Skip to content

The Politics Thread

1120121123125126694

Comments

  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176

    (...) Monarchy fell in North America and for over two centuries, a substantial portion of the world's population has had freedom.

    It hasn't worked everywhere, and hasn't had the same staying power everywhere. Many places have trued to jump-start democracy, weiting a constitution and holding elections... unfortunately it can be hard to make it durable if the place/people don't have the cultural and constitutional background that supported 18th-century Americans.

    Still all this time later, the freedom won by Americans is a beacon around the world. And rightly so.

    On USA was completely different, was colonies trying to defend thenselfes from an external government who wanna enforce his laws in a population that don't wanna to follow.

    I'll take "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" over the "divine right of kings".

    This is just on theory. Not all kings claim divine right to rule. See the interview with the great Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein, he at 4:42 on the video that i've posted
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited November 2018

    @FinneousPJ On the one hand, the anecdotal evidence I have is anecdotal. On the other hand, how many people under 30 really understand how taxation works at the Federal level? Can the average person under 30 name their city council representative? Have they read the legislation their chosen candidates have written or co-sponsored? Do they get their news from Facebook and John Oliver or do they read legitimate sources? Do they spend the vast majority of their time in left-leaning echo chambers or do they engage with people who have different points of view?

    Uninformed voters who simply follow the crowd and listen to some talking head or celebrity for their political views....*that* is how you wind up with a dictator, not with a blustery windbag half of whose own party doesn't like him.

    Do not diss John Oliver.

    Unlike Colbert, he comes on only once per week. And that's because he has a team that does a large amount of research on their topic every week.

    And how exactly is your last paragraph any different from people who spout off crap on 24/7 news channels, especially Fox.

    I have a trying time every 2-3 weeks because my dad comes in, riled up about something he saw on Fox News, which he somehow manages to parrot VERBATIM about half the time, then I have to spend 3-10 hours on the subject and related topics to say "They're full of crap".

    (Un)fortunately I don't have to spend nearly so much time now because the violations are getting just SO FLAGRANT and OBVIOUS I don't have to dig too deep.

    Most approval rating polls have GOP support for Trump at 90ish percent. I believe this is generally above the amount that Obama had in 2010 from Democrats.

    The point is - partisanship feeds from uninformed voters on both sides. I think the larger issue is that Conservatives only have Fox News and Talk Radio as major media based opportunities to get informed. Unfortunately - these two sources are consistently some of the worst in accuracy, and are combined with political "entertainment" that intentionally tries to walk the line between news and entertainment.

    Ideally - voters wouldn't use the media to gather information, and thereby eliminate that bias... but that's unrealistic to expect. I suspect most voters get the lion's share of their information from major media outlets.

    Exactly.

    Trump will be the nominee as the incumbent, and Fox News is PROVABLY the worst news source in terms of accuracy. And has been for YEARS.

    Out-of-date study is out of date by 6 years. At that time, I do not disagree that the Daily Show was a better source of news than major outlets. These days, though...not so much--the Daily Show and its copycats/spinoffs are merely echo chambers. At least, they all were the last time I looked at them about a month ago.

    In 2016, William Poundstone, the author of "Head in the Cloud: Why Knowing Things Still Matters When Facts Are So Easy to Look Up", did a study of how informed consumers of various news sources were on current events, geography, history, science, and personal finance. Viewers of "Last Week Tonight" scored the highest. Fox News viewers still scored second lowest (only better than viewers who don't watch news at all).



    https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#b5291b212abc
    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Fox-News-effect-What-causes-it

    Look at that graph. Fox News ISN'T EVEN STATISTICALLY IN RANGE of Huffington Post's STATISTICAL DEVIATION, who is ALWAYS being torn down on comment threads about how "It's the Huffingpost" by MAGAtards as if they publish lies daily.

    It is interesting how ALL the print media is well ahead of ALL 24/7 news media and (solely) online media.

    Your dad repeats FOX News talking points verbatim because they only focus on a select few a day and they repeat them ENDLESSLY. When he isn't watching FOX News, he is likely hearing the exact same language in his car on whatever AM radio station his dial is tuned into. It's endless repetition of the same thing, hitting the same fear centers of the brain over and over and over. It is in every sense a propaganda outfit. They tailor their message to have this exact effect. I've been watching and talking about it for years. Your father isn't unique in this regard, the anecdotal stories you will hear from children who feel they have practically lost their elderly parents to the vortex of FOX News and AM radio's hateful paranoia are nearly endless. There is a full-length documentary about it.

    I'm not sitting here and saying that MSNBC isn't a decidedly liberal and anti-Trump channel. It is. But it is not a full-fledged propaganda outfit spewing lies and conspiracy theories 24 hours a days, 7 days a week. I defy anyone to watch a week's worth of Rachel Maddow and then watch her counterpart in the same time-slot Sean Hannity and tell me there isn't a chasm-sized difference between what they are doing.

    This doesn't even get into the fact that even though people constantly talk about the "liberal media", they ignore the fact that nearly ALL political content on the radio in this country is not just conservative, but arch-conservative. And then think about these stats before deciding who ACTUALLY has the media power in this country. From Business Insider in 2017:

    Roughly 228 million adults in the US listened to some form of radio at least once a week in the fourth quarter of 2016, the report said. That's good for 93% of the US adult population, and the figure is growing. TV had the second-farthest reach at 89%, followed by smartphones at 83%. The PC and tablet were well behind, at 50% and 37%, respectively.

    Essentially, radio has the highest market saturation of any media platform. It isn't the most consumed (that is still TV), but it DOES reach the most people by a fair amount. And the Center for American Progress in 2007 did a study of what percentage of talk radio is conservative. That number was an astounding 91%. And that number has almost certainly only gone UP in the last decade, because when that study was done, Air America still existed as the only nationwide liberal talk network. It no longer does. The only liberal hosts left on the actual airwaves nationally on any level (and it isn't much of one) are Thom Hartman and Stephanie Miller. Everyone else has migrated to Youtube or podcasts. To juxtapose that, I could name off well over a dozen nationally syndicated right-wing hosts without batting an eyelash. As I have said before, you could drive from San Francisco to Bangor and from Orlando to Seattle in your car and never spend a single second not being able to tune in Rush Limbaugh. On the flip side, you'd be lucky to find Miller or Hartman for even an hour or two of your drive.

    Another low percentage on that chart is, of course, local news. This isn't surprising for a number of reasons, but the biggest one is that Sinclair broadcasting owns a massive amount of local affiliates all across the country. From Wikipedia:

    Sinclair's stations have been known for featuring news content and programming that promote conservative political positions, and have been involved in various controversies surrounding politically-motivated programming decisions, such as news coverage and specials during the lead-ups to elections that were in support of the Republican Party. A study by Emory University political scientists Gregory J. Martin and Josh McCrain found that "stations bought by Sinclair reduce coverage of local politics, increase national coverage and move the ideological tone of coverage in a conservative direction relative to other stations operating in the same market."

    The Washington Post noted that WJLA-TV's news content began to exhibit a conservative slant following Sinclair's acquisition of the station, while the company also produces pieces from a Washington bureau that similarly exhibit a conservative viewpoint. Sinclair executive David Smith met with Trump during the 2016 election year, in which he told the future president, "We are here to deliver your message." It was part of a pitch to have reporters embedded in the Trump campaign.

    In 2004, Sinclair's political slant was scrutinized by critics when it was publicized that nearly all of Sinclair's recent campaign contributions were to the Republican Party. In particular, the Center for Public Integrity showed concern that the Republican slant of Sinclair's news programming, along with Mark Hyman's past history of government lobbying (such as for the FCC to loosen rules regarding concentration of media ownership—a factor that has assisted in the company's growth), made its stations provide "anything but fair and balanced news programming." Hyman disputed these allegations by stating that its newscasts were "pretty balanced" and that "the reason why some on the left have characterized us as conservative is that we run stories that others in the media spike."

    In April 2017, Sinclair announced it had hired Boris Epshteyn, who was briefly the White House assistant communications director for surrogate operations for the Trump administration, and a senior advisor of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, as chief political analyst. All Sinclair stations are required to air Mr. Ephsteyn's commentary nine times per week.

    Local Sinclair networks penetrate 40% of US households. Right-wing media is not some fringe information network you have to seek out. You can't avoid it if you try. The idea that conservative voices in this country are somehow muffled or silenced is just flat-out preposterous. They practically have a total monopoly on radio and local TV programming.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,040
    What, exactly, do you think anyone here can do about a leader of a country who, in all likelihood, ordered the assassination of one of his own citizens?
  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 1,297

    What, exactly, do you think anyone here can do about a leader of a country who, in all likelihood, ordered the assassination of one of his own citizens?

    Did I miss anyone here calling for forum members to do something about the crown prince of Saudia Arabia?
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,040
    edited November 2018
    By "anyone here" I meant "politicians in the United States". I should have clarified that statement, apparently.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited November 2018
    Doing something is one thing. But acting like the personal PR firm for the Saudi Crown Prince (which is basically what he did yesterday and this morning when thanking them about oil prices) is quite another. But what exactly did we expect when we allowed a President to take office while not totally divesting from his businesses. It isn't just millions of dollars in arms sales we are talking about, it is millions of dollars into the pocket of the Trump family itself. From CBS:

    The president's links to Saudi billionaires and princes go back years and appear to have only deepened.

    In 1991, as Mr. Trump was teetering on personal bankruptcy and scrambling to raise cash, he sold his 282-foot yacht "Princess" to Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin-Talal for $20 million, a third less than what he reportedly paid for it.

    Four years later, the prince came to his rescue again, joining other investors in a $325 million deal for Mr. Trump's money-losing Plaza Hotel.

    In 2001, Mr. Trump sold the entire 45th floor of the Trump World Tower across from the U.N. in New York for $12 million, the biggest purchase in that building to that point, according to the brokerage site Streeteasy. The buyer: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    Shortly after he announced his run for president, Mr. Trump began laying the groundwork for possible new business in the kingdom. He registered eight companies with names tied to the country, such as "THC Jeddah Hotel Advisor LLC" and "DT Jeddah Technical Services," according to a 2016 financial disclosure report to the federal government. Jeddah is a major city in the country.

    "Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million," Trump told a crowd at an Alabama rally on Aug. 21, 2015, the same day he created four of the entities. "Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much."

    The president's company, the Trump Organization, said shortly after his 2016 election that it had shut down those Saudi companies. The president later pledged to pursue no new foreign deals while in office.

    In a statement this week, the company said it has explored business opportunities in many countries, but it does "not have any plans for expansion into Saudi Arabia."

    Since Mr. Trump took the oath of office, the Saudi government and lobbying groups for it have been lucrative customers for Trump's hotels.

    A public relations firm working for the kingdom spent nearly $270,000 on lodging and catering at his Washington hotel near the Oval Office through March of last year, according to filings to the Justice Department. A spokesman for the firm told The Wall Street Journal that the Trump hotel payments came as part of a Saudi-backed lobbying campaign against a bill that allowed Americans to sue foreign governments for responsibility in the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

    Attorneys general for Maryland and the District of Columbia cited the payments by the Saudi lobbying firm as an example of foreign gifts to the president that could violate the Constitution's ban on such "emoluments" from foreign interests.

    The Saudi government was also a prime customer at the Trump International Hotel in New York early this year, according to a Washington Post report.

    The newspaper cited an internal letter from the hotel's general manager, who wrote that a "last-minute" visit in March by a group from Saudi Arabia accompanying Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had boosted room rentals at the hotel by 13 percent for the first three months of the year, after two years of decline.

    Saudi Arabia has also helped on one of President Trump's key policy promises and helped the president's friends along the way.

    Last year, the kingdom announced plans to invest $20 billion in a private U.S.-focused infrastructure fund managed by Blackstone Group, an investment firm led by CEO Stephen Schwarzman. Blackstone stock rose on the news. Earlier this year, Mr. Trump unveiled a $200 billion federal plan to fix the nation's airports, roads, highways and ports, tapping private companies for help and selling off some government-owned infrastructure.

    Schwarzman, who celebrated his 70th birthday at the president's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, accompanied President Trump on his visit to Saudi Arabia.


    It is INSANE we are allowing someone to sit in this office with these kind of conflicts of interests and business ties. Insane. And this is just ONE country. There is no way a single person who supports this guy has any cause to ever complain about corruption by a politician ever again. They are just flat-out looting the place in broad daylight while in office. It's like watching a bank robbery.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811

    By "anyone here" I meant "politicians in the United States". I should have clarified that statement, apparently.

    I donno, take notes from Canada and stand up proudly with your allies.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/10/17/canada-stood-up-to-saudi-arabia-once-its-time-to-follow-through-and-stop-all-arms-deals/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.176b73ecc66f
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,453

    What, exactly, do you think anyone here can do about a leader of a country who, in all likelihood, ordered the assassination of one of his own citizens?

    That's pretty straight-forward actually. This is exactly the sort of situation the Magnitsky Act was intended to cover - here's an article about how that can apply to the Khashoggi case. The article refers to a letter from senators that requires the White House to report back within 120 days on whether sanctions should be brought against any people involved in the killing. Since the article was written it's become publicly known that the CIA believe Mohammed bin Salman was responsible for ordering the killing. In response to that the Senate updated their original request to require the White House to respond on the potential use of sanctions specifically against MBS.

    While there's a range of sanctions that could be used, a fairly obvious response to get the message across that the killing of Khashoggi is not acceptable, would be withdrawal of visas and personal financial sanctions (such as cutting off access to US banks). More severe sanctions would be possible, e.g. cutting arms deals (as Germany has done), but I would have thought personal sanctions rather than actions against the country would be more suitable in this case.

    There does seem to be bipartisan support in Congress for action and there's a clear mechanism that can be used to arrive at action. However, that doesn't mean any action will eventually be taken. It seems Trump will resist that, so it's not easy to guess what the final results will be.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited November 2018
    It's worth pointing out that Khashoggi, though not a US citizen, was a legal resident and an employee of the Washington Post. He was not an unknown commodity in the world of journalism. Trump has basically taken the stance that the planned killing and dismemberment of a employee of a major US news organization is totally acceptable in his eyes. Given his general feelings about the media AND his incredibly problematic financial ties to the monied interests in that country, it's not surprising he is excusing it. But make no mistake, he is basically giving the go-ahead for all authoritarian dictators around the world to start murdering journalists with impunity.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited November 2018
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
    Post edited by [Deleted User] on
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,453
    Interesting to see the Chief Justice rebuking Trump over comments about a judge. The Supreme Court faces the same sort of quandary as other groups supporting Trump (like religious groups or, indeed, Congress - at least until recently) that they want him on their side, but the cost of that may simply be too high.

    Trump wants followers, not a partnership of equals. He's happy to lavish praise on those that do exactly what he wants, but he regards any show of independence as a threat to be challenged. That's a problem for the judiciary, which should be independent of the President under the constitution (and most judges want that to be the case in reality). While Trump's attacks on judges have not been as frequent or intense as some other targets - such as the media - they do keep coming. Over time that will have the effect of reducing the legitimacy of the judiciary in the eyes of some at least of the American public.

    It will be interesting to see how long Trump can restrain himself from fighting back against Roberts ...
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694

    Trump won’t punish Saudi Arabia or its crown prince for killing of dissident journalist

    https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-saudi-statement-20181120-story.html?fbclid=IwAR1I4ub5v-Cihgid18aPTg4OFxgzRVGUtjeYxfYzGo_y_ArxNCajbNK6_Bw
    Not a surprise. Totally horrendous, but not a surprise.

    With Khashoggi decision, Trump places strategic interests above human rights

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/with-khashoggi-decision-trump-places-economic-interests-above-human-rights?fbclid=IwAR1-MmNOJakQCK7BbkDC3yh2ab9tyzkdUoHepKTZnHGQwQhXq6Khdp7QSjs
    And that would be "His own interests". I am completely tired of Trump bringing down this country to the level of a third-rate dictatorship. I want to personally kick him in the butt.

    While Trump Heads to Mar-A-Lago, Obama Volunteers at Food Bank For Thanksgiving

    https://hillreporter.com/while-trump-heads-to-mar-a-lago-obama-volunteers-at-food-bank-for-thanksgiving-15039
    Ye Gods, I miss President Obama. He wasn't perfect, but he was *SO* much better than the embarrassment we have in office now!
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    Grond0 said:

    Interesting to see the Chief Justice rