Skip to content

Politics. The feel in your country.

1234235237239240635

Comments

  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811


    And again, in regards to 9/11 conspiracy theories: they are all insane. The Bush Administration DID NOT purposefully bring down the World Trade Center and bomb an entire side of the Pentagon. I have no idea what is going through the head of people who think this. If for NO other reason, there is no way someone wouldn't have talked about a conspiracy that big. Trump can't even stop daily leaks from his own staff, but Bush and Cheney somehow have gotten what would have had to have been HUNDREDS of people to say nothing for 16 years?? Preposterous.

    Most conspiracy theorist think it was the deep state + high finical backers who planned it. Bust was just a well played pawn.
  • QuickbladeQuickblade Member Posts: 957

    I was not a fan of Bush. The guy was a clown and his policies were wrong but he as a person meant well. He was nowhere near as repugnant as Trump.

    I don't blame him for 9/11 but why did we go to Iraq when the hijackers came from Saudi? Is that the place you are suggesting he should have banned people from? Trump's visiting Saudi today.

    The build-up to and invasion of Iraq was when I lost it and actually despised Bush and the Republicans. I could see Afghanistan as (barely) justifiable, but near the end Saddam actually allowed UN weapon inspectors back in, but apparently total capitulation wasn't enough, and so it went. At that point I saw it was just a power-grab for oil no matter what Saddam did.

    Everything after that got more ridiculous. "Freedom" fries because France didn't go along with invading a sovereign nation? Being called unpatriotic for not supporting an invasion? F- the Republicans.

    At that point we were no better than Nazi Germany.

    Don't even get me started on torture and "enhanced interrogation". Yeah, we did some good human rights abuses there, Hitler would have been proud.
  • ZaghoulZaghoul Member, Moderator Posts: 3,938
    The reason we see those labor numbers is that it all hit the fan, more or less, at the end of Bush's run. The housing/building industry I was in got decimated. The signs started in 2007 and when in the crapper full time in 2008 for sure. It has never come back to the way it was in 2005-06. People had to do anyhting and everything to survive, many ppl lost there homes, and many dropped out of the labor numbers altogether. Many still are out. I have yet to see real unemployment talked about on mainstream news yet. I am getting tired of the numbers being based on stupid unemployment office ratings. About 2 years after the crash states could not afford to pay folks anymore. Now, in NC., you get maybe @$200 week max for 5 mos max, while having to check in at the office every week.

    Still in a terrible state.
    ThacoBell
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975
    edited May 2017


    Sure there are right wing ones, but are they accurate? Did Trump build the wall and have Mexico pay for it on the sly? Because we all know he'd never shut up about it if he did. Subtle is a word he doesn't know.

    The record number Goldman Sachs executives in the government, um fake news myth? No, those guys exist. Has he not gone to the golf course on his own properties almost every weekend at taxpayer expense while making money charging the government to use his property?

    Somebody already pointed out Trump didn't actually promise one of the things he "promised". Others rely on you having a left-wing point of view to work (how popular is the Fair Voting Act with Trump voters, again?).

    Also, nobody actually cares about facts in political arguments, particularly when they're presented by "the other side". So what is this list for, other than to make us leftists feel smug? Is it going to convince even a single Trump voter of anything?

    Just how many times have you ever said "I told you so, you idiot" in real life and gotten a positive reaction?
    semiticgoddess
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    Ayiekie said:

    Somebody already pointed out Trump didn't actually promise one of the things he "promised". Others rely on you having a left-wing point of view to work (how popular is the Fair Voting Act with Trump voters, again?).

    Also, nobody actually cares about facts in political arguments, particularly when they're presented by "the other side". So what is this list for, other than to make us leftists feel smug? Is it going to convince even a single Trump voter of anything?

    Just how many times have you ever said "I told you so, you idiot" in real life and gotten a positive reaction?

    Ok, that's fair "I told you so, you idiot" won't convince anyone. I didn't see it saying you're an idiot though. I saw it as, hey show your trump friends how the Trumpster is full of crap and they got conned by Don.
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975


    True, but what, exactly, is going to convince the 33% core base of Trump voters to abandon him??

    I know what won't: condescending screeds from people they don't agree with.

    (What actually will: their perception of Trump failing either through incompetence or deceit at priorities important to them. Y'know, like every other politician.)


    Everything that was predicted months ago has come true in spades.

    Actually, there's plenty of things liberals predicted about Trump that haven't come true (quite a few predicted he would launch nukes or get into a major ground war almost immediately, for instance). Also, many liberals thought he seriously would try to prosecute Clinton as opposed to almost immediately dropping the idea and downplaying he'd ever said he would (this also contradicts the 'Trump does what he says he'll do!' meme that both the left and right like).

    Much of the left also act surprised and outraged at every new thing Trump does, which is hard to square with actually predicting it all.


    There is a reason liberals are pissed no one listened about Trump (not the least of which is that they were right). For 6 years during the Bush Administration, we yelled and screamed and no one listened. Then the bottom fell out. Iraq lost to disaster, Katrina, and the financial crisis. The ONLY thing that caused his core supporters to turn on him was when their OWN 401k and house values started tanking because the economy crashed.

    Bush's numbers went south significantly before the economic crash. You also forgot to mention "his flubbed attempt at immigration reform".


    Now we have a guy who most predicted would be Bush x10 on the disaster scale. It wasn't just "the left" who was warning about this guy. It was lifelong conservatives, practically every newspaper in the country saying "you can't elect this guy, he simply isn't fit for the office." Eventually, human emotions simply get the better of you. And it's AWFULLY hard in many cases not to say I told you so, simply for your own mental sanity. Again, go back to the campaign, hell, listen to Hillary talking about him in the debates, no matter how much you hate her.

    If you're assuming I'm a Trump fan, hate Hillary, or am personally right-wing on nearly any issue, you're incorrect on all counts.

    That it is hard to resist the urge to hate and dehumanise people who voted for Trump, and that it is hard to resist "I told you so", does not mean it is not worthwhile to avoid both things. Do you want to make anything better, or do you just want to blame the people who made it worse?


    To this day, whenever the media does some sort of expose or roundtable of how voters are feeling about Trump, it is almost UNIVERSALLY a panel of Trump voters being asked their thoughts, and how he's doing great and everyone just needs to give him more time and more of a chance, even though one of the primary reasons they voted for him was because he said he would take action quickly. I have yet to see one similar story on how Hillary voters feel, even though there are, oh, about 3 MILLION more of us. While the media is taking Trump to task (mostly because he's just THAT much of a disaster) they are still pushing the inescapable narrative that the only voters in this country that matter are Trump supporters from one stoplight towns in Nebraska and Indiana. These people are not forgotten, their views are actually given MORE credence than their actual national popularity would dictate.

    To the extent that this is true (because I'm guessing this is just your anecdotal impression, not statistically shown), it would be because of the mundane needs of a media narrative. It is not INTERESTING to hear what Hillary voters think of Trump unless for some reason they approve of him. It is a dog bites man story.


    If they can't handle a little smugness, I say tough shit. At least liberal smugness isn't taking away health-care from 24 million people or putting the drug war back into overdrive. As always when it comes to liberals, the "tone police" are out in full-force. No such rule exists on the right. Did you see the campaign Donald Trump ran?? Did you watch one of his rallies?? The way liberals are expected to act in response to keep the high ground is not just like having both your hands tied behind your back, it's like having no limbs to use at all. And many are fed up with going to battle that way.

    And just what is the endgame of all these poor little liberals forced by the evil biased media and the "tone police" to use the same behaviour, language and scapegoats of the right?

    When both sides act the same, how does anything ever get any better? Particularly for the US, whose entire political system requires compromise between both sides to function?

    Most of us learned as children that "they hit me first" doesn't actually justify hitting someone, even if it makes the decision more understandable.


    Now.....many people from all over the political spectrum may have many problems with Obama. But it's simply not the case that he was a historical disaster the way Bush was and the way Trump is shaping up to be. He didn't start a ground war that lost 3500+ troops and destabilized the entire Middle East. He didn't sit back and watch a American city drown for almost a week. He didn't allow a terrorist attack that killed 3000 Americans, and not only was there no financial crash, he spent eight years clawing back from the brink of the previous Administration. One need only look at the unemployment numbers in 2008 and 2016 to bear that out. On top of that (even though I really don't care about this part) the stock market soared and gas prices eventually fell back down to about $2 a gallon.

    And Bush didn't assassinate any American citizens without trial, nor did he conduct the most draconian war on whistleblowers in the country's history, or blow it on foreseeing ISIL as a threat. See, I can cherry-pick incidents too, and I'm at least as lefty as you are and actually agree with your basic premise above. If I don't find your argument the slightest bit persuasive, why would anybody that actually disagrees with you?

    (Also, presidents have next to nothing to do with the economic performance of the country during their terms, according to basically everybody who studies the subject. The Obama-era economy would have looked substantially similar if there had been a parrot in the White House. If he did do anything good, it may be Trump that benefits from it. Or Trump's successor.)
    ThacoBell
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975



    Ok, that's fair "I told you so, you idiot" won't convince anyone. I didn't see it saying you're an idiot though. I saw it as, hey show your trump friends how the Trumpster is full of crap and they got conned by Don.

    For that, you want to find out what their actual interests are, and address them.

    For instance, had the Democratic party successfully convinced more people in the manufacturing hubs of certain states that it a) actually cared about them, and b) had some sort of plan to help them, Hillary Clinton would be president right now.

    (After all, many of those voters were former Democratic voters, and it's actually very rare for people to switch their votes after reaching adulthood.)

    But a list like that? Even someone who has doubts about Trump (and honestly, objectively speaking it really is too early to judge the manufacturing thing just yet, though in all likelihood he won't do anything to substantially change it) is just likely to feel resentful of Reich's smug lefty rubbing their nose in it. Nobody likes being talked down to. Not even if they're wrong - perhaps especially if they're wrong.

    That's why I didn't like it - it just seems counterproductive. Of course the American left is still reeling at the moment and some feel-good stuff helps, but further indulging hatred and dehumanisation of Trump and people who voted for him (who compromise something like a third of the country you all have to live together in!) just isn't a good way to do it, IMO.

    (Neither is the obsessive focusing on Russia, not just because I still doubt anything coming out of it will hit Trump personally, but because the Democrats' focus on RUSSIA to the exclusion of all else is preventing them from taking a serious, sober look at the real reasons they lost the election.)
    semiticgoddessThacoBellSharGuidesMyHand
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited May 2017
    Deleted post
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited May 2017
    Ayiekie said:



    Ok, that's fair "I told you so, you idiot" won't convince anyone. I didn't see it saying you're an idiot though. I saw it as, hey show your trump friends how the Trumpster is full of crap and they got conned by Don.

    For that, you want to find out what their actual interests are, and address them.

    For instance, had the Democratic party successfully convinced more people in the manufacturing hubs of certain states that it a) actually cared about them, and b) had some sort of plan to help them, Hillary Clinton would be president right now.

    (After all, many of those voters were former Democratic voters, and it's actually very rare for people to switch their votes after reaching adulthood.)

    But a list like that? Even someone who has doubts about Trump (and honestly, objectively speaking it really is too early to judge the manufacturing thing just yet, though in all likelihood he won't do anything to substantially change it) is just likely to feel resentful of Reich's smug lefty rubbing their nose in it. Nobody likes being talked down to. Not even if they're wrong - perhaps especially if they're wrong.

    That's why I didn't like it - it just seems counterproductive. Of course the American left is still reeling at the moment and some feel-good stuff helps, but further indulging hatred and dehumanisation of Trump and people who voted for him (who compromise something like a third of the country you all have to live together in!) just isn't a good way to do it, IMO.

    (Neither is the obsessive focusing on Russia, not just because I still doubt anything coming out of it will hit Trump personally, but because the Democrats' focus on RUSSIA to the exclusion of all else is preventing them from taking a serious, sober look at the real reasons they lost the election.)
    You suggest not talking Russia and Trump's many let downs of everyone who is not ultrarich and religious. People have pride but it's okay to make a mistake.

    If you do something wrong or not the way you expected, you can talk about it. How do people learn from mistakes if they won't acknowledge them? I've made many mistakes. I can say I did. I will make more but I recognize when I've been had. Heck, I almost gave away money to one of those Western Union scams once and was at the grocery store trying to figure it out when I realized "what the hell am I doing?".

    But I'd agree that it is important to offer something, instead of only .

    I suggest Wolf Pac for getting money out of politics and for Democrats, Justice Democrats sounds promising. Many democrats are either not inspiring like Pelosi or completely bought off like Joe Mancin or a mix of the two. So there's house cleaning on the left needed as well. I don't see any hope on the right, they aren't even interested in helping the middle class as far as I can tell.

    Issues I'd like to see are single payer healthcare, and free college - we need to support education not defund it. We need smarter people to compete in the global economy. Let's start off small and aim for 2 year associates degrees free. It may sound crazy but only a fraction of that 50 billion trump wants to add to defense could pay for that.

    I think we'd save money on single payer by cutting out the middle men - insurance companies wouldn't have to take their cut and drive up the costs. Price gounging pharma companies would be brought under control and we'd pay closer to what other countries pay for medicine.

    Student loans can haunt people for years and bankruptcies due to medical bills are both two things that ruin lives. These are tangible things that could and should be addressed. It's 2017, we should be going towards star trek instead of going backwards.
    Ayiekie
  • BillyYankBillyYank Member Posts: 2,768
    Saw this on Doonsbury's "Say What?". It's too funny not to post.

    "We've got this perverse situation in which the vast analytic powers of the entire world are being spent trying to understand a guy whose thoughts are often just six fireflies beeping randomly in a jar."
    —David Brooks
    smeagolheartThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited May 2017
    Steve Bannon's Worst Nightmare

    Ahhh!
    image
    ThacoBell
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    edited May 2017

    Ayiekie said:



    Ok, that's fair "I told you so, you idiot" won't convince anyone. I didn't see it saying you're an idiot though. I saw it as, hey show your trump friends how the Trumpster is full of crap and they got conned by Don.

    For that, you want to find out what their actual interests are, and address them.

    For instance, had the Democratic party successfully convinced more people in the manufacturing hubs of certain states that it a) actually cared about them, and b) had some sort of plan to help them, Hillary Clinton would be president right now.

    (After all, many of those voters were former Democratic voters, and it's actually very rare for people to switch their votes after reaching adulthood.)

    But a list like that? Even someone who has doubts about Trump (and honestly, objectively speaking it really is too early to judge the manufacturing thing just yet, though in all likelihood he won't do anything to substantially change it) is just likely to feel resentful of Reich's smug lefty rubbing their nose in it. Nobody likes being talked down to. Not even if they're wrong - perhaps especially if they're wrong.

    That's why I didn't like it - it just seems counterproductive. Of course the American left is still reeling at the moment and some feel-good stuff helps, but further indulging hatred and dehumanisation of Trump and people who voted for him (who compromise something like a third of the country you all have to live together in!) just isn't a good way to do it, IMO.

    (Neither is the obsessive focusing on Russia, not just because I still doubt anything coming out of it will hit Trump personally, but because the Democrats' focus on RUSSIA to the exclusion of all else is preventing them from taking a serious, sober look at the real reasons they lost the election.)
    You suggest not talking Russia and Trump's many let downs of everyone who is not ultrarich and religious. People have pride but it's okay to make a mistake.

    If you do something wrong or not the way you expected, you can talk about it. How do people learn from mistakes if they won't acknowledge them? I've made many mistakes. I can say I did. I will make more but I recognize when I've been had. Heck, I almost gave away money to one of those Western Union scams once and was at the grocery store trying to figure it out when I realized "what the hell am I doing?".

    But I'd agree that it is important to offer something, instead of only .

    I suggest Wolf Pac for getting money out of politics and for Democrats, Justice Democrats sounds promising. Many democrats are either not inspiring like Pelosi or completely bought off like Joe Mancin or a mix of the two. So there's house cleaning on the left needed as well. I don't see any hope on the right, they aren't even interested in helping the middle class as far as I can tell.

    Issues I'd like to see are single payer healthcare, and free college - we need to support education not defund it. We need smarter people to compete in the global economy. Let's start off small and aim for 2 year associates degrees free. It may sound crazy but only a fraction of that 50 billion trump wants to add to defense could pay for that.

    I think we'd save money on single payer by cutting out the middle men - insurance companies wouldn't have to take their cut and drive up the costs. Price gounging pharma companies would be brought under control and we'd pay closer to what other countries pay for medicine.

    Student loans can haunt people for years and bankruptcies due to medical bills are both two things that ruin lives. These are tangible things that could and should be addressed. It's 2017, we should be going towards star trek instead of going backwards.
    I think you're absolutely right Ayiekie. As a Trump voter I can agree when he does wrong (I twice stated my displeasure for the gop's health care plan). Not a single president in recent memory has been totally unobjectionable and I would doubt the fair mindedness of one who saw totally no fault in their candidate. But there's a certain level of hostility, or stereotyping, or what have you that just isnt productive to engage with.

    I also like a lot of what I have seen so far. No TPP, a conservative on the Supreme Court and the possibility of more, action on the immigration front although that's clearly going to be a battle. But really, my position is still one of withheld judgement. It's simply too early to tell.

    Seriously, the TPP was a miserable pile of corporate handouts and it can not be overstated how good of a thing it is to be axed. That Clinton was so proud of it, then shifted due to political winds, while Bernie was always against it, highlights the schism behind the pseudo establishment left that hide behind identity politics and sloganeering, and the real grassroots, populist left. I dont regret my shift from Sanders to Trump one bit.


    A lot of what you want, Smeagol, seems very squarely in the Bernie camp rather than Hillary or Obama's policies. I'm glad you recognize Justice Democrats as a viable option as the DNC is still adamant about not letting in the far left into leadership. They're arguing in court now that it was their *right* to do what they did in 2016 against Bernie.
    smeagolheartZaghoul
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    I would support Bernie over any other candidate but I find Trump repugnant both as a human being and his policies.

    I care not for the empty abandonment of TPP which never passed and if it would have, so what? I do care about the proposed tax cuts for the rich, they earn enough off the working class to pay their share.

    I care about the attempted destruction of public education, I've got kids in public education, it should be a viable thing. I really don't want my kids I indoctrinated to a Christian charter school.

    I value a free internet and don't want Trump selling my search data for a profit. I don't support schenanigans like restricting speed on Netflix to force me to use whatever streaming service Comcast wants me to watch. I value Net neutrality.

    I don't want the environment destroyed more than it is just so companies can make a couple more bucks by dumping their waste in the drinking water.

    I don't hate or want to discriminate and scapegoat certain religions and skin tones. I also don't want to discriminate against however people find happiness or wherever they feel they belong.

    I don't look at the past with any great fondness or hate the progress we've made, I look ahead to the future.

    I don't respect people who lie about everything and seem to not know what it means to have integrity. So yeah, never Trump.
    Nonnahswriter
  • SharGuidesMyHandSharGuidesMyHand Member Posts: 2,579

    And.....I'm sorry, but I am NOT letting this one go. For the last 4-5 years we've been told over and over and over again that not saying "radical Islamic terrorism" was the problem when Obama was dealing with this issue. The Kenyan Usurper won't say "radical Islamic terrorism". If only he would say "radical Islamic terrorism" it would be like Dorothy clicking her heels together and saying "there's no place like home" and the world would be free of danger. Why can't the black man in the White House just say "radical Islamic terrorism"!!!!!!

    Yeah....bunch of goddamn hypocrites, every single person who ever complained about this:



    1:38.16 - "That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamic extremism, and the Islamisists, and Islamic terror of all kinds."

    Your post embodies exactly why the left is having so much trouble shaking loose the 30-40% base support that Trump has - you pre-condemned him AND his supporters for something that hadn't even happened yet (and, in this case, turned out to be not true). Not only does this kind of behavior undermine the left's credibility in other situations (even when they have merit to their complaints), but it further reinforces, if not outright justifies, the negative view that they already hold of the left.

    Flashburn
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited May 2017

    And.....I'm sorry, but I am NOT letting this one go. For the last 4-5 years we've been told over and over and over again that not saying "radical Islamic terrorism" was the problem when Obama was dealing with this issue. The Kenyan Usurper won't say "radical Islamic terrorism". If only he would say "radical Islamic terrorism" it would be like Dorothy clicking her heels together and saying "there's no place like home" and the world would be free of danger. Why can't the black man in the White House just say "radical Islamic terrorism"!!!!!!

    Yeah....bunch of goddamn hypocrites, every single person who ever complained about this:



    1:38.16 - "That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamic extremism, and the Islamisists, and Islamic terror of all kinds."

    Your post embodies exactly why the left is having so much trouble shaking loose the 30-40% base support that Trump has - you pre-condemned him AND his supporters for something that hadn't even happened yet (and, in this case, turned out to be not true). Not only does this kind of behavior undermine the left's credibility in other situations (even when they have merit to their complaints), but it further reinforces, if not outright justifies, the negative view that they already hold of the left.

    I'm sorry, is the word "radical" in that speech?? Because I've been specifically told that these 3 words, in THIS SPECIFIC order are the magic formula, for YEARS. 2/3 doesn't cut it on this one. We have to say "RADICAL Islamic terrorism" as many times as possible, or nothing will happen. Not my rules. The rules of the American right for the last half decade. My post isn't inaccurate. He didn't say it. Actually....he didn't even get 2/3 initially. Only one. 33%. So much winning.

    "Extremism" is not a synonym for "terrorism", nor is nothing at all a synonym for "radical". There is a reason I quoted the same 3-word phrase 4 times in my post, and it's not because I like typing it out. Again, Barack Obama was attacked endlessly on the right for not using this EXACT wording. It was a daily mantra on FOX News and right-wing radio. He won't say the words. Heard it hundreds of times. Trump didn't use the words either.
    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
  • SharGuidesMyHandSharGuidesMyHand Member Posts: 2,579
    Ayiekie said:



    Ok, that's fair "I told you so, you idiot" won't convince anyone. I didn't see it saying you're an idiot though. I saw it as, hey show your trump friends how the Trumpster is full of crap and they got conned by Don.

    For that, you want to find out what their actual interests are, and address them.

    For instance, had the Democratic party successfully convinced more people in the manufacturing hubs of certain states that it a) actually cared about them, and b) had some sort of plan to help them, Hillary Clinton would be president right now.

    (After all, many of those voters were former Democratic voters, and it's actually very rare for people to switch their votes after reaching adulthood.)

    But a list like that? Even someone who has doubts about Trump (and honestly, objectively speaking it really is too early to judge the manufacturing thing just yet, though in all likelihood he won't do anything to substantially change it) is just likely to feel resentful of Reich's smug lefty rubbing their nose in it. Nobody likes being talked down to. Not even if they're wrong - perhaps especially if they're wrong.

    That's why I didn't like it - it just seems counterproductive. Of course the American left is still reeling at the moment and some feel-good stuff helps, but further indulging hatred and dehumanisation of Trump and people who voted for him (who compromise something like a third of the country you all have to live together in!) just isn't a good way to do it, IMO.

    (Neither is the obsessive focusing on Russia, not just because I still doubt anything coming out of it will hit Trump personally, but because the Democrats' focus on RUSSIA to the exclusion of all else is preventing them from taking a serious, sober look at the real reasons they lost the election.)
    This says it all right here - instead of taking this opportunity to learn from its mistakes and come back as an even better party and ideology, the left is basically just crossing its fingers and saying, "I hope they come to despise us slightly less than Trump in 4 years..." Ironically, this is EXACTLY the kind of Russian Roulette-approach to politics that got them in this trouble in the first place.

    On a personal note, Jeff Sessions recently paid a visit to the area where I work, to discuss ways of curtailing the ever-growing epidemic of gang violence that has been gripping the region for the past decade or so. He has proposed using the RICO Act to punish gang members - something that I PERSONALLY have been arguing that the federal government should be doing for years. Sessions met with family members of several murder victims (many of whom have been high school-age kids), and they expressed relief at seeing the federal government finally get involved in this issue. Despite all this, protesters gathered outside the meeting with signs saying, "Sessions, go home," because... hey, it's Trump, just hate whatever he does! Since that time, there have been several arrests of gang members in my area thanks to help from federal authorities, including a group of illegal immigrants that are charged with slicing up a teenage boy with machetes (and are also the prime suspects in a similar attack several months earlier) - but still, the left persists with its narrative that EVERYTHING Trump is doing is wrong and NO ONE should be showing any semblance of support for anything he does.

    It's like the left is just giving a colossal middle finger to the people where I live and the issues that affect them the most, because - Heaven forbid! - they don't want to admit that something Trump is doing might actually be benefiting someone, somewhere.
    WarChiefZekeThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    I object to Trump on so many levels. However, to condemn him for using more reasonable language than he's previously advocated seems perverse. I don't expect his efforts at diplomacy to be successful in the long term - but I hope they are ...
    Ayiekie
  • SharGuidesMyHandSharGuidesMyHand Member Posts: 2,579


    I'm sorry, is the word "radical" in that speech??

    Yes, about 2 minutes later.



    "Extremism" is not a synonym for "terrorism", ...

    Yes it is, although he uses the latter term plenty of times as well.

    At this point, you're just grasping at straws to try to fabricate a negative narrative behind EVERYTHING he does, instead of being content to criticize what he does do wrong and accept that perhaps he occasionally does something right now and then.
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited May 2017
    Grond0 said:

    I object to Trump on so many levels. However, to condemn him for using more reasonable language than he's previously advocated seems perverse. I don't expect his efforts at diplomacy to be successful in the long term - but I hope they are ...

    He read from the speech from a teleprompter. He read words that somebody else wrote instead of winging it like he normally does. Less of the tremendouses, stupids, weaks, terribles, losers, disasters, etc that he normally relies on.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/05/21/a-black-congressman-called-for-trumps-impeachment-lynching-threats-followed-he-said/?utm_term=.cc275cb1afb2

    I am actually shocked that threatening someone with lynching is not considered a crime in the US. Trump (no one else) needs to condemn these comments before it escalates further.
  • ZaghoulZaghoul Member, Moderator Posts: 3,938
    Saw Trumps speech in Saudi Arabia today. 'Good ol human rights centralville'. He was a little more careful with his wording, as I thought he might be.


    I reckon they can use any words, bombs, sanctions, threats, 'boots on the ground', 'nukes on the ground', etc.,but when ppl are pissed off or have a belief in what they want, they are going to use whatever methods possible. The strongest of these I think are backed with religious conviction or a strong belief that change needs to happen 'now', teach ppl a lesson, or someone has to act 'now', (in dylan roof's case-according to his manifesto).

    It is too late now but I really wonder sometimes what the ME would be like without US involvement going back to the time of 'tin buck two'.

    How long will it be before 'someone' decides to add something similar to 'G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate' (Firefly) to OUR atmosphere to weed out aggression. A little far fetched but I don't for a minute think that at some point it would not be thought of the way science and gene therapy is moving forward. Ppl seem to think they can somehow weed out all the meanness in people, make everybody play ll nice in the 'sandbox'.

    Just pipe dreams, just plain ol pipe dreams. I find it interesting how when one thing is 'taken away', or changed, chaos often finds a way to reorder things in a way that brings up new issues (some good, sometimes bad).
    I just get tired of politicians acting like they can MAKE everybody get along, just by saying it.
    deltago said:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/05/21/a-black-congressman-called-for-trumps-impeachment-lynching-threats-followed-he-said/?utm_term=.cc275cb1afb2

    I am actually shocked that threatening someone with lynching is not considered a crime in the US. Trump (no one else) needs to condemn these comments before it escalates further.

    Seems like it is a misdemeanor at least, to threaten violence.

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    So he got convinced to 'stay strong'.

    Lynching is more than violence, it's murder.
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037
    He has to invoke Fifth Amendment protection as early as possible because according to the majority opinion in Salinas v Texas (2013) you cannot simply remain silent *and* not answering questions without specifically invoking Fifth can, itself, be used as evidence of culpability. Also, if you answer some questions first and then subsequently invoke the Fifth prosecutors might make the case that because you answered even one question you voluntarily waived any Fifth Amendment protection, which would compel you to answer all subsequent questions.

    The correct responses you should give immediately when being arrested or subpoenaed, whether you are actually guilty or innocent, are "I want a lawyer" (or "my lawyer" if you already have one) and "I invoke my Fifth Amendment rights". Any inconsistency in your statements which may be given in a stressful situation will be used as proof of guilt, even if the inconsistencies are later explained to everyone's satisfaction.
    semiticgoddessBalrog99
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850

    He has to invoke Fifth Amendment protection as early as possible because according to the majority opinion in Salinas v Texas (2013) you cannot simply remain silent *and* not answering questions without specifically invoking Fifth can, itself, be used as evidence of culpability. Also, if you answer some questions first and then subsequently invoke the Fifth prosecutors might make the case that because you answered even one question you voluntarily waived any Fifth Amendment protection, which would compel you to answer all subsequent questions.

    The correct responses you should give immediately when being arrested or subpoenaed, whether you are actually guilty or innocent, are "I want a lawyer" (or "my lawyer" if you already have one) and "I invoke my Fifth Amendment rights". Any inconsistency in your statements which may be given in a stressful situation will be used as proof of guilt, even if the inconsistencies are later explained to everyone's satisfaction.

    True from a legal perspective....however, in the general cultural sense, when you hear about the 5th Amendment being invoked, it screams "I'm guilty and hiding something" in bright neon letters.
    ThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305

    True from a legal perspective....however, in the general cultural sense, when you hear about the 5th Amendment being invoked, it screams "I'm guilty and hiding something" in bright neon letters.

    Flynn has previously said that he has both a story to tell and is willing to tell it if given immunity from prosecution - so I think if you wanted to infer guilt you could already do so.
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037

    True from a legal perspective....however, in the general cultural sense, when you hear about the 5th Amendment being invoked, it screams "I'm guilty and hiding something" in bright neon letters.

    I do not disagree with that assessment. Many high-profile cases are tried both in an actual court and the court of public opinion, resulting in two different conclusions (but only one of them--actual court--matters). We also need to remember that "not guilty" is almost never the same thing as "innocent". Finally, although being called to present testimony in front of a Congressional committee is not a court of law any inconsistent statements will be uncovered and open the door for perjury charges.

    Some people are going to hold out for protection from prosecution while others will hope for pardons.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited May 2017

    True from a legal perspective....however, in the general cultural sense, when you hear about the 5th Amendment being invoked, it screams "I'm guilty and hiding something" in bright neon letters.

    I do not disagree with that assessment. Many high-profile cases are tried both in an actual court and the court of public opinion, resulting in two different conclusions (but only one of them--actual court--matters). We also need to remember that "not guilty" is almost never the same thing as "innocent". Finally, although being called to present testimony in front of a Congressional committee is not a court of law any inconsistent statements will be uncovered and open the door for perjury charges.

    Some people are going to hold out for protection from prosecution while others will hope for pardons.
    At this point Flynn seems like a loyal soldier to Trump, and you can add the fact that he seems nutty as a fruit-cake. I can see him being willing to take the fall, but that all depends on what kind of sentence is hanging over his head. At a BARE minimum, Flynn and Manafort are in serious legal jeopardy, and the only leverage they may have in the end is singing about what they know. In the end, this may not even end up at collusion being the main focus. Everything about this tells me the big story is going to be money laundering.
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037
    Being loyal enough to fall on one's own sword for one's commander often pays off. Recall that no one directly linked with the Iran-Contra affair wound up actually serving any time while some of them never even went to trial.
This discussion has been closed.