence on the US is still quite limited.
2) The idea that Third Parties don't matter. For some reason Americans treat their bi-party system as some God given fact, which they cannot alter in any way. No, the ONLY hope is to hop in with the two dominant parties and hope if they could be changed from the inside...typically with the Presidential candidate, which in it's absurdity again shows the power of the first myth. In fact, many Americans think that the so-called "primaries" are part of the democratic system. In reality the "primaries" are the way how the two corrupt parties dominate the whole political system. This second myth shows how estranged from democracy the American voter has become. He or she doesn't understand that the power of political parties start from the communal and state level. Without that there's no true power at the national level. A viable third party must have presence at the state and communal level.
What specifically did elected officials do, or not do, to cause or contribute to this problem?
I don't understand why you're attacking me. You made a vague, general claim, and I've asked you for specifics while giving you my general thoughts. If you have some facts, present them and skip the insults.
Quoting creativesoul
This is what's vague. What laws are you referring to?
Those are myths alright. Not sure if they're held by American voters or held by you about voters. I'm leaning towards the latter.
What do you want?
Are you wanting me to specify exactly which pieces of legislation throughout the last forty to fifty years led up to and/or paved the way for the wealth disparity we currently see, including those laws and/or policies that directly undercut American workers and manufacturing?
Do you understand how the bi-partisan system works, including how it's funded?
Just describe the sort of laws that you believe caused this. I touched on a few things to see if that's what you meant, and you attacked me.
I've not meant to attack you. Don't be so thin skinned...
I also see that you've edited some of your replies since I replied. There are new things written that were not there before, therefore they were not considered.
There are several different aspects of the current political landscape that need attention; some involving laws effecting/affecting different sectors; some involving the lack thereof; some involving basic housing and education and how those are affected/effected by political parties; some involving how political parties raise money; some involving how candidates are advocated for; some involving how candidates campaigns are funded; some involving income tax regulation; some involving who actually writes the legislation; etc.
There are a number of seemingly smaller issues that all add up to a couple of much larger ones.
What are you asking me about?
Trade deals? The laws that incentivized and rewarded American companies to move production operations elsewhere?
Right off the top of my head... self-sufficiency, more money in more American hands, collateral increase in businesses and jobs, a more robust economy... etc.
I'll revisit later...
:smile: :up:
I agree there are a variety of problems with the political landscape, and it would be great to address these. My questions pertained to your comment about maufacturing jobs, which you addressed here;
Quoting creativesoul
I agree that trade deals have hurt US manufacturing, but they have helped other job sectors - and my impression (based on economic analyses I've read) is that they've been a net positive. But even without these deals, manufacturing jobs would have declined due to automation and imports, it just would have been quite as steep a decline.
AFAIK, the "incentives" you referred to are really just a reduction of disincentives, like tarriffs. This gets to my point about cheap labor in other countries. So what happens if we reverse this and adopt more protectionist measures? We save some jobs, and we keep assiciated product prices higher. It's that preferable? Maybe so, but is there no alternative that has less of a negative? That's where training displaced workers comes in: prepare them for alternative, good paying jobs. Let the manual labor get done elsewhere giving us cheaper products, while our people do more technical work.
By what measure?
According to this analysis of NAFTA, there is higher GDP, lower consumer prices, and probably total jobs. Some sectors lost jobs, and some gained.
GDP is higher. Ok. Higher than what?
The total job numbers increase with population size, for that results in more people owning small businesses... ahem... that is... if the legislation doesn't make it impossible as a result of forced competition with foreign companies from nations who do not value their workers as they ought.
All as a result of legislation which not only perpetuates, but provides the financial incentive to cultivate and perpetuate unlawful and unethical treatment of other people.
Lower consumer prices? That's bullshit. Lower than what? Lower on what?
Anyway... I'm going back to finish my response to the rest of your last post.
You don't seem to have read the article I gave you. It references analyses that estimate impact of NAFTA, so they're referring to net increase in GDP and jobs vs where we would have been without NAFTA. I applaud skepticism, but I do not applaud dismissing analysis simply because it doesn't have the answer you want.
BTW, I looked at several analyses before I posted that link. The others reflected a rosier result from NAFTA. This one was more balanced - it discusses negatives as well as positives. Still, I acknowledge that it could be wrong, but I think it's stupid to insist it's necessarily wrong. The point is: what if it's right?
What a year. The biggest thing for me was the end of the Russia witch hunt. Not only did it fail to find any collusion, it proved Trumps opponents in the media and elsewhere to be credulous, conspiratorial, and illiberal.
But it never stopped. “Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim”, wrote Santayana. Do they remember their aim? Because Trump’s opponents have redoubled their efforts with their impeachment, which now center around Russia’s opponent Ukraine, and Trump’s conversations with the president there. No crime had occurred, no victim was apparent, leaving inquisitors such as Shiff to ad lib the conversation in front of Congress and the American public, all while lying about his coordination with the alleged whistleblower, who has “arguable political bias”.
Then the IG report came out, proving the Devin Nunes memo of early 2018 mostly right, and the Adam Schiff response memo mostly wrong. We already know which of the two memos was vilified and praised by the press and their base at the time.
So in my opinion the big story of 2019 was the anti-Trumpism, which is the rot festering away at this great republic.
Don't they ever give you a day off? Chill and enjoy the fireworks ;)
It's an outright declaration of war. And if Donnie did it, he certainly did not have congressional approval...
There could be very severe ramifications from this if there is widespread escalation.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/whitehouse/status/1212934206986293248?s=21[/tweet]
Too old.
Some other dude once said that war seems sweet and romantic only to those who have never experienced it...
Conclusion: Old men who have never experienced war are sending young men to suffer and die; war kills the best of us, and we're then left with draft dodging cowards hypocritically waging war for frivolous and ultimately counter-national reasons.
More details on same.
Questioner: ‘That is a steaming pile of s***t’
WH Press Secretary: ‘You’re wrong, sir, that is an exquisite, 11th Century Chinese porcelain vase, valued at more than a million dollars’.
Questioner: ‘But look at it! It’s a stinking pile of malodorous brown sludge, it looks and smells like a turd!’
WH Press Secretary: ‘No, you’re quite wrong. We say it’s a vase, and to say otherwise is to go against the express will of the American people. Now, give me your press pass, and you will be shown the door by Security. Good day.’
It’s a volunteer army. It was a missile strike.
Oh shoot... You got me there. How can we blame politicians for starting wars? Since the soldiers voluntarily joined the army, it's not the politicians' fault...
P.S: Trump is a draft dodger...
Nothing about Biden or the 2020 election in those emails. They only suggest that all relevant actors were trying to do things legally, and in fact did so.
Which war are you talking about?
Is that not what you were suggesting?
No my point is soldiers volunteer to fight for their country and their leaders, and they do so knowing the risks involved. No one is sending them to die.
Are you saying that soldiers join the army knowing they risk being sent to fight and die in a frivolous war? (obviously... What's your point?)
Is it that because leaders represent the people, it's actually a good and just thing when a soldier dies in a pointless war? That the politicians cannot be blamed?
You seem to be missing the point. Soldiers are duty bound to obey orders, it's what they're for; I'm telling your the orders themselves can be stupid, for which the commander in chief can be directly blamed.
I’m just saying no one is sending them to go die, but to carry out military operations. That kind of pacifist rhetoric is false on its face.
It was a missile attack against a terrorist organization threatening American soldiers and interests. Do you think that was stupid? Why?
Right. You're just ignoring the point in favor of an irrelevant red-herring appeal to the fact that armies exist.
Quoting NOS4A2
Because of who they killed. Apparently Soulemani was one of the most important people in Iran, protege to the Iranian Ayatollah, and one of the top-most field commanders...
Are you even reading my posts? I'm saying Trump may have just precipitated war with Iran by assassinating a member of their government.
But of course, that's neither here nor there right? War is ambivalent; blowing shit up is what soldiers are for.
[quote=NY Times]Interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials, congressional aides and others, previously undisclosed emails and documents, and a close reading of thousands of pages of impeachment testimony provide the most complete account yet of the 84 days from when Mr. Trump first inquired about the money to his decision in September to relent.
What emerges is the story of how Mr. Trump’s demands sent shock waves through the White House and the Pentagon, created deep rifts within the senior ranks of his administration, left key aides like Mr. Mulvaney under intensifying scrutiny — and ended only after Mr. Trump learned of a damning whistle-blower report and came under pressure from influential Republican lawmakers.
...The interviews and documents show how Mr. Trump used the bureaucracy to advance his agenda in the face of questions about its propriety and even legality from officials in the White House budget office and the Pentagon, many of whom say they were kept in the dark about the president’s motivations and had grown used to convention-flouting requests from the West Wing. One veteran budget official who raised questions about the legal justification was pushed aside.[/quote]
All of this was in order to coerce President Zelenksy to announce an investigation into the Bidens so as to undermine his 2020 campaign. So, as always, your posts on this matter are the opposite of the reality - which as I suppose as a disinformation agent, you're supposed to do.
No I’m ignoring your piffle and histrionics about this event in particular, and war in general.
This was, according to the Whitehouse, a “decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad”. So much for sending them to die. But as you know, no war has been started.
Soulemani was the commander of the Quds force, a terrorist organization. I’m sorry for your loss.
Completely fabricated from thin air, or Democrat propaganda, both of which suit useful idiots just perfectly.
Right. Ignoring the point I made and substituting irrelevant nonsense. We agree.
Quoting NOS4A2
Well if according to the white house the bad terrorists are dead and we should be thanking them, maybe it's time for that military parade? Maybe in lieu of war with Iran now that the terrorist is dead?
I think filling your head with dreams of coming wars and Adolph Trump suffices enough to keep you entertained.
So more irrelevant nonsense then?
Let me know when you find some.
Which was attested by several thousand pages of witness testimony.
It's a Ming vase, by the way.
The witness testimony says otherwise:
***
***
So how do you explain your falsehoods—credulity or lies?
So, NOs, I'm not going to waste time on bullshit games and hair-splitting arguments with a disinformation agent. If I never respond to your posts again, it's because I think they have no grounds, so I am not going to waste my time and everyone else's time responding to them.
I've always said that Trump in his ineptness of leadership, inability to govern or make his own administration to work makes everything so evident, clear and so obvious. Every truthful book and article paint the same Picture of this guy.
Things like this simply paralyze the US foreign policy.
But that doesn't matter, of course. To his supporters everything is just a huge conspiracy against their Messiah.
I thought you were undead.
All it took to refute your piffle about announcements was to refer to the testimony. It was presumption, guesswork, fantasy. Like I said, fabricated from thin air. Do you admit this? No, you double down, kick the can down the road to the overheard phone call.
Watch as Holmes melts under cross examination.
I don’t care if you want to waste your time with me or not, I don’t care if you will not defend your fetid propaganda. You’re a lost cause. I’m trying to defend those you are lying to.
You are truly a saint in the basket of deplorables.
Lol just looking out for you, bub.
Trump criticizing Obama back in 2011...
And that.
I'm not sure if you have missed it, but this is a total disaster.
So now the US is basically attacking militias that are at least theoretically under the control of Iraqi armed forces. And then makes the attack on Iranian military personnel in the Iraqi capital. Yeah, no wonder that the Iraqi Parliament will vote on the subject if the US forces are still wellcome or not in the country.
But perhaps Trump can overthrow the government the US spent two trillion dollars forming in the first Place? Would be a fitting end to the war that Dubya started.
No you're missing the point (apparently), in a war it's actually the solder on the ground who does the killing and perpetuating the conflict. The cowards who sit at home and give the orders are just trying to stop them, to stop and prevent war. If it weren't for those pesky solders volunteering and going and killing other solders, we would all be living in peace and harmony, war would never happen.
I don't think it was strictly a Trump thing (like I'm in the inner circle or something).
The Iranian in question had been a target for a while because he was the primary means by which Shiite Iran destabilized the region.
All the Sunnis in the area were happy to see him die and happy to have Iran told to sit down and shut up. So if Iran chooses to escalate things, its not just the US they'll be fighting and one assumes they know that.
I think they'll take the opportunity to sit down and shut up (after the obligatory flaming is finished).
The action was the equivalent of Iran assassinating Colin Powell at the height of his popularity. They are not going to "sit down and shut up". They have enough surrogates in the region to do plenty of damage and they will. The question is will the US then escalate into a full scale war (which they would have no hope of winning, which they can't afford, and which mother Russia would not like at all). My guess is there will be some tit for tat and then a return to low level hostilities as before. In any case, this will be a good test of Putin's hold over Trump.
Sort of, yes. Powell was more destructive.
Quoting Baden
Like kill an American contractor and dance threateningly around the US Embassy in Baghdad?
Quoting Baden
With less coordinated efforts to give hope to Iraqi Shiites, IOW: sitting down and shutting up.
What is it non-Iranian Shiites hope for? Do you know?
I expect it will amount to more than that, unfortunately. Not that killing any American isn't a serious act. But I expect Iran to gamble on American weakness rather than strength considering the recent firing of chief Iran hawk John Bolton, the expressed wish to get out of the Middle East, the retreat from Syria, Trump's servile relationship with Putin, the lack of support from American allies, and the general lack of coherence in policy. Why do you think Iran would bet on American strength and bow down?
I think that's what killing the American and protesting around the embassy was: checking to see if trump would respond by abandoning Iraq.
Quoting Baden
The assassination. What did you think it was for?
What do you mean by "bow down"? I already specified what I meant by SD and SU.
Putin has such a grip on Trump that Trump keeps bombing Putin’s allies. Perhaps the test has already failed. There was no grip.
They are words on a screen. The deliberate annoyance is your own fault, as you goad yourself into a frothing fit each time you read them.
Your conspiracy theories only add to the tin-foil nature of your responses.
That coup was the origin of relations, but there was reason to hope Obama's nuclear deal might lead to improving relations over time. By withdrawing from it, Trump killed that possibility and demonstrated that the US is an untrustworthy negotiator.
Actually Trump also bombed his own allies. But I guess it works great. See how well it worked with Pakistan, your former ally.
Yeah, some time ago the US was really a leader in the World. Just think about this newsreel from the 1950's and how things are now.
When the US bombs Russia's allies, do you think that will somehow turn them against Russia? Seems to me it's a win for Putin - I doubt Putin really cares about the loss of life among his allies.
The US is more a leader now than it ever was. Number one economy, number one energy producer, number one military force on the globe. The US has effectively defended the West while Europe had to rebuild itself from its disastrous century of wars. It’s pretty clear the US is still the world leader, if not by choice, then at least because no one else has stepped up to the plate.
The US bombing a key Russian ally is a win for Putin?
Said without irony, too.
Yes. When the US bombs a Russian ally, Russia comes out ahead, in terms of influence and with trade, particularly arms sales. Is there any downside for Russia?
That might happen.
But then again Soleimani was a direct link between Khomeini and the Kremlin, and worked with Putin in Syria. He just lost a key ally. I do not think more trade and influence with Iran is worth risking further alienation from America and her allies, with the recent massive arms deals and good relations with Iran's biggest enemies. Putin will not benefit from anything that might further destabilize that region.
There is no draft, genius.
Because Trump looks unpredictable, destructive, not concerned with proportionality, and egotistical.. I'd be scared shitless if I lived in Iran. Americans are tired of the financial burden of war sure, which is an annoyance, but nothing like the chaos, disruption, and death its enemies have endured. Trump didn't screw up America. He screwed up Iran. They now have to weigh saving face by doing something ultimately suicidal against accepting this kick in the nuts from their arch nemesis.
Thing is, in this case the decision seems entirely irrational, and that's scary.
Surely you don't really believe killing Soleimani somehow severs the link between Iran and the Kremlin. At worst, it's an inconvenience.
[Quote]I do not think more trade and influence with Iran is worth risking further alienation from America and her allies[/quote]
Are you suggesting this alienates Russia from the U.S.? What makes you think that? How does this change anything- Russia was already their ally and arms supplier, and we already didn't like that they were doing this. What changes?
[Quote]with the recent massive arms deals and good relations with Iran's biggest enemies. Putin will not benefit from anything that might further destabilize that region.[/quote]
Putin benefits from bad perceptions of the US. Russian oil benefits from supply constraints from the middle east. Major instability would hurt them, but it hurts the US more, and this makes it a win for Russia.
Someone Putin directly worked with in military operations in Syria is blown to pieces, and at worst it’s an inconvenience? Even if I was to grant that, an inconvenience isn’t a benefit.
No, I’m suggesting Trump just blew up Putin’s Iranian military ally and he cannot do anything about it. If he did, it would put His country at odds with Iran’s enemies: US, Israel, UAE and Saudi Arabia, relationships Russia has been cultivating in recent decades.
It’s a big loss for Russia. It was the Iran deal which allowed Putin to continue selling arms to Iran. If the UN sanctions Iran again Putin can say bye bye to his arms deals there.
I'm curious, but what do you think is irrational about it? I ask because Iran's been poking this bear for a while now and it finally bit back. Trump took a risk Obama and Bush refused to, that's for certain. But upon seeing the middle east after their administrations I'm not so sure they're the epitome of rationality, or rationality has done little for the middle east. I'm of the opinion that a leader should stand by his red line.
Well, didn't Iran give up its nuclear program with the help of Obama's promise of funds and technology regarding nuclear reactors, with Russia supporting this effort by enriching Iran's uranium reserves and sending it back to Iran to be used as fuel for nuclear reactors?
I’m not too sure, to tell you the truth.
Truth is, Trump desecrated many years of effort by Obama's administration to convince Iran not to pursue nuclear capability. Quite sad, I think.
Wrong.
Number one energy producer is China. The US has been before number one, but isn't anymore.
And with the other rankings, if you mean by "more a leader now" at least in the post WW2 era there hasn't been any change other than the US has lost part of it's dominance.
But in the typical American fashion, these facts are somehow "forgotten" only to be rediscovered when a favourable President is in Office. As if during Obama somehow the US wasn't the biggest economy. Everything is just a commentary on the present domestic politics. Just choose the facts or falsehoods.
And any way, to make America GREAT AGAIN was only to elect Trump as President. Nothing else had to be done.
Quoting NOS4A2
And this shows how illogical and incoherent this is. Isn't that 'defence of the West' that you are supposed to be so tired of? And why would there even have to be a Leader country? Still, other countries would be just fine if the US would show leadership. But no. You won't do that.
The US especially under Trump has done the uttermost to vacate this leadership position. It's not surprising that the French President called NATO braindead. It is that. NATO still would have the smart agenda of the past: that is keep the Russians out, keep the US in and keep Germany down. but this administration surely doesn't want that. Yet of course, Trump supporters like this. They love that the US doesn't form alliances but goes alone. They don't see ANY reason for there being a NATO. These same people don't even know that there were two defunct similar organizations (CENTO and SEATO) which were replaced by simply NOTHING. Or with previous allies being now threats to the US.
As I've stated, I think US foreign policy is dead for now. The hubris of the Bush neocons is replaced by the total confusion of the Trump era. Hopefully adults in Washington will take it over sometime in the future. But I'm not hopeful. The biggest failure has been that the foreign policy establishment has totally failed in making the past US policy to be understood by the voters.
No, Putin can't do anything about it, but why would he need or want to? Putin respected Soleimani, but I see no reason to think it's critical to Russia'a relationship with Iran. I agree that Putin would have preferred Soleimani remain alive, but it's minor compared to the overall benefit he gets from Trump being in office.
Now you can be sure.
I'm against all nuclear armaments, but I can't say I blame any country with tensions with the US that thinks they should have one of those in their back pocket. We don't have a great track record about that stuff.
I meant oil production, but you’re right. I’ll concede that point because I did say “energy”.
But other than that you’re putting words in my mouth and forgetting your own point, about how some time ago the US was really a leader in the World. You posted a video from the 50’s to give force to it. I assumed you knew I was comparing then and now, not Trump and Obama. But no, in typical anti-Trump fashion we’re right back to anti-Trumpism.
That’s right, and now the other members have to pay their fair share, because thankless Europeans have been benefitting from American defense and money for the past 70 years and have hardly anything to show for it. Yes, a leader would rethink these alliances, especially if they prove to be a waste of time, resources and money. You guys weren’t paying your fair share and act surprised when someone shows you otherwise. God forbid Europe pays its way in its own defense.
It turns out Obama’s pallets of cash directly funded state terrorism and opened up Iran to arm sales from Russia and elsewhere. Now they are using those weapons.
The US has been the biggest economy for a long time. The only thing is that it isn't as dominant as it was in the 1950's, when Europe was still rebuilding and China was destroying itself with Communism. I'm not forgetting my own point. US foreign policy has morphed to unilateral bullying without any kind of long term thinking behind it. It doesn't care a shit about it's own allies or bother creating alliances. Now with the Trump yesmen alongside Trump, it's just one disaster lead by tweets. I have no clue what they are doing...and likely the Trump administration hasn't either. It's just reactions to things that happen.
Quoting NOS4A2
This is actually a myth.
a) European NATO members have vowed themselves to put more money in defence and some even have done that.
b) During the Cold War the other NATO nations they did their part: they had large armed forces. Once Soviet Union collapsed and the Russian tanks weren't anymore roaming around parts of Germany, things changed. It's totally natural that the defence budgets were cut. The US with the neocons chose a path to invade countries, which is the reason for the high US defence expenditure.
c) So let's think about that "fair share". That the US has continued huge defence spending has happened because of the WARS it started itself. So you tell me, NOS4A2, what has the US gained with it's 2,3 trillion dollar war and over 3 000 dead soldiers in Iraq? Because that is actually what makes the huge difference in spending.
And tell me just why NATO members would have to go along with another stupid war now with Iran, when there already was a gameplan how to handle Iran accepted by everyone, which Trump then decided to throw into the garbage. The only logical thing for Iran is to build as quickly a nuclear weapons deterrence as it can. It seems to be the only way to stop US Presidents from bombing their country once they are on the list of bad guys. You have great example of what will happen if you do it (North Korea) and another examples if you choose to stop your WMD projects and go along with the US demands (Libya and Iraq). So without WMD's = utter chaos, with WMD's = photo-ops with US President.
Quoting NOS4A2
Leaders ought to think how they can get their team to work for the common objective. A leader isn't someone who unilaterally decides to do something and bullies others that if they don't oblige, they will be working with the enemy. That simply isn't leadership.
And if you don't want to be a leader, then don't be. As I've said, countries would be OK with the US being a leader, but if opts not to be one, it's not the end of the World.
Look. Nobody will take your place. China will just have a bigger say in Eurasia and Africa, Russia in Europe and Middle East. That's it. There's just going to be this shit storm for a while when you go back home to eat your apple pie and the regional powers adapt to the new reality and sort it out themselves.
Hey, ssu... is the state of affairs beyond recourse or is there some logic behind this?
Wow...
I appreciate your opinion, ssu. You are a far better historian than I. But when your bureaucrats and globalists told us they created the end of history, they gave us the clash of civilizations instead. Trump is left to clean up their mess and he’s doing a damn good job of it.
That’s the way it should be, in my opinion. The US needs to step away from the world stage, and especially leave that pile of dust to its inhabitants. We no longer require their oil, their workers, their ancient tribalisms. The American tax-payer pays to build schools and facilities in Iraq. They pay to fund NATO, the UN, and train armies and peacekeepers around the world. No one in Eurasia wants us there, even if the US presided over the Long Peace. I’d love to see how long the Old World can last on it’s own two feet.
Anti-Trumpism leads one to reserve their finger-wagging for Trump while allowing them to remain silent on Iranian theocrats and terrorists. Trump is the Great Scapegoat of whatever happens next, so long as whatever happens makes things demonstrably worse.
Take some Xanax and/or Haldol.
No, I don't think so.
You see, the allies of the US are still waiting for the US to take the leadership role. Trump is still seen as an anomaly and things can be thought to change back to 'normal' (like in the times of older Bush, Clinton, Obama, even Dubya). It would be only serious if the French President wouldn't be talking about NATO being braindead, but "being dead". It's when nobody believes any more in any kind of Transatlantic Partnership. Once the new talk in Washington DC is about bilateral defence agreements with various European countries, then NATO is dead. If that happens, then Europeans in the EU will seriously start to talk about CSDP (Common Security and Defence Policy).
Now CENTO collapsed in revolutions, first with the Iraqi revolution and then with the Iranian revolution. Yet the collapse of SEATO is the example of how things can go differently. France and Pakistan weren't interested in fighting the Vietnam war with the US and Pakistan finally left in 1973 when it didn't get any support in it's war with India. The US simply failed to see any point of the organization with Thailand, Phillipines, Australia and New Zealand and opted for bilateral defence agreements.
Is there logic?
Is there logic with Trump?
The logic seems to be more from film or a television series: The President is doing something and then he's suddenly whisked away to Presidential Emergency Operations Center, briefed quickly with the facts on the ground and then he has some seconds to make his decision on the go-ahead or to call it off. And what better for "the decider" to show Presidential decisiveness than to show the green light. No allies or nobody else than present in the room are consulted. And if things are talked about before, perhaps the "Walk & Talks" of The West Wing TV-series, making decisions literally on the fly when walking from one meeting to another, is the way how things are handled. Even if people might actually be seated.
Then once the decision is made, then the next thing is how to deal with the response (which nobody has had the time think about).
Because how else can you find a strategy in the actions of the US when it comes to the Middle East?
Suddenly the US withdraws from Syria. Secretary of Defence resigns because of this decision. Turkish leader Erdogan calls Trump and Trump OK's Turkish involvement in Syria. Then Trump backtracks: the decision changes to only a partly withdrawal. Trump sends a letter to Erdo?an threatening him not to invade Syria, even though Trump was already pulling back US troops. Erdogan does it anyway. Then Trump is great friends with Erdogan. And so on and so on...
So now quite sidelined issue was the Iraqi Parliament's decision to kick foreign troops out. Now, did the Trump administration think that this would be the response? Hardly.
There simply isn't any long term thinking. It is "Leadership by tweets".
True.
Sometimes a Trump fuck-up is just a Trump fuck-up...
But for all the ways the anti-Trumpers contort their principles in order to condemn him in every possible way, Trump supporters put on a much more grotesque display of hypocrisy and ignorance.
Why do they scramble to defend everything Trump has ever done or said? Clearly, if anything, Trump has directly robbed America of what dignity and respect it had left. Are they just pot committed? Stubborn?
I thought you guys were "patriots", not Patriot's fan boys..
But all of the left-wing news outlets produce a steady drizzle of little distortions. Anyone who watches MSNBC and just nods at everything they say is deluded enough: enough to be incapable of an unbiased assessment.
Does it matter who's worse?
Chicken little and the boy who cried wolf come to mind. The anti-Trumpist media and their base have been claiming economic disaster, the next Hitler, fascism and nuclear war for years. They feared him so much that they abused FISA to spy on his campaign, ruined the ethics of journalism, abused the constitution and impeachment and divided the country to undo the past election
It’s easy to lampoon a public figure, especially when there is a corporate, social and economic benefit for doing so. It’s a trite more difficult to stand against an unruly, unhinged mob of chicken littles who claim they can peer into the future and see our demise. The problem is their prognostications have been proven false every time, so much so that when a real wolf shows up (Soleimani?), they defend the the wolf in order to decry the sheepdog defending them.
Iraq votes to expel US troops from country after Qasem Soleimani killing
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/iraq-votes-to-expel-us-troops-from-country-after-qasem-soleimani-killing/ar-BBYDpcA
Let me try to express this in terms the USA can understand:
GOP to Iraq: "Killing-Iran-leader-when-we-are-not-at-war-with-Iran-is-NOT-ASSASSINATION! We-are-the daleks-and-you-will-obey-or-we-will-EXTERMINATE-you!"
But wait! Doctor Who is here! "Halloo! So what's all this then? Total world domination again, hm?"
I find this especially funny after all the people complaining how Iran has been evil because it is an ally with Iraq, so therefore we are entitled to violate international law. And now OUR OWN PUPPET GOVERNMENT wants us out of Iraq, which they really have to do to keep peace with their neighbor! Which we can't complain about, because we gave them right to rule and assassinated someone there.
And it's exactly how politics work in the Middle East.What a dumbass thing to do, Mr President.
Anyway, sorry to interrupt. Back to your regular programming....
I can't speak for Democrats, but all the anti Trump folk in the UK and they are in the majority, do not remain silent on the nutters in Tehran, they know all to well what the power brokers in the Middle East are like. We get to much focus from foreign correspondents in the media, it's like an obsession.
We know that the whole region is a tinder box just waiting for someone to strike a match. We also know that Trump is a bumbling fool with his finger on the big red button. He is so bumbling that as he is trying to take the match out of the box, he just keeps fumbling and dropping them all on the floor. He'll have to get one of his hawks with their fingers in war trade investments to do it for him.
He doesn't even realise that all he needs to do to start the conflagration in the Middle East is to tweet some anti Islamic insults.
Oh, wait a minute he has tweeted Islamic insults. What a great US statesman (not), oh how the mighty US has fallen.
I think this misses the point. If it were as simple as taking out bad people then I'm sure many would be in favour of taking out Kim Jong-un, Xi, Duterte, Putin, etc. But the reality is that there would be consequences that just aren't worth whatever would be gained. In this case people are concerned that provoking Iran risks a conflict that will cause more damage than whatever it is Soleimani would have been responsible for were he alive.
The Fukuyaman moment of "End of History" was a different kind of hubris, but still hubris just like 'Manifest Destiny' with similar ideas of inescapable outcomes and inherent virtue. It's there perhaps with the hubristic idea of globalization and economic growth as a cure for everthing, which especially was (and is) rampant in the EU. The EU simply assumed that "all you need is economic growth, and that comes through integration, intergration and more integration and also through globalization". Well, globalization isn't only blessing and integration is difficult and isn't a cure for all. That the EU is a bag of independent nations with their own cultures didn't matter to the internationalist elites either: Let's just assume everything can be answered by bureaucrats in Brussells. Let's create EU unity with a flag and stealing from Beethoven "Ode to Joy" to be the "anthem" of the EU. Not so. People relate to their nation states, not the EU.
And it wasn't either so in the US. Not only was the Financial Crisis, but also so the "socialism to the rich" and the slow growth afterwards that lead to Trump.
The only serious disagreement which we have (which we I think we are totally OK with) is just how capable Trump is. Populism is something that becomes problematic once in power. Not everything in the "old order" was bad, just as a leader has to get people with different objectives and agendas to work together. Trump sure stirs up the soup, I wouldn't how much cleaner everything is really after him.
Quoting NOS4A2
Careful what you wish for.
Have you ever considered just how much of the affluence of America IS BASED ON IT BEING IN THE SOLE SUPERPOWER ROLE? Have you ever thought that the whole International system is built around you? Or you just think it's natural because you are just so inherently awesome and there simply cannot be any kind of other system?
What you desperately need is the US dollar having the role it has now. Yet it could be replaced by a mix of currencies, where the USD is just one important currency among others. Just saying.
You noticed it too? Not something that is on the first page, but ought to be. Trump is already contemplating sanctions against Iraq if they go through with this.
But hey, the US overthrew Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia and so now the new Serbia is ...an ally of Russia. So it's not the first time, especially in a country that you have bombed.
The provocation here wasn't coming from the US, it was coming from Iran. I think it's likely Iran's recent boldness is a consequence of America's erratic foreign policy. IOW, this is part of the price for abandoning the Kurds.
Iranian aggression is tied to religious zealotry. Maybe part of the problem is that non-religious people are out of touch with the depth of emotion tied up in not only religious feeling, but a long history of religious suppression. It turns into bloodlust that at its root has nothing to do with political boundaries.
Maybe British Isles people could get a hint of it from thinking about bloodshed in Northern Ireland. Or not.
Isn't that politics-as-usual? Never give credit to the other side for anything good, and always assign blame for anything bad.
The ultimate irony is that no politician has done this to the degree that Trump has. Would you like to be reminded about the various attacks he's made? Oh, that's right - you don't care what he says. Oddly, you do care about what his political opponents say.
It’s also a big slap in the face to Iranian aggression.
Iran sabotages two oil tankers, Trump does not retaliate. Iran captures British oil tanker, Trump does not retaliate. Iran captures US drone, Trump does not retaliate. Iran attacks Saudi Oil field, Trump does not retaliate. Iran attacks US embassy, Trump finally retaliates. Now people are concerned about provoking conflict.
No, I don’t care what they say. But I know you’d just love to reiterate trumps speech and thought crimes because it’s really all you guys have.
To declare this general as a legitimate target and not be considered assassinated by other countries, wouldn't they have to hold an international tribunal and declare him a war criminal? I don;t know the details of that, but it seems to me it doesn't matter what his past history in Iraq was, nor does it matter what he was plotting to do (it's not as if the USA doesn't make plans to attack Iran too). He's now a leader in Iran, and killing him pre-emptively sets a horrid precedent. At least Milosevic had already been declared a war criminal by the International court in the EU.
So we can bludgeon around the world and kill anyone we consider a threat? Who's next on the assassination list?
If this is what we do, this raises some serious concerns about the poison attack on Kim Jong Un's brother or whoever it was. Can we do so covertly and blame another country too?
International tribunals give bad vibes to Trump supporters.
Besides, Trump doesn't care about all that humbug of international law and isn't in the business of forming alliances, working with other countries and all that nonsense. :down:
America first! MAGA! :up:
Don't be so flippant. Post the work, show the work, make the argument you want to make based upon the work. I've a very strong feeling that there is nothing in that report that could be used to show the negative affects/effects that a number of different pieces of legislation has had on a very large swathe of the American population.
If you do not have a good grasp upon the adverse harmful affects/effects, then there is no way to be able to perform a comparison contrast between those negative and the positives that you seem to find relevant. Higher GDP - after implementation of certain pieces of legislation - is not a measure of whether or not very large swathes of Americans have been directly financially harmed as a result.
There are far fewer good paying jobs with good benefits for entry level and/or non college educated people. Of course there are more jobs, if for no other reason this is easily proven and supported by the fact that so many folk have had to take on multiple jobs as a means to make it. Often times even when multiple jobs are being worked, the person still does not make as much, and thus cannot live as comfortably as before when there were good paying jobs.
You cannot look at GDP and job numbers as a means to establish the unnecessary and demonstrable financial harm that has been suffered by countless Americans, and in a myriad of ways as a result of trade agreements. You cannot look at the increase in low paying jobs without benefits as a means to say that there is a net positive effect/affect upon a very large swathe of the American population. You cannot neglect the facts.
You've also not touched upon the part about the US government allowing it's citizen business owners to treat workers in ways that are illegal in the US. You've also not touched upon the fact that by allowing products resulting from slavery and horrible worker abuses(human rights violations), the US government has not only harmed Americans, but is sponsoring such unacceptable inhumane treatment of humans by virtue of incentivizing and allowing the practices. You ignore these flagrant failures of responsibility of elected officials as a means to lay claim and/or argue for cheaper goods, higher GDP, and more total job numbers???
:brow:
I want the crystal ball those economists used to predict what the US would have been like had manufacturing not been systematically and slowly dismantled.
That would be a prized possession.
So, instead of reading the report I gave you, you're going to make assumptions on what it says based on your "very strong feelings." And yet, you claim I'm the one being flippant.
Quoting creativesoul
I never denied that some individuals have been hurt. How many jobs have been lost is impossible to day, because some of the job losses attributed to NAFTA would have been lost anyway - manufacturing has been shifting out of the US for a long time; NAFTA probably sped it up, but it didn't originate it. The report you didn't read discusses this.
What you overlook is that NAFTA also created some jobs, and raised the income for some people. So some people are better off, and others are worse off. You seem blind to that, and focus entirely on those who are worse off. Sorry, but I think it would be absurd to avoid taking actions that are in the general interest because it will negatively impact a relatively small number of people. Businesses strive for "efficiency" and efficiency entails producing more for less money. Automation does that, and so does utilizing cheaper labor in locations outside the US. Protectionism to prevent utilizing cheaper labor makes as much sense as forbidding automation.
That said, I do think it appropriate to provide remedy for those who ARE negatively impacted - e.g. training and education, perhaps moving expenses to move to areas where there are more, or better, jobs. THAT would make it win-win for everyone.
Then why make the following post:
Quoting NOS4A2
You're playing exactly the same partisan game as the people you criticize.
Quoting NOS4A2
Unlike you, I think what are leaders say does matter. My primary issue with Trump is not "thought crimes" - it's that he's arrogant and stupid. This is regularly shown in his tweets, rally-streams of consciousness, and his Fox interviews. IMO, anyone who doesn't see this is either blinded by faith in Trump or they are are even dumber than he is.
Or maybe they'll just smuggle in a suitcase bomb to NYC. That would suck.
Because it is true.
I haven’t criticized anyone for being partisan.
You don’t like the way he talks. I get it. But if a good talker is your standard for good leadership than any actor who can read a script will suffice as your ideal politician. That frightens me because talking good is all some people can do.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/iran-further-breaches-nuclear-deal-says-it-can-exceed-20-enrichment-idUSKCN1VS05B
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/iran-breaches-nuclear-deal-enrichment-push-watchdog-191111183454063.html
They’ve been consistently breaching the deal.
What you do is to respond perceived partisan comments with your own partisan comments. It's a waste of time. I try to avoid that sort of thing. For instance, my view on Trump's stupidity is based on examining facts.
Quoting NOS4A2
You're deflecting from the point I made, just like all loyal partisans. This isn't a matter of merely "not liking" what he says, it's a matter of being alarmed at how stupid he must be to say them, and how stupid and/or blindly loyal his followers are for not seeing this.
They were never going to satisfy the hawks in Washington. There is no way to stop the war, because eventually the Iranians will get their nuclear bomb and the Yanks can't allow that. Trump has been hoodwinked into giving it the go ahead, he said repeatedly that he didn't want any more foreign interventions, but he is going to have the war because he's been told by his advisors that there's no other way to prevent the nuclear bomb and he's to weak to stand up to them.
The shame is that Johnson will be forced to support him and send British troops, because Johnson is now a lap dog to Trump. Unless the public opinion in the UK against the war becomes so great that it brings down the government.
They were complying with the deal before Trump dumped it. This was the first bullet fired in the war because it backed Iran into a corner.
I suppose he just bungled his way into the most powerful position in the world. Meanwhile all your smooth-talking, private/public view lawyers are dropping like flies.
So what? Your obsequiousness to intellectuals and smooth talkers alarms me.
There is no war, but if there is, we’ll be important allies as we always have. It’s far better than appeasing a terrorist state with money and grovelling. Hopefully Boris will bring a spine back to what was once a powerful nation.
Not at all - I'm not suggesting he's low IQ. Rather, he has the sort of superficial knowledge of the world that pundits possess (like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin), and that point of view has a big audience. The stupidity lies in thinking there's no need for more in depth analysis and knowledge, and thinking you know better than everyone else...and in exercising an extreme amount of confirmation bias, so that he accepts any conspiracy theory that comes along that confirms his prior beliefs, and his unwillingness to accept expert advice that is contrary to his ignorant gut feel.
Quoting NOS4A2I respect the opinion of authorities, and it is irrational to deny them solely because you don't like their conclusions. Authorities can be wrong - obviously they aren't always in agreement, but accepting a non-authority demagogue(especially one that so frequently spouts untruths) over an actual authority based solely on faith in the demagogue - that's scary. And that gets back to why it matters what Trump says: there's no good reason to trust either his judgment nor what he says.
I think Europe in general has lost the capacity for self-determination. I don't think Boris can alter that.
His gut feelings have done a better job than any sober, technocratic deliberation. They think and claim to know better but I don’t think that’s the case. All the over-educated, effete people know how to do is talk, talk, talk. What have they built? What have they made? What else have they done?
Name one prediction regarding Trump’s presidency that an “authority” has gotten correct, because I don’t think they have any authority anymore, and perhaps never did. People who can spout off facts prove only that they know how to recite facts, but not much else. Follow them if you wish, but I would much rather follow someone with the experience of life, not the experience of a library.
I think if they detach themselves from Brussels they might not have the choice to do otherwise, a sink or swim kind of moment.
I'm assuming it's going to be swim.
His "gut feel" has resulted in such things as:
- a stalling to real immigration reform.
- damaged relations with allies
- damaged Ukraine internally and with respect to Russia
- the death of hundreds of Kurdish allies - and demonstrated the untrustworthiness of the US
- created a crisis with Iran
- damaged relations with Iraq
- threats to removing health care coverage for millions
- failed to address the impending funding crisis for social security
- created an unnecessary, inappropriate, and damaging controversy with application of the code of military justice
- exacerbated political/ideological divisions within the US
- promotion of crazy conspiracy theories
What have experts done? Over the decades, they have provided sound advice that enables poltical leaders to progress the country in positive ways - and the country HAS advanced. Consider the trade deals that Trump has blasted out of ignorance and/or political expediency. What has been their net effect?
Quoting NOS4A2
Most expert predictions relate to the long term - like the long term unsustainability of these high levels of deficit spending, the long term damage to international relations, and of course - to climate change.
But some shorter term predictions have also borne out: experts predicted Trump's actions in Syria would result in the death of Kurds (which has been borne out) and that this will have the long term effect of increasing distrust of America (which seems indisputable). Experts disagreed with Trump's prediction of 6% GDP grown. Experts predicted that termination of NAFTA would be severely damaging to the economy - fortunately this didn't occur, and it was never likely, but expert analysis has always shown that freer trade is in the general interest (contrary to Tump's stated beliefs).
Except it would be under duress, a kind of blackmail, nice.
Johnson would never have the support of, or mandate from the British people to go to war against Iran in these circumstances. If it were to happen, it would be under a cloak of deceit, like the way Tony Blair took us into Iraq.
You do realise, how Bush made Blair commit troops to Iraq, don't you?
Blair visited him on his ranch in the US, Bush invited him to pray with him in his private chapel and God told them to invade Iraq. After God said this and Bush nodded, Blair couldn't shake his head in denial, he had to nod too and the deal was done. Bush used God to hoodwink him into Iraq.
Then Blair hoodwinked parliament into Iraq with the dodgy dossier, which claimed that Saddam had WMD, which could be deployed directly against the UK in 45 minutes.
This time it will be blackmail.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/rockets-us-airbase-iraq/index.html
Expect Trump to address the nation.
What's he going to say? How, because Israel and Saudi Arabia are such great friends, we should destroy Iran for them? Is doing to Iran what was done to Afghanistan and Iraq really the answer? If Trump declares war, won't he be demonstrating how unstable of a leader he is?
Apparently the generals gave him the option of killing Seulemani only as an "extreme option" to make the others seem more reasonable. Why did Trump undo the work Obama had done to make peace with Iran?
I think you will find Americans are decidedly against the notion of going to war with Iran...
That won't stop them, he will just tell them Iran's got to be stopped and they will all ( well enough for him to say it's the will of the people) bow down in praise of his greatness.
In the UK we are used to this now.
Congratulations! You got yourself the First Trump war.
Or not.
If Trump starts a war and attacks those 52 targets he promised to attack, you'll be for it.
If Trump doesn't start a war (has this huge weak-dick moment) you'll be for it.
Remember this Trump from 2011? Boy, does he accurately predict his own policies (and shows his stupidity).
But remember Trump thinks Obama was a weak black foreigner, not the same.
He's chosen the weak dick moment. Probably he was given little choice by those who know better.
So weak dick that he blew up the Ayatollahs right-hand man.
Not nuclear power. Nuclear weapons.
Are you going to answer the question about Iran becoming nuclear?
I believe Iran already has nuclear power. As for nuclear weapons, Trump just suggested a new deal, calling on the E3, China, NATO, Russia to help.
:confused: I wonder if you will ever be able to give President Trump a chance. As "thinkers" we should be able to see both sides of a debate without fear of movement. As Aristotle taught us "It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain the ideas of others without accepting them as our own".
Has President Trump satisfied Aristotle's Challenge on Anger? "To become angry is easy - but to be angry at the right person, at the right time, for the right reason to right degree, that is not so easy."
In this particular case, with strike that killed Iranian Generalneral Qasem Soleimani, I think Aristotle's Challenge was satisfied long ago and was delayed justice.
Obama’s deal didn’t go far enough. The Iranians were allowed to speed up their ballistic missile program while co-signatories could only stand around and watch.
Russia will see the opportunity to close a noose around the Middle East.
I'm arguing about the unnecessary negative affects/effects that several different pieces of legislation have had upon a very large swathe of American citizens lives and livelihoods, namely all those people whose best chance to live comfortably relies on a strong manufacturing sector.
Some of that legislation includes trade agreements. NAFTA is one. I've never claimed that NAFTA is solely responsible for the harm. You're arguing against straw men here. I'm not ignoring anything at all. I'm arguing that there is nothing in that report which can be used to show the financial ruin of many Americans as a result of elected officials acting on behalf of business interests over and above American workers' and consumers.
Having more things to choose from does not equate to being better. Having more jobs doe not equate to being better. You seem to want to call the effects of the questionable legislation 'a positive'. It has not been a positive for a very large swathe of American workers, business owners, and consumers. The workers have lost good jobs, and have been forced to take on more than one job in order to scrape by. The business owners have been forced to compete with companies whose business practices are not legal in the States. The consumers have more and more inferior quality products to choose from.
The GDP is not a measure of the quality of American life. It is not a measure of the quality of American jobs.
There are plenty of economists and other experts who support support exactly what I've been saying. These are facts. There are fewer good jobs with good benefits. Trade deals are one reason, not the only one. Robert Reich has done extensive work on this topic, as has Elizabeth Warren, and many other less famous people.
I've also no argument against the idea that automation inevitably eliminates jobs while creating new ones, albeit fewer. I've no issue with that, at all. Those things work themselves out so long as they are kept stateside. Your attempt to compare automation and with slave labor is telling of your own morality.
My issue is that American elected officials have enacted legislation that was not in the best interest of the overwhelming majority of Americans. This is best shown in the building trades and manufacturing sectors of the American marketplace as far as good paying jobs goes. All sectors show the horrible effects/affects of health insurance, which also affects the same people I'm talking about. The inferior quality of everyday household goods is also a negative impact which affects/effects all American consumers. All of these measures are profit driven.
When profit is the sole motive, to hell with what's best, what's good, what's moral, what's right...
American elected officials have the responsibility to act in the best interest of Americans. When there is a conflict between the many and few, in all cases aside from basic human rights, they ought act to err on the side of the many. When there is a conflict of interest between the wealthy and the poor, they always ought err on the side of the poor. These are basic fundamental beliefs that this country was founded upon. Several of the founding fathers and instrumental revolutionaries have said as much in the writings prior to and right after the revolution.
Perhaps you’re right. I think the only difference between the two is that Iran has explicitly stated its goal is to destroy Israel.
I doubt the entirety of your theorizing, but who knows?
And I understand why they feel that way. I think allies of human potential would love to see them evolve out of theocracy into something a little more sane. And when I say "them' I mean both Iran and Israel.
I’m pretty sure Israel is a parliamentary democracy.
Sometimes.
If someone assassinated Bush Jr for his part in the Iraq war, would you consider that justice? What about stormin' Norman? Does he deserve to die? And can't we do away with Trump for his betrayal of the Kurds? Or is your rule that only American lives matter (because you can be sure that most Iranians have exactly the same view only in the inverse). For me as a neutral military leaders are in the same broad category?—people whose job is to kill in the interests of their country. Is there some reason I should think differently? You have to take a step back from your position on one side or the other to make a convincing moral argument. Otherwise, we're just talking about strategy, which is fine, but let's make that explicit.
I'm not a pacifist; sometimes the use of military force is justified. The main point I'm making above is that a moral argument would require looking at the full context in a neutral way. I don't expect that here. Strategically, things are simpler, your move should strengthen you and weaken the enemy (at least relatively). And I don't think killing Soleimani achieved that for the Americans. Though the damage on either side has thankfully been limited.
Come on Baden, no my position is not that only American lives matter.
I'm waiting for the moral argument that justifies killing Soleimani rather than Bush or Trump that goes beyond they're American and he's not. I don't think you have one. Prove me wrong.
You may be right.
Continuing with a war with Iran IS a stupid move. Nobody thinks otherwise.
Quoting NOS4A2
Well, if Iraq goes really through with sending US forces and other foreign troops away AND the tit for tat stops really here, it's a clear victory for Iran. Iran has already been given the reason to go full forward with the nuclear development, so...the idea that one general would really be so important (especially when he's now a great martyr) for a large army is um...really a coherent idea? :chin:
The real reason is of course that Trump supporters are actually more logical than their Prez. If they didn't like the 2003 Iraqi invasion at least in hindsight (and Trump slaughtered the Bush candidate with that), have been fed a healthy distrust of the establishment and the military-industrial complex (and deep states etc), they simply won't like going to war with a salami tactic of a tit for tat. Trump will start to erode his own base if he goes to war.
But needles to say that Trump apologists like NOS4A2 will never admit anything like that. Likely they will champion how smart their hero is by NOW by showing restraint.
* * *
Btw the Iranian missiles seem to be quite accurate and seem really to have been intended to hit hangars (of course, there aren't all of the hits in the picture). Naturally the bases had early warning and the personnel evacuated to bunkers. And do notice that there's absolutely no comment about even trying to counter the attacks with ABM systems. It is actually similar to Trump's attack on a Syrian air base: the US did say to the Russians that they were going to attack the air base before hand.
See Satellite Photos Reveal Extent Of Damage From Iranian Strike On Air Base In Iraq
Yeah. All is well. Perhaps Americans will forget this in a couple of months. People in the region will perhaps not.
Remember when you shared this video in the hopes that it would capture his stupidity?
It turns out he was more spot on than you.. He never wanted a war with Iran, and in fact wants to negotiate a better nuclear deal. Iran’s influence in Iraq dangerously grows, just like he predicted. He is indeed more militaristic, showing military strength at key moments, like he did with Soleimani. He supports their protesters, like he said Obama could have done. Iran’s problem’s with protesters is so bad their extrajudicial killings of their own people has fomented inner struggle. Other possibilities besides war should be exhausted, which they were.
The only thing he was wrong about was Obama wanted to start a war with Iran to win the election, which are not unlike the anti-Trump conspiracy theories regarding Trump.
And what deal on Earth are you talking about?
Tell me just when has Trump negotiated with the Iranians. What he has done is to break up a deal which had many countries aboard and basically this. It's just empty like the so-called "breakthroughs" Trump has had with North Korea. So he now knows personally the leader of a country that the US is basically at war. Otherwise...there's not much to show.
And likely this will happen with Iran. Trump will make this a huge victory and hence anything saying otherwise will simply not be said...or at least not handled in media focus. Earlier it was said that countries that had the ability to put satellites into orbit had the potential to create ICBMs. Iran has put satellites up into space since 2005. That's fifteen years ago. Hence you shouldn't be surprised that the discourse will go like with North Korea. With North Korea first it was said extensively that they didn't make a nuclear detonation, but used massive amounts of TNT. Then their satellite launch failed. And in fact all their missile firings were a failure. Now it's "let's change the subject": we have peaceful North Korea!
Unfortunately by his self obsessed behaviour, he is losing the US presence in the Middle East, leaving a vacuum to be filled by Russia, or China. I expect Russia will make the first move, as they have already been showing their presence in the Middle East. This is a big prize for them, because they lost the East European states to the EU. Ever since they have been looking to expand into the countries around the periphery of Europe, what better prize is there than Iran?
I expect in about ten years we will have a proxy war stand off between a US backed Israel and a Russian backed Iran, both sides bristling with nuclear weapons.
All thanks to The King of Comedy Donald Trump, ( read Rupert Pupkin).
Quoting Punshhh
Why is this a big prize to the Russians?
I don't know, but I expect they will want to become an influential friend to a crescent of countries across the Middle East. They talk of Syria as a client state, Turkey has been cooperating with Russia and falling out with the US. As the US strangles Iran with sanctions etc and a promise for a much tougher nuclear deal than the Obama deal, they will look for friends to bolster their economy and prestige. A perfect moment for Russia to step forward. They might even lend Iran a nuclear bomb. This would then enable Iran to begin to dominate the region with a nuclear power behind them. Giving Russia a dominant presence in the region and forcing any US, or European presence remaining out.
Looks like a win win to me and a lose lose for NATO.
Where’s the benefit for them in this?
To re-establish their role on the world stage as a super power. They probably feel diminished now that a number of Eastern European states have now joined the EU, who were once under their control. You know, geopolitical stuff.
That appears to be what he wants. But his diplomacy is terrible. The Iranian say it's that of a terrorist. Should we expect them to negotiate with terrorists? We go to war with terrorists.
Putin wants that Russia is a Great Power. A global player. It's the Russian version of "Make the Country Great Again!" This message sells, you know.
He has already fought back the 'biggest tragedy in history', the collapse of the Soviet Union, by annexing Crimea ...and annexing parts of Georgia back to Russia. Those were popular moves with many Russians.
After all, if you have stolen so much money that you are basically the wealthiest man in the World, you do want to have the ability to retire (or die in office) without nobody putting you behind bars. If you are popular among the people, that helps.
See for instance: the geopolitics of oil and gas pipelines
I'm sure you're right that Trump doesn't want war - he's extremely isolationist. Instead of a "better nuclear deal", we have NO nuclear deal: he pushed Iran into abandoning the JCPOA entirely. The chances of negotiating with them at all is low, because when Trump abandoned the JCPOA, he showed them the US is faithless in their negotiations.
And Trump's presence in the White House hasn't slowed this a bit. Incidentally, the experts you disdain predicted that toppling Saddam would lead to this. I don't think it was preventable by either Obama or Trump, but Trump's behavior with the Kurds and with Iran puts him on the poorest of footings to negotiate anything. Trump has made us even more unwelcome in Iraq. I do not expect him to withdraw our troops, but it does mean the troops will be surrounded by growing hostility towards them.
Honestly, I hope his saber rattling works, but I expect that sooner or later, our enemies may realize that his threats are empty.
Verbal support for protestors doesn't get you much. The real problem is that Trump's action has kindled the flames of Iranian nationalism, shifting the focus from internal Iranian leadership to the hated US.
I agree that other possibilities should be exhausted. It's unfortunate that Trump's big misstep of withdrawing from the JPCOA got us to this point. I predict Iran will not respond with open warfare, but will instead step up their support for terrorist activities.
The bottom line is that Trump has put us in a worse position with respect to Iran and Iraq than when he took office. That seems indisputable.
He backed out of a horrible deal with Iran because it lifted important sanctions and allowed them to continue their ballistic missile program, which was ultimately used to fire on Iraq just days ago. It never barred Iranian aggression in the Middle East and had the “sunset provisions”, which Pompeo contends will lead to a frightening nuclear arms race in the Middle East when those provisions run out,
Despite the JCPOA, Iran has acquired the largest and most diverse missile force in the Middle East. So since backing out of the deal Trump has been trying to pressure Iran into negotiations (or its own collapse) by reimposing those sanctions.
If they don’t negotiate then sanctions will not be lifted and they will descend further into economic and societal collapse. I suspect his is what Pompeo wants given the demands of the administration’s new strategy in Iran.
It was a misstep to sign the JCPOA because it never barred ballistic missile proliferation and Iranian aggression in the Middle East, which led us to this little flare up.
And today what is better?
Quoting NOS4A2
And it's a logical choice. Trying to compete with the USAF & USN by a conventional air force is a hopeless attempt for Iran, hence an alternative is to create ballistic missile artillery deterrent. Especially when the US is dependent on those bases (which btw were now attacked). Hence Iran hasn't modified much it's antiquated air force. Yet surprisingly has kept the F-14 Tomcats flying (which meanst that unfortunately there are no flying specimens of this great fighter in the US).
Quoting NOS4A2
And how has this worked? Seriously, what negations are you talking about.
You see, just like with Russia, sanctions don't so much effect especially the armed forces. On the contrary, they are an effective incentive to create and strengthen domestic arms production as Iran has done. And the economy? Can go up and down, but the biggest buyers of Iranian oil don't care a rats ass about Trump's sanctions. You think China and India will care about Trump's bitching? Or is Trump going to impose sanction on them or even start to blockade their oil tankers from entering Iranian ports? Not going to happen. And a lot of trade will just be circumvented through third countries.
All that the sanctions do is to keep oil prices higher. Because if Iranian oil would be open for the West to buy, it simply would lower the prices (as it actually did). That of course works fine for oil companies and other oil producers. And oil doesn't matter so much for the US at least, thanks to shale deposits.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has been in sanctions and in overtly hostile relations with it's former close ally USA since it's birth. For over 40 years now. So I guess they are quite adapted to that, just like Israel is adapted to the fact that it doesn't have much if any trade with it's neighbors.
There was lots of debate on the JCPOA at the time, and there were smart people on both sides of it. I accept that it wasn't a perfect deal, and perhaps a better one could have been obtained - but absolutely no one can say for certain. On the other hand, once it was in place, it was idiotic to withdraw from it - and that's exactly what Trump did, over the objections of the military and his own Secretary of State. We will never know what would have happened had the US stayed in it, but we will know what will happen following Trump's actions. I don't know what the future will bring, and I hope it will be bright. However, the situation at the present does not look good, and Trump owns it.
Yes and we already know that Putin has been characterising Europe and the US as aggressors against Russia in the Russian media. This fires up his base as it portrays him as a strong man look after their interests. He also played a smart move by going to help Assad in Syria, giving him more kudos and giving him his entry back onto the world stage. Iran is ripe for the picking now that Trump is going to strangle Iran.
Hopefully different as in better.
I'm not so sure that the US political environment is fixed, per se; but I am sure that there are far too many individuals with far too much power, and far too many enormous swathes of people with little to none. Those with too much power include both unelected and foreign individuals(good riddance Scalia). Those with too little include everyone else with the right to vote, and use their own free speech in the process.
It's not so much a "puppet government" either, but that description as historically used to describe governments that claimed to be democratic but were actually not due to hand picked puppet "yes" men that were not elected as the result of a free and fair election by the citizens of that country.
No, it's not quite like that...
But very goddamned close.
Quoting creativesoul
I don’t know if I’m right or wrong, time will tell, but I see Trump as breaking, or shaking up, what was a very comfortable system for so many. His personality is abrasive and he’s uncompromising, but is this what’s needed to break up a system we may not even have a name for that operates under the guise of democratic process. If things are bad for people in general in the US surely that’s the result of entrenched corruption in the system that goes back many years. To me the fact that these people, the elites, are so angry and out of control over Trump suggests that they really feel threatened. And why wouldn’t they, there’s so much to lose?
Actually sanctions can have the reverse effect. If the sanctioned country can establish a black market, the price might be lower and the oil could flood the world market as an uncontrolled source, lowering prices. This may have actually happened when Iraq was sanctioned; notice that Bush was very anxious to get rid of Saddam, and oil prices soared afterwards. The problem is that the black market puts money into the wrong hands while the average person of the sanctioned country suffers.
"These people"???
Who? I've no idea what group of people you're claiming are worried about Trump because they have so much to lose over Trump's suggestions...
I think it's quite wrong to think about Trump in slogans. They've proven to be shallow rhetoric. They don't really say anything, and they certainly do nothing to help uproot the long standing problems(some of which provided the circumstances for Trump's base).
Slogans such as "shake things up", "drain the swamp" and others, including "make America great again" are without specific enough meaning to be anything other than rhetoric. Everyone has their own idea of what each slogan takes... or 'means', if you like. In this... the slogans are far reaching, thus the rhetoric finds use. They are powerful political tools on the US stage. Use these sayings in an attempt to run for president in a country long since filled with people who do not trust that their government is acting on their behalf; use these sayings, and talk in the same rhetorical terms that one very popular major media outlets uses and talks in; use these sayings and you'll get plenty of different people's attention.
Trump's ego maniacal behaviours worry many who currently have, or seek to obtain, the power to get certain legislation passed; especially those people who have some vested financial interest in an area that Trump is currently influencing. However, they are not at all worried about him doing anything at all to hurt their bottom line as far as economic policy proposals are concerned.
They are not the least bit worried about that.
Trump is an ugly distraction from the one fundamental underlying problem in American government that must be corrected as soon as possible. The underlying problem of monetary corruption and the direct overwhelmingly powerful influence that certain (unelected)private parties have usurped from the American people. It remains fully intact throughout this particular distraction.
You're correct in that the underlying issues are longstanding problems. They have grown into a perfectly manicured path, as a result of constant attendance from a plurality of different administrations throughout the last fifty to sixty years; Democrat and Republican alike. In fact, many of Trump's actions have bolstered the foothold of certain private entities as well as individuals, and weakened all past attempts to provide a better country with more equal opportunity for all of it's citizens.
It is the number one job of the American government to take action which results in consequences that increase the over-all well-being of American citizens; that is exactly what acting on behalf of their best interest looks like... when it's done successfully. Unnecessary harm sometimes happens as a result of the best intentions. In such cases, those actions need to be reversed. To recognize and continue is to continue harming American people unnecessarily so. It is to keep repeating the same mistake over and over again.
Surely we all agree that any time the government enacts legislation that results in unnecessarily harming most of it's citizens for the benefit of the very few(some of whom are not it's citizens)...
Surely, we can all agree that that is a past mistake still in need of correction.
Is it possible to have real conversation about Trump these days? Maybe not.
Quoting creativesoul
Taking one of my comments and throwing it in with slogans of unspecific meaning in an attempt to make my comment look meaningless is so typical. You could hardly deny that Trump has shaken things up. Look at the posts on this forum.
Quoting creativesoul
Of course you know who I mean, you’re just playing games. You may not agree with who I mean by “those people” but you know what I mean. And you know what they have to lose; just an election for starters.
I'm just saying that a more nuanced understanding is needed to glean knowledge upon the bigger picture...
What led to Trump...
What will remain during and after Trump...
I really do not know who you are saying is worried about losing a lot of their power and comfort as a result of Trump's suggestions.
All slogans are unspecific. They are widely applicable as a direct result of being so. Many different people can relate to them in their own unique way. You began the discussion using one of Trump's many slogans. I simply commented upon the power of them, as well as the shallow nature of understanding that the slogan provides.
That wasn't about you, personally. It was about the shallowness of Trump's slogans, and their popularity as shown by their continued use. Trump was certainly not the first to say make America great again....
It is though...
Unfortunately, many of the best parts of American government have been and/or are currently being systematically dismantled.
So...
Trump's behaviour can be accurately characterized as "shaking things up"...
Whoop tee doo.
Not all shake ups are good ones.
I think the problem is that corporations and the extremely rich can influence far too much the policies and simply write the best laws for themselves personally. Everything is nearly fine as long as the economy chugs along. The Trump vote and also those favouring Bernie (and AOC) aren't actually so happy with this, even if their opinions otherwise are totally different.
In the US system the elite doesn't think they would have any special role for the ordinary people. It simply is taken as granted that the system works, (as what could be bad with the system given down from the Founding Fathers!) hence one can mind one's own business and simply push one's own agenda. Any collective agenda isn't needed. Now I don't have much against libertarianism, but in this case the assumption that as everyone is responsible for oneself, the rich don't need to anything for the United States is a bit problematic. Then the only thing is just to fight government bureaucracy and the closet-socialists lurking in the democratic party.
Here's the difference when I think of my countries rich people: with just over five million people, people do feel a responsibility towards their little country, if they are rich. This also means that the conservatives and the traditional right and center have always favored policies that sound very socialist for the American. Hence the welfare state. I would argue that this is more like Otto von Bismarck implementing social programs: a way to counter the left and avoid social upheaval. Vast hordes of poor people that lose their faith in the society can bring destruction, hence better to resolve the problems.
Quoting Brett
That's the belief Trump supporters desperately hang on to. That Trump was good friends with the Clintons is simpy sidelined, or that he has more billionaires in his administration and the tax cuts etc, a list that seems perpetually long. Personally I'm not convinced.
Quoting BrettThis is the thing: Trump has to be doing something good as the elite is angry. This is the assumption.
Yet just who is angry about Trump? Are those rich corrupt billionaires really angry about Trump? Is casino mogul Sheldon Adelson angry about Trump? Just to give ONE example from many but appropriate for this thead, Adelson put into Trump's election bid 82 million and Adelson's agenda was a) ending the Iran deal, b) moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and he personally c) suggested neocon John Bolton to be the security advisor. Trump gave everything to him, even if it didn't work well with Bolton. But I'm sure he likes what Trump has done now with Iran.
Rich rule the US. So what has changed, Brett?
Wife gets a lovely medal too!
Sure, George Soros might not like Trump, but he's the rich billionaire influencer of the Democrats. That's just how the system works. Billionaires, select your party and rule.
I’m not unaware of the reasons you have, and many others, for your dislike of Trump: his background, his business dealings, his behaviour, his attitudes.
I can understand how you might feel about him being President with that sort of baggage.
However he is the President and he was elected on the basis of what he promised. If he won on the basis of who he was then that’s even more interesting. Which one was it?
If it’s his personality, his background, his attitudes, then it seems to be what many like about him. If it’s his promises then they like what he stands for. His promises he only has to deliver to his supporters, his opposition expect nothing because only the Democrats could give them what they want. Such is politics.
His constituency expect him to deliver on those promises. Has he failed them? I can’t be sure. I can read articles that say he has, then read articles that say he hasn’t. How is this possible?
There have been many Presidents adept at talking out of the sides of their mouths, Democrats and Republicans. Who can claim to be clean and honest in politics? Is Trump any better or any worse than others? Probably not.
So why the vitriol? Has he broken some sort of unspoken covenant about who America thinks it is? People claim he’s an embarrassment. Why? The rest of the world either likes him or detests him just as they do within the US, so what is embarrassing? Why should you care, he doesn’t represent you?
What the world is watching is the exposure of America institutions to the light and it doesn’t look good. Trump’s presence caused this and they exposed themselves through their response to his election.
Imagine what his constituency thinks, all their suspicions confirmed. Inadvertently or intentionally, who can know, he’s exposed a rats best inside the corridors of power. Everyone around the world sees that. That’s your embarrassment, that this has been going on for so long under previous Presidents and no one said anything. It makes you look very foolish and naive and confirms our suspicions about America.
This has nothing to do with a Trump. We always suspected you of this (apologies if I have it wrong and you are not American), now we know. So it became necessary for you to point the finger at Trump and say “It not us, it’s him!”
Don’t forget the political system that enabled this. People understand business, they know who they’re dealing with, they understand the corruption of business, the drive for the bottom line. But they depend on politicians. If politicians let them down where do they turn?
Imagine if they had nuclear weapons.
So it looks (with the airplane accident). It happens with GBAD (ground based air defence) when it's put to highest alert. They start shooting everything moving in the air and identify targets later.
Similar thing happened with the downing of MH-17. Or earlier with the downing of Iran Air 655 by USS Vincennes (which mistook a civil passenger aircraft for an Iranian F-14).
What is now interesting to see how Iran handles the incident and of course we have to look what the investigation turns out. If it was an accidental downing, Iran can opt either to take the line that President Reagan did with Iran Air 655 and deeply regret the accident OR (which is more likely) take the "asshole-approach" that the Russians did with MH-17 and deny, deny and deny and then blame it on your opponent and not care about overwhelming evidence on the contrary.
Does then pinning your hopes on a politician promising change help? Or pinning your hopes on a narcissistic billionaire-pretend that wants to be accepted by the elite and would have been just fine as a TV personality?
All I could argue is that you really should more political parties. At least the two political parties should feel they can indeed perish, if they get things utterly wrong. How about a "Law & Justice Party" that has as it's primary agenda rooting out corruption and upholding the constitution?
Of course knowing US politics, that party would be run by some mobster or something...
Yes, Trump has achieved two things for them. 1) Given them an excuse to restart their nuclear program and 2) Shown that he's not willing to go to war over it. The winner here is the developing Russia/China axis with Iran and North Korea as untouchable assets harassing and undermining US interests.
Quoting ssu
Why not. What’s worked so far?
Ducking >>>>
Correct.
You might then add 3) The administration sticks it's head into the ground and denies 1) and 2) and says everything is OK now. And anyone saying otherwise, especially those working for the government, will be a persona-non-grata considered hostile to the administration.
And in the end we'll talk about Iranian nukes as we do about North Korean nukes. And life goes on.
Ever been a genuine effort to break the stranglehold of the two party system? I haven't.
Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party got 28% of the votes in the 1912 election.
Ross Perot as an independent got 19% in 1992 (and dashed hopes for the older Bush to get 2nd term).
And as said earlier (perhaps on another thread), it's only been these crazy dashes for the Presidency, not anything coming up from the communal and state level.
So I guess Americans are in fact really happy with the two parties they have.
May I suggest that you re-read what I've written? Nothing you've said about me and my so called 'embarrassments' make any sense in light of the fact that I am talking about the failings of American government on a whole...
Your continued slogan based defense of Trump would be excusable had you not just been shown it's shallowness in it's understanding...
Pay attention to what's being said here. Re-read.
Yes. You've summed it up in a nutshell. The world economy makes average Americans less of a consideration to those who have no sense of loyalty to their country and/or countrymen. The founding fathers wrote extensively about the perils of pure capitalists...
I suspect they’d blow themselves up.
I have always said it’s a matter of privilege. Many westerners are so far removed from tyranny and injustice that only Trump’s bad words are able to penetrate the solipsistic cocoons in which they’ve shielded themselves.
Not only that but I suspect that talking about Trump in a certain way allows the morally bankrupt to appear moral. Think of someone like Harvey Weinstein marching in those anti-Trump women’s marches in 2017. It’s virtue signalling.
If Iran doesn’t hand over the black boxes or let Canada investigate the crash perhaps it will show the world that, no, Iran does not want to play nice with the international community. Anyways it will be interesting.
I've seen differing claims and a video showing an explosion, but cannot confirm it was an explosion from a ground to air missile. Surely there are many videos to compare it to...
:brow:
This video shows what appears to be a missile hitting the plane.
I think you’re right, but as far as I can tell the video shows the projectile hurtling towards the plane, which continued to fly after being struck.
Quoting NOS4A2
So we dont have any frame of reference for concentration camps so they don't seem real to us? I'll buy that.
But why do Trump's bad words penetrate the solipsistic cocoons (by which you mean we're ostrocentric?) Because he is us?
Quoting NOS4A2
True. He is us, but we need to think of ourselves as somehow above that?
Eh. There's a crowd I won't bother with anymore. There's no profit in it.
I think CNN said it was an accident. They thought the plane was an incoming missile. To all the grieving families: :heart:
We don't talk about it because it hasn't been fed to us by the media. We talk about what we have been fed. People like me in the UK are acutely aware of this because we were onlookers while our media was controlled and manipulated by xenophobic rightwing media organisations during the Brexit process. Hence my rant against The Daily Mail earlier today( in the why do you think the US is going to war with Iran thread).
Now I am sensitised to this influence I can see how the media organisations are feeding us a narrative. The reasons why we get this story over the concentration camps in China should be analysed. At first sight it seems to me that rolling news looks for breaking news and when a story comes up which reaches a certain threashold of importance, it then gets blanket coverage and we all talk about it to the expense of all the other stories. This results in media organisations throwing all their weight behind certain stories, while ignoring others. This bias can be manipulated and was during the Brexit process.
Another side effect of this system is that we can become obsessed, or anxious about certain stories which are deemed to be of importance. Again this has a direction over time and can be manipulated.
We should make ourselves aware of the bias in the media we consume.
Quoting creativesoul
I said, “ People claim he’s an embarrassment”, not yours personally, and where I did say ‘yours’ I meant the feelings of the country in their feelings about how the world views America and Trump. Now these feelings have been reported many times so I’m guessing you understand what I mean. However, knowing your views I would guess that you do personally regard him as an embarrassment.
If you’re only talking about “ in light of the fact that I am talking about the failings of American government on a whole...” then I guess you might also consider that an embarrassment to the world, which of course it is. And my post is addressing that very point.
This is what I said; “ What the world is watching is the exposure of America institutions to the light and it doesn’t look good.“
I reread my post and I can’t see any examples of “slogan based defence”. Rereading it I also see that I was sympathetic to your feeling on Trump’s election.
Quite possibly I could have avoided using the word “you” when I should have used “America” and avoided personal insult, if that’s what I’ve caused?
Yep, same here
Quoting Punshhh
I think surveys indicate that to be true already. Faith in the media is very low. The problem is that we have our own take on things and seek information that contributes to that view. There’s nothing wrong in that, unless you think that view is wrong, then the news source one has is either leftist or right wing.
I disagree. There IS something wrong with that. As individuals, it reinforces confirmation bias.
Quoting Relativist
Unless you live without a view on things at all, or oddly enough believe you are wrong, what else can you do and why?
The trouble with Brexit bias, many of us don't know if it is right, or wrong. Was it the right thing to do, is it better for our country, is the EU going to collapse in debt, or are we. When one is so uncertain to then have xenophobic populism etc shoved down your throat doesn't feel right either way.
Well unless you're certain it was the right thing to do, in which case everything is rosy. But that can be nothing more than a wing and a prayer, because no one really knows if it was the right thing to do and if they think it was they are being deceitful in some way.
All the more reason to enable Iran to move forward without feeling the need for nuclear weapons. Fat chance of that now.
Quoting Punshhh
And yet you argue against what Johnson has done. With what knowledge do you do that?
Yep. Iran admitted it was an accidental downing. See Iran admits to shooting down plane unintentionally.
It tells actually how they thought that hitting two US bases would cause the US having in just a few hours stealth bombers flying over their capital, actually. I guess that's respect of your enemy, in a way.
Besides, there wasn't any way to hide it. There is a highly routine, standardized and effective method of Investigating aircraft crashes, hence the forensics will show clearly if the jet was downed by a SAM or not. Canada and Ukraine have requested and had already given permission to be briefed on the investigation. Iran won't give the black boxes to the US (why would they?), but if would have tried to deny it, it would have become a farce.
Of course we all have a worldview, but we're also fallible and I think we should value truth. You won't get to truth simply by seeking out reinforcement for what you already believe. One should challenge his own beliefs, and this is best done by seeking alternative perspectives and trying to understand them.
Haven't you ever been in a conversation with an individual with whom you disagree strongly about something that you have a lot of knowledge about - so you are certain they're wrong? Wouldn't it be nice if that other person would be receptive to hearing the actual facts? We've all been in that situation, and probably on both sides of it. Only if you're willing to be wrong will you be receptive to learning what the truth actually is.
Reasserting one’s sovereignty is always the right thing to do. The EU is more a centralized technocracy which itself deals only with political elites. There is no popular vote, no democracy. I think the instinct for democratic choice and the entrenched reliance on common law procedures has led to a deep suspicion of the European ideal.
I suspect much of that is the same with the election of Trump. On the one hand he is flippant of the technocrats, while on the other swayed by the people and popular opinion. I think in both cases many people wanted to regain a sense of lost and stolen power, as they watch more and more of it being allocated in the hands of bureaucrats and elites.
It might not make sense to you. The Israelis still have reason to be worried because it threatens their entire existence. Israel has had several wars where, if it had lost, it would have been finished as a state and its people would have been at the mercy of its enemies. Yes, I've heard the term "second holocaust" tossed around more than a few times.
Yes, maybe in a world where all of Israel's enemies have nukes everyone acts reasonable and rational and everyone understands mutually assured destruction. But the costs of being wrong on this one are extremely high. Even against the "rational" Soviets we came nail-bitingly close to nuclear war and in some cases the choice came down the actual button-pushers. And that was without religion.
Sure, but it's an unintended consequence of the tense state of affairs Trump got us in. So although Iran is directly responsible, Trump bears indirect responsibility for heightening tensions.
Heightening tensions is one thing, shooting down civilian aircraft is quite another. Iranians have directly killed more Iranians during this period.
If your boss gives you a negative performance review at work and then you go home and beat your wife in a rage is your boss responsible for that?
Your analogy is very wide of the mark. A better one would be your boss shoots your wife and you then shoot someone who calls at your door in the mistaken belief they are your boss.
Well, I was kind of drunk when I wrote it (I am more drunk now.)
I take issue with the notion of indirect responsibility though because it seems to be essentially hollow: perhaps a village or a town bears some abstract "responsibility" for a school shooter.
Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the perpetrator. And I'm not blaming iran for this one; I do believe it was an honest mistake.
As long as everybody remembers that, we're good.
Fair enough.
You may be exaggerating to make a point...but this makes very little sense? So every state in America should seek independence? What about each city within those states? If we continue to follow this logic, every human would end up being their own state (or dead)? "Always" is always problematic, hehe.
Hiya BitconnectCarlos and welcome to The Philosophy Forum :flower: One of the rules is to refrain from posting while telling us you are inebriated. Such as others are at times posting under some influence but advertising it weakens your position and over time it starts to affect opinions.
Having said that:
My feeling is that the ultimate responsibility lays directly at the feet of the airline. Period. Full stop.
If the Ukraine ATC said that the airline was clear to fly and planes were not grounded by the government than again, the direct responsibility is on the airline and the pilots. Yes, the Pilots have final say if it is safe to fly the plane in the present conditions. True as it may be that the pilot had the choice to fly the plane or die because there was a gun to his head and they would have brought on another pilot until they found a willing pilot but...
Ultimately that pilot payed the price with his life and those he CHOSE to fly safely to their destination.
It's utterly heartbreaking and I suggest it was an accident with the caveat that it was as a result of the fog of war
Yeah it's a platitude and one that affects me through one degree of separation. I know war from a distance from my Uncle serving 33 years from Vietnam to Desert Storm. And with a son surrounded by AFROTC classmates at one of the top Aeronautical Universities in the USA that is not a military institution, my fear level rises accordingly.
Please leave it as an accident and acknowledge the Iranian families that know their government is responsible for the death of their loved ones lost. We are grieving with them and hope the anger that comes with grieving is channeled into am internal rise up. My Iranian friend who escaped an arranged marriage after 7 years in the USA expressed to me that she wishes President Trump keeps the pressure on, even light of this accident.
It has the markings of an unintended consequence and I hope our President keeps that at the forefront of his mind.
Mind if I am part of the crowd? I promise I won't start a food fight :wink:
Your point about indirect responsibility has some general merit, but not necessarily with Presidential actions that can have wide ranging consequences. History will judge his decisions based on the totality of consequences, whether they are intended or not - and that's how it should be. We don't yet know what will be the longer term total consequences, but this data point is clearly not in his favor.
But it is possible that this aircraft downing will actually have positive consequences - since Iranians are pretty pissed off that their government did this.
I agree with ZhouBoTong, that is a universal nationalism, the sort of idealism which has resulted in Brexit. If one looks at the realities on the ground, there is a large price to pay for such ideals. For starters it is probably going to lead to the break up of the UK. Why on earth would one want to do that.
Now we have Johnson imposing a kind of exit from the EU which will be decided by a handful of partisan people who are demonstrably putting party before country. While arrogantly telling Scotland that they can't leave the UK for similar reasons. The hipocricy is breathtaking, but that along with the duplicity, deceit and lies is the day to day reality of our government. They are far worse than the worst excesses of Trump, who is trying to do the right thing, which is not easy for someone who is not a politician. There are large numbers of people in the UK who are disgusted with our sham of a government and who realise that we are going to be worse off not only economically, but our integrity and reputation on the world stage is in tatters. And that being a member of the EU is far better than this farce.
What a great idea, I can't believe no one thought of doing something like that before.
I would point out though, that we have seeded very little sovereignty to the EU. But rather agree to work to the same rules on many things. Rather like in a trade agreement, but more integrated than that.
Absolutely!
Quoting Relativist
Of course. But does that mean you never reach a point where you think the conclusions you’ve made are correct and you’ll act on them. Or do we sit around all day over a cup of tea agreeing to disagree.
What’s the point of challenging our beliefs if it’s not to find a truth? Of course you challenge your beliefs, that’s how you reach a truth.
I was speaking more in terms of national sovereignty, not so much state or municipal sovereignty. But I think some of the same principles might apply to those kinds of territories and polities. I fully believe in individual sovereignty insofar as one should have sovereignty over his own body.
Here's the statement of yours that I disagreed with:
Quoting Brett
I disagreed because it seems a wallowing in comfirmation bias. Now you suggest we might reach a point where one might think one's conclusions are correct. But that's the root of the problem.: we think we have correct conclusions, and we then only go to news sources that confirm them. A person who challenges his beliefs by seeking contrary views has a stronger epistemic basis for his opinions than someone who only seeks confirmation.
That’s fine as long as you’re happy to always feel that you do not need to chose.
Now what did some geniuses say about Iranian solidarity?
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1216130169477439488?s=21[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1216120362230067202?s=21[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1216114167108849665?s=21[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1216114135529902081?s=21[/tweet]
The world ignored the murder of 1500 Iranian protesters back in late 2019, many of them becoming de facto supporters of the murderous regime during the recent conflict, because to do otherwise would be to stand with their mortal enemy.
Couldn't be happier that Trump has decided to "stand with" the Iranian people rather than kill them in large numbers. Let's hope it stays that way.
Not a bad strategy from a game theory perspective.
Bullshit. Political posturing.
Shows more solidarity with foreign citizens than Americans.
Exactly. If everybody already knows you're in imperial overstretch and all you have left is nuclear weapons, it's best if everybody thinks you're fucking crazy.
It makes much more sense to stand with those protesting injustice and tyranny, and to let those privileged westerners protesting their feelings echo away in silence.
It doesn't make sense unless you're planning to colonize the area. Just let their protests echo away in silence too (unless you're an American politician and you can get away with a condescending sound bite.
There is no point in protesting an unjust government, then, if no one is watching.
Is this part of the problem people have with Trump, that he doesn’t behave like a politician? And does that matter?
I think the problem people have with Trump is the way he behaves, period. Not behaving like a politician sounds good, superficially, seeing as people generally don't like or trust politicians. But behaving like a vulgar ignorant sexist scumbag can't be excused because it's not the behavior of a politician. Just like any piece of human garbage doesn't get a pass for not being something.
And that his supporters simply believe him to be something else as every criticism is just the rant of the democrats/Deep State/MSM/whatever. Everything can be explained by the Trump derangement syndrome.
This seems to be the result of the populist developments going on. In the UK the people who bought the populism and pinned their hopes on the Brexit project, or Johnson, are going to be disappointed. Not that Brexit won't happen, but that it will improve their lives, or Britain.
They are going to have to rely on their hallucination now, as the unintended consequences role out. Or it becomes apparent that they were voting for a pipe dream.
I agree. Especially the people who get excited about these issues tend to forget that political leaders aren't so omnipotent as they say they are. Political movements rely on people getting excited, that "this time it's different", and basically from a new generation participating in elections, who don't know that the things have already been tried.
Perhaps the reason is that there isn't any cost for the voter. If you vote and your candidate gets elected and then doesn't deliver, you can just say "Oh well, he tried" or "the opposition prevented him from doing it". Hence people will believe, pin their hopes on things turning rapidly around by the politician promising that "he or she will turn things rapidly around". Those politicians promising modest results (which are obtainable) will seem bland and now days, 'part of the establishment, which is the problem'.
I would say that Western democracy isn't in a crisis as it was during the 1930's, it has just has a headache from populism and political polarization partly (thanks to social media). Yet headaches have a reason.
Protesting lets off steam and makes people feel like they're accomplishing something when they aren't.
I am more charitable towards Trump in this than some. I realise that his vision for Iran is a liberated country returning to how it was before the 1979 revolution and that he would like to see the population rise up and restore the country. I think though that this can not be done by crippling sanctions and strategic strikes on their administration. I would think the education of the population to realise their plight and that they might rise up themselves in their own time. That the sanctions are going to push the country into a worse place, even into the hands of the Russians, which would not end well and be a strategic mistake.
So... ignore American protests to American problems as the president?
WTF???
This presupposes that the westerners are not protesting injustice and tyranny. Seems to be based upon an all or nothing notion of injustice and tyranny. It's not so black or white.
The point, of course, is that Trump condemns and ridicules certain American protestors, and here claims to stand with foreign ones, which really places his motivations in question.
So... re-instate the puppet government?
WTF???
A liberated country would not have been led by a propped up leader not chosen by the people. Hence, the revolution.
His vision? Trump has a vision on Iran, really? I think Trump surely has visions of his own grandeur and success, but I wouldn't think that he has really visions for Iran.
Comes to my mind how a previous national security advisor tried to get the Trumpster to focus and get the message about Afghanistan:
Actually a very viral (the picture photo above), which is often used as below to compare the difference between then and now (like here):
Trump is mainly interested in re-electing himself. Period.
Forgive me, I didn't mean Trump would like to see a puppet installed, but rather a progressive democracy installed by the people. I know it may be a hopeless dream. But Trump is not a hawk, he doesn't want to waste time and money in escapades overseas. I am sure he would want Iran to stop being a problem for the region and US forces trying to get out of Iraq.
It's true that Trump's motives are all about re-election, but he does have the US legacy in the Middle East to attend to and I'm sure he would be happy to wash his hands of it and have the Middle East settle down into some kind of lasting peace. I know he's stupid and could well make things a whole lot worse over there, but this would not be his intention.
And that was already a huge mess.
Older Bush still made sense. He put up together a surprising alliance and got the green light both from the Soviet Union and the UN and listened to wisdom from his Arab allies. Afterwards the neocons made everything an utter disaster. It truly was the 'crossing of the Rubicon' and a huge turnaround for US foreign policy. Without any need to think about a response from a Soviet Union, the US policy simply turned blatantly stupid: nevermind other nations, just do what looks good for the voters back home. Iraq was handled in a totally care-free way especially with the utterly disasterous Paul Bremer at the helm of the CPA. The war profiteering was truly out of portions with this war.
Dubya went on the first US true invasion outside America's back yard since the Spanish-American War. And Obama just continued with the cards given and with him the US snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with Al Qaeda, that morphed into ISIS:
In a way Trump has the opportunity to snatch defeat again.
Let's see what happens.
I may be too literal, but I am struggling with this too. I guess you mean legal sovereignty over their own body? Only an omni-everything god could have absolute authority over their own body. I can walk around with a sword just lopping off sections of people's bodies. I would end the day dead or in jail, but that doesn't deny the fact that those people had no bodily sovereignty in that example. I also find natural rights to be nonsense (just to give you the freedom to ignore me if you don't want to get into that :smile:)
Just so I can understand the idea, what would be an example of an individual asserting bodily sovereignty? I can think of abortion (and even that asserts one bodily sovereignty at the expense of another), but very little else.
I mean absolute, natural sovereignty. You have no control, authority, or responsibility for my body, my actions, my choices. You cannot make people choose to stand still while being attacked anymore than they can make you choose to attack them.
You know my answer, Tim. No, he is not a murderer. No, he is not a criminal.
Criminal: A person who has committed a crime. (source)
This definition does not say that conviction is necessary, just that the person committed a crime. So the question becomes: is it reasonable to believe Trump has committed one or more crimes?
There's pretty strong evidence that Trump is guilty of multiple counts of the crime of obstruction of justice, so it's reasonable to consider him a criminal on this basis.
There's a good bit of evidence he's guilty of sex crimes (sexual harassment and/or rape) ( source). My impression is that there's more evidence of his guilt than there was for BIll Cosby - so it's reasonable to consider him a criminal on this basis as well.
There's evidence he's guilty of violating campaign finance laws with respect to Stormy Daniels. His lawyer pleaded guilty to this and provided some evidence of Trump's guilt. There may or may not be enough evidence for a criminal conviction, but we can justifiably consider him a criminal because the preponderance of evidence supports the view that he committed a crime.
He's certainly guilty of multiple counts defamation (source: his twitter feed), although that is not a criminal offense (it's a tort). He certainly deserves to be sued, but this is not a basis to consider him a criminal.
It's murky as to whether or not he can be considered a criminal for killing Suleimani. (See this).
Yes I wholeheartedly agree, I was going to write the same thing, but hadn't got around to it.
I suggest folk go to google earth and zoom in on Gaza, you can see what amounts to little more than a concentration camp from space.
You’d have to eschew the presumption of innocence, a precious human right, and adopt the presumption of guilt, a mark of tyranny, for any of that to be the case. There are reasonable doubts in every one of those matters.
The presumption of innocence is a legal standard in a criminal trial. It's an appropriate standard for that, because of the consequences of conviction. That doesn't mean it's a good, general epistemic standard. Imagine being on the jury of an alleged child molester. You decide the evidence did not rise to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level, and because of your decision he's acquitted. Would you consider hiring this person to babysit your children? Would you even want that person living nearby? If not, what became of your presumption of innocence?
We are within our epistemic rights to judge people on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence if we've made an effort to understand all the available facts.
Likewise, considering your disdain for the president, I find it surprising you adopt his thinking.
It is a good standard because one cannot correctly judge if another is guilty until it is proven. Assuming innocence could be wrong, of course, but it is at least just. Assuming guilt is unjust.
Nice try, but I noted the need to make an effort to understand all the available facts, whereas Trump clearly ignores evidence when making his accusations. Besides, it's one thing to make a private judgment and quite another to publicly defame someone with an accusation.
[Quote]It is a good standard because one cannot correctly judge if another is guilty until it is proven. Assuming innocence could be wrong, of course, but it is at least just. Assuming guilt is unjust.[/quote]"Proof" is ambiguous: it can imply absolute certainty, or it could simply refer to the evidence at hand. I'm referring to justified belief, and it is reasonable to belief a hypothesis that best fits the evidence and can plausibly be considered more likely than not. Adopting beliefs doesn't entail closing ones mind: beliefs should be revised if additional facts change the initial conclusion.
As an example, I remind you that I presented a set of facts pertaining to Trump's Ukraine scandal. I explained that IMO, the best explanation for those facts was that he did something wrong. I invited your input. I did essentially the same thing in another forum. No one disputed the facts or offered additional ones. This seems a reasonable justification for my belief that Trump did something wrong. Wouldn't it be nice if Trump would do something like this?
And yet if I want to physically assault another human, it is easy...what am I missing? I can easily violate their sovereignty...? You say I have no control...but if I am significantly physically stronger than you, I can literally control you for as long as I care to. I can't make you cure cancer, but I can certainly make you go to the store (as I drag you there).
Quoting NOS4A2
I don't need anyone to stand still to violate their sovereignty. And "choosing" is only one limited aspect of sovereignty. Absolute sovereignty would mean no one (and no-thing) has power over my body but myself. A hurricane could take away my sovereignty just as any human could. Aren't their millions of bacteria living in my body? Did I approve their residence? Even if we suggest that most of those are helpful, I still want the bad ones out.
Nice try but you just publicly stated why you assume his guilt, and did so while suppressing exculpatory evidence, dismissing the testimony of the accused and other witnesses with a hand wave while accepting as faith the testimony of the accusers. Believe it or not but there are strong reasons why this sort of reasoning is unacceptable in criminal trials.
A “best explanation” may be plausible, but not necessarily correct, especially when these “facts” are derived from a one-sided, political show trial and not any sober and fair examination.
Yes, you can attempt to violate someone’s sovereignty through violence and coercion. But even so they would need to acquiesce to your demands and willingly give you what you want. They could also spit in your face and defy you to the bitter end. This is because you have no authority over their bodies and actions.
Yes, only you have power over your body. Even if you were chained to a wall and left for dead you could still resist any impositions. Only you are responsible for your actions. Only you can choose how to live your life.
What exculpatory evidence did I dismiss? I made a point of listing the facts of which I'm aware, and invited you to provide additional facts. You didn't do that.
Very little in life is certain, but we adopt beliefs along the way on a pretty constant basis. As I said, we should always remain open-minded and be willing to revise our beliefs based on new evidence.
Show trial? Sure, sort of - in that the Democrats were making a show of presenting the facts that had been discovered. I invited you to challenge them, and/or raise additional ones. Instead, YOU played the same as the House Republicans: you failed to confront the facts and just dismissed them with a wave of the hand as being partisan - as you're continuing to do. All I see is you engaged in a genetic fallacy: you assume the facts are wrong because they were presented by Democrats.
Instead of making these after-the-fact charges about me, why don't you go back to the list of facts I posted, comment on them individually and directly, and provide additional facts that I overlooked. That is the sort of discussion I was looking for in the first place. If I merely wanted to engage in partisan bickering, I would have merely stated my opinion rather than providing the basis for it.
I’ve already provided you exculpatory evidence which you dismissed and/or pooh-poohed. I attempted to refute your opinion on the facts, but when I did so you claimed I was incapable of having a reasonable discussion, which suspiciously allowed you to avoid my arguments entirely.
That’s false, I did not dismiss “the facts” because they were partisan or expressed by democrats, but because they did not suggest any criminal intent or wrong doing or criminal activity. This is evidenced by my direct response to your list of facts, which you then used to accuse me of “denying the obvious”. I explicitly asked for evidence of motivations, ie any statement from the accused that might suggest he wanted investigations into political opponents so as to influence the 2020 elections, and your “facts” provided nothing of the sort.
It was you who accused me of writing things that sounded like I got it from Hannity and Levin, none of whom I watch, and which I proved to be false by showing where I actually heard the idea: the Wallstreet Journal Editorial Board. The partisan bickering was yours all along.
No. I said I could drag them to the store if I want. That is a type of control over their bodies. It is not absolute control, but they do not have absolute sovereignty. You are referring to some type of sovereignty of will.
Quoting NOS4A2
Again, this is only related to autonomy of will. If I am chained up, I can THINK anything I want. But my physical sovereignty (the power I have over my own body) is taken away.
I call the whole charade a show trial because the process is for the purpose of politics and propaganda, not justice. They’ve been trying to impeach Trump even before he was sworn in. It’s an unjust affair. There was no crime. There was no wrong doing.
I’d like to see you try. Of course it’s not as easy as you say, and can only imagine yourself more powerful than everyone to do it. You have to fantasize because you lack control, you have no authority over anyone’s body unless they bestow it to you.
The will is the body. Thinking is an act of the body, and you cannot make anyone think a certain way, speak a certain way, to be calm, to be quiet, to go to sleep...nothing. It is their choice, their responsibility, because they have absolute authority over themselves. You have no authority save for the one you fantasize in your head. Only through force, violence and coercion can you live out that fantasy.
Clearly there was, and regardless of how much desire there has been for a Trump impeachment, the impeachment trial is in fact about justice. Trying to obfuscate Trump's crimes is unpatriotic at best...
What crime would that be?
I have included that I am "much stronger" than the other person in my example. If being much stronger allows me to infringe on their sovereignty, then it is no type of absolute sovereignty. It is not about "easy" or not. If it is ever possible, then absolute sovereignty makes no sense.
Quoting NOS4A2
Same goes for your sovereignty. Force, violent, and coercion would not work on someone/something with absolute sovereignty.
You are aware there evidence of wrongdoing., right? Are you just saying the evidence is inadequate to meet some standard of burden of proof?
You started out critical of me for not basing my personal judgments on the legal standard. I think you came to accept that outside a courtroom, such personal judgments are reasonable as long as one remains open to reevaluating as more evidence is available. But given your initial reaction, I'm wondering if you are simply presuming Trump innocent (you labelled this a basic human right) because you feel he hasn't been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Is that it?
I would go further than presume he is innocent. I believe he has done nothing wrong, and more, I think he was right and obligated, morally and as a public servant of the country, to look into possible corruption between US and Ukrainian officials. The notion that he shouldn’t do so because it might harm a Democrat’s political chances seems absolutely absurd to me and I feel I am living in Clown World for having to argue against it.
You once mentioned that Trump is violating Biden’s due process, so that’s why I brought up the presumption of innocence: to remind you of Trump’s due process in the hopes we could come to an understanding. Due process is not a legal standard for arbitrary reasons, but because it best guarantees justice. If justice doesn’t factor into your personal judgments, there is nothing wrong with that, but I I have doubts that you can remain fair and just while doing so.
Either way, I am prepared to be proven proven foolish in all of this. I could be completely mistaken, crimes might come to light, I could be proven a dupe, and I will admit that I was wrong if it happens.
And what did the CIA have to say about Trump getting involved in the investigation of Biden? Or did Trump neglect to tell them. Presumably they were already aware of said corruption from their Ukrainian spies.
I’m not sure what they said.
My point being that it was the role of the CIA to do the investigation, rather than the president, because the president could be vulnerable to accusations of political expediency.
It’s a Ukrainian company in Ukrainian jurisdiction. As for American government officials I think that’s up to the justice dept. The president was only asking the Ukrainian president to look into it
So Trump was vulnerable to accusations of political expediency.
I expect the CIA will be watching what politicians are up to in ex USSR states if they may gain presidential office in the near future. Surely they know what happened.
You could be right. Excuse my tinfoil hat, but I would even argue the CIA or at least the State Department had its hand in the Ukraine revolution of 2014. So I worry they would be more protective of what went on there than otherwise.
Denying what one is aware of is nothing other than lying.
Now that Les Parnas's testimony is a available, Mayor Giuliani and Trump will be further exposed. If the Senate votes to exclude witness testimony, they will be collectively betraying their oaths of office. If witnesses are allowed they will either have to ignore the evidence, therefore losing any integrity they have, or if they accept it they will have to rule against Trump.
If NOS4A2 is any indication, ignoring the evidence (lying) will be very easy for these people.
Yes, I realise this. But I have heard a summary of what questions will be asked of what witnesses, under oath. It will be difficult for them to deny it. Unfortunately I don't have this information at hand right now.
It's not a matter of what the witnesses deny, they could make truthful testimony, as others have already. it's a matter of what those judging the testimony deny. As you see from NOS42's denial, with a few "white lies", it's very easy to deny that the evidence is evidence. A "white lie" is used for the purpose of being polite to an individual who might be hurt by the truth.
The Rachel Maddow interview with Parnas last night was a scorcher. Parnas was very credible and forthcoming...and a hell of a lot more likable than I expected. Not sure why his lawyers allowed him to do the interview, but I am thankful that they did.
Either Trump throws Giuliani under the bus; Giuliani throws Trump under the bus; or the are both gonna do the throwing and landing under the bus. Others who belong under the bus are Barr and Pompeo.
This is the most disgusting administration in our nation's history. I hope we survive it.
So very true.
Thanks, but I hope you can clarify a few things.
Do you agree that on the surface it looks bad to pursue the Bidens in this way, since Joe is a political opponent?
Fiona Hill opined that the efforts to look into the Bidens was a "political errand." Was she lying? Was she simply mistaken? Is there no possibility she was right?
Can you offer any evidence that Trump was actively battling corruption in Ukraine -other than the Biden matter - that predates the whistleblower complaint?
[Url=https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6658349-GAO-Trump-Ukraine-Decision]
The GAO has determined the administration violated the Impoundment Act[/url].
This negates the claim that Trump committed no crimes. I suppose some might say the crime was committed by OMB, because they failed to defy Trump's order.
No, I do not.
There is always a possibility she could be right.
Trump has no jurisdiction in Ukraine so I do not see how he could actively battle corruption there. He was clearly concerned about Ukraine’s involvement in the Russia hoax, their election meddling with the DNC, Biden’s involvement with the Burisma.
Simply that one can infer from his public statements that those particular situations concerned him.
He could have established more, or stricter, benchmarks and held up funding if they weren't met. There were, in fact, benchmarks and these were met in May. Do you surmise that Trump considered these inadequate?
Quoting NOS4A2
Ok, but you obviously do not believe she is right. So what's your take on it: Mistake? Lying? Something else?
There are no explicit statements regarding benchmarks that I am aware of.
I won’t infer any malicious intent so I will err on the side of mistake or misinformed.
Actually, it was the State Department that was most successful in overthrowing Serbia's Milosevic. CIA didn't have much part in that. And thanks to that Milosevic died in a prison cell in the Hague and Serbia... is a close and loyal friend of Russia!
One thing is to get angry people to the streets. Other is to influence local political actors... as we have seen from the example of Serbia. And also Ukraine, actually.
Yet agent Trumpov has done his utmost to utterly parayize the State Department, in which he has been extremely successful in doing! And Putin is happy! (Fixing my own tinfoil hat here)
Quoting Agustino
we will see soon, though I hope he doesn't win
There are pictures of John McCain standing with the leader of Svoboda, a far-right neo-nazi, during the revolution in Ukraine. Also, Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, handed out cookies to protesters. Her leaked phone call, where she discusses possible candidates for the new Ukrainian government, suggests that the US played a little more than a supportive role in regime change. In their hubris we in the West backed neo-nazis in a Ukrainian regime change against a democratically-elected president, giving us the Ukraine we have today.
Familiar names appear throughout this episode: Biden, Brennan, McCain, Nuland (pictured below with the alleged whistleblower).
Nuland and McCain are connected to Steele and his dossier.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/facethenation/status/960186408584523776?s=21[/tweet]
I suspect this is all connected to “Russian meddling”, and the current impeachment attempt against Trump is an attempt at a cover up. God forbid someone finds out what went on in Ukraine.
And it worked!
That Maidan revolt was just a bunch of fascists was accepted and worked as charm ...as can be noticed even today.
Quoting NOS4A2
No wait? It isn't anymore the 400 pound guy on the bed? Ohh... It's the 'Steele dossier'. Ah yes, Russia is totally innocent. Poor, poor Russia. They wouldn't hurt even a fly.
You know, on this issue I just base my view just on Trump's obscene adulation of Putin, the utterly crazy propositions Trump has made (and has had to quickly backtrack) and the sheer devotedness on NEVER EVER saying one critical thing about his best friend Vlad. Listening through a Donald and Vladimir press conference was like listening to a leader of a Great Power and a proxy puppet government giving a press conference. Hence I reason that yes, we really can talk of Agent Trumpov in the White House. It's the biggest intelligence coup ever in the history of intelligence work.
Quoting NOS4A2
God forbid you would find out. Washington can keep secrets so well, as we all know.
Ignorance is a precondition for successful media manipulation.
Quoting NOS4A2
[quote=Relativist]He could have established more, or stricter, benchmarks and held up funding if they weren't met. There were, in fact, benchmarks and these were met in May. Do you surmise that Trump considered these inadequate? [/quote]
Quoting NOS4A2
OK, but the point is that going after Biden wasn't the only thing he could do about Ukraine corruption. A process was in place, and if he deemed this was inadequate he could have addressed it. He didn't. Which gets us back to this:
[Quote=Relativist]Do you agree that on the surface it looks bad to pursue the Bidens in this way, since Joe is a political opponent? [/quote]
Quoting NOS4A2
Please expand on this by answering two questions:
1) are you saying it doesn't look bad to YOU, or do you feel that it shouldn't look bad to any reasonable person?
2) Under what circumstances is it OK for a President, acting as President, to push an investigation of a political opponent? For example, is it always OK? OK if there's an objectively good reason to think the opponent committed a crime? OK if he has hunch that the opponent committed a crime?
That’s hilarious. There are, of course, more simple explanations for reserving criticism of a world leader, but sure, Trump’s the Manchurian candidate.
1) it doesn’t look bad to me. In fact, to me, it looks like the president is doing his job.
2) It is always ok to ask another leader to look into possible corruption between two countries no matter who is involved, but especially when it involves the conflicts of interest of high-ranking officials, their family, and corrupt energy companies paying vast sums of cash.
OK, do you think reasonable people could think it does look bad (on the surface, at least)? Bear in mind that a September poll showed that 63% of Americans (including 32% of Republicans) considered it wrong (source)
Quoting NOS4A2
That's not what I asked. I asked when it is OK for a President, utilizing his office, to push for the investigation of a political opponent.
I don't know what candidate he is, but really, have listened through a Putin-Trump press conference?
It's REALLY different (like Twilight Zone different) from let's say Trump speaking with an "NATO ally", who Trump can pummel all he wants.
But just listen to him speaking to his followers. Then Trump make sense and is consistent. It's a great Witch hunt against him lead by the Obama-Hilarites of the deep state.
Plenty of reasonable people do think it looks bad, so yes.
When that political opponent may have abused his office for personal benefit by letting his son reap vast sums of money from a corrupt company in a destabilized country he just helped destabilize.
Tim Wood’s hysteria has polluted his reason, so much so that he see’s enemies in everyone who disagrees with him. His borderline McCarthyism reeks of paranoia and fear, and this while he touts justice from the other side of his mealy mouth.
Trump speaks the world goes wild. I’m well aware of the word-politics, mostly because that is all some people have.
If I take you literally, and extrapolate to any serious wrongdoing (you were too specific to the Bidens; makes it sound like a special pleading), it suggests you think a President can investigate anyone because anyone "may" have done something seriously wrong. Can you provide a reasonable, nonpartisan generalized standard that you'd be fine with applying to someone of either party?
It applies to any public official or employee of the government. Conflict of interest investigations are routinely applied to members of Trump’s administration (Scott Pruitt or Ryan Zinke for example, both of whom resigned). If it uncovers corruption then justice should be served, if it doesn’t then so much the better.
USMCA. Done.
Pretty amazing.
I know you don't believe Trump was doing this for political gain, but would it be OK if some future President actually did something analogous for personal political gain? If not, then on what principle do you allow the just investigations while disallowing the unjust?
The basis is the evidence. Hunter Biden was put on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian company making vast sums of cash while his father, the Vice President, just finished supporting a recent coup in the country. That’s at the very least a huge conflict of interest, and I think it should be investigated in case corruption was involved.
If any president did what Trump did I would be OK with it because he did nothing wrong. It’s just that simple.
Do you believe Trump is being impeached for political gain?
I know you don't believe Trump was doing this for political gain, but would it be OK if some future President actually did something analogous for personal political gain? If not, then on what principle do you allow the just investigations while disallowing the unjust?
Quoting NOS4A2
I'm asking you do define a principle you would apply - in general. The principle should apply to this case, of course, but I'd like to know what that is. If you don't have a general principle, it just seems a partisan judgment. One possible principle might be the same sort of standard that would be used to decide to conduct a criminal investigation. Would that work for you? i.e. A president should only use the power of his office to directly influence a foreign power to investigate a political opponent if there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed to warrant an investigation. You don't have to agree with that, but I'm asking you to provide the standard you consider appropriate.
He didn’t do anything wrong seems a sufficient standard to me. There was an congressional inquiry and the accusations were not supported by the facts.
Perhaps a similar inquiry will do the same for Biden.
That's not a standard, that's a judgment. If you can't show that your judgment is based on some objective standard, then it would appear to be purely partisan.
Fair enough. Do you have an objective standard?
Why don't start a thread in the lounge, with a poll, what is Noseforatooth? I vote c)
Quoting NOS4A2
Philosophy Forum 2020 edition.
If it's all downhill from here, I wonder where the discussion will be in 2024.
Just like the guy who went on a ferry to the UK and started driving his car on the right lane. When the radio said "Emergency bulletin, one car driving on the wrong lane on the Harwich London road" the guy shouted: "One? Jesus Christ with this Fake News: EVERYBODY is driving on the wrong side!!!!"
Wagging your finger every time I defend myself, but never when I’m attacked.
So under no circumstances should a President,
acting in his official capacity, pursue investigations into a political opponent. If the President has good reason to believe a crime was committed, the FBI, other investigative agency, or a well-regarded independent investigator can be appointed. But his hands should be off of it; the subject should be treated as radioactive.
This doesn't make it illegal for a President to push a rival's investigation, just like an MOC employee has not necessarily committed a crime. But it is grounds for suspicion, warrants scrutiny, and imposes a burden to show that the action was necessary and appropriate.
[I]*note: I originally stated the name of the major oil company I worked for, but edited it out. It's against company policy to use their name. If I still worked there, I could be fired for it.[/i]
I feel almost as sorry for him as I do for Trump who just wanted to stop corruption around the globe and was forced to arrange a smear of his biggest political opponent to do so. How unlucky can you get that fighting the only corruption you can find happens to involve discrediting the guy who's threatening to take the presidency from you??
It brings into view how meaningless the anti-Trump stuff really is.
I can appreciate that. That’s why conflicts of interest warrant scrutiny and is grounds for suspicion.
Remember that he only asked Zelensky to look into it if it’s possible—Burisma is a Ukrainian company—“so whatever [Zelenski] can do with the Attorney General would be great”. The attorney General is the head of the DOJ, which is responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice in the United States.
So what about congressional Democrats pursuing investigations into their political opponent, POTUS, who is the man to beat in the upcoming election?
History will not be kind to them. They will be demoted to its proverbial dustbin while the source of their ire will be remembered for centuries to come.
I am wagging my finger?
Nope.
It's just that the hostility is so typical, it really does tell what is wrong nowdays with public discussion. You see, this ought to be a Philosophy Forum. That's really, REALLY the telling thing here. If this is people who are interested on philosophy, think about those that just watch sports and follow politics occasionally.
And you can think people are attacking you personally. Wrong. People here are quite anonymous. And sometimes they agree, sometimes not. But usually when they don't know you, they'll be very keen on putting you into a box as some stereotype.
I understand.
No, I do not think people are attacking me personally. Wrong. I just think it’s odd that with all the name-calling and hostility towards my posts that I am held up as an example of what is wrong with public discussion.
What's the source of their ire?
Asking for investigation into the Bidens looks wrong on its face, which puts the burden on him to make a case for this being essential. He hasn't. He's thrown gasoline on the flames, by attacking those who criticized him, and stonewalling the collection of evidence. Further he has appealed to partisan loyalties, even "defending" his action based on rationale that seems purely partisan (e.g. Trump's referring to Biden's bragging about getting the prosecutor fired appears pure partisan, given the fact that his ouster was desired by so many).
Evidence that HAS come out adds even more reason to regard it as an act of partisanship, and that it harmed Ukraine (Zelensky looks like a fool).
[Quote]So what about congressional Democrats pursuing investigations into their political opponent, POTUS, who is the man to beat in the upcoming election?[/quote]
Congress has the Constitutional authority and responsibility to hold the President accountable for misdeeds. The partisan nature of the process is inescapable.
He has made his case and so have members of Congress and the senate.
Biden threatened to withhold over a billion dollars if the top prosecutor wasn’t fired. Meanwhile his son was being payed vast sums of cash working for a corrupt Ukrainian gas company, and this right after a revolution.
In combination with his dealings with a state-owned Chinese bank, travelling in Air Force 2 and even getting old Joe to shake hands with his new CCP partners, there was a pattern emerging.
This doesn’t look bad? As someone who wants to be an informed voter it is in our best interest to sort out these conflicts of interest.
Still I do not understand the argument that a Democratic Party candidate’s son cannot be investigated by Ukraine because he’s running for office. “It looks wrong” does not seem an adequate enough explanation, and in fact it looks like grasping for straws.
You're ignoring the fact that this prosecutor was widely regarded as corrupt, by US Intelligence, our allies, and by anti-corruption activists in the Ukraine. Further, he was not actively investigating Burisma.
Quoting NOS4A2
I didn't say there was necessarily anything wrong with Ukraine investigating. I said there's something with Trump pushing an investigation of a political opponent.
If there is evidence of Hunter having committed crimes, it would be perfectly legitimate for Ukraine to investigate this. What crimes has he been accussed of? Do you understand the nature of the corrupt acts of Burisma? What reason is there to think Hunter was involved?
I get that it looks bad for Hunter to have taken the high paying job, but he's hardly the first person to profit from a name and connections (e.g. Giuliani; Trump's kids). You need something more than the mere fact that he worked for Burisma.
Quoting NOS4A2
Sure, information (even dirt) is valuable to voters, but that doesn't make it appropriate for a President to use the power of the office to dig for this valuable dirt. Merely looking bad is insufficient justification.
I'm not sure if any Republican will want to toast Trump. You can allways say that you don't remember.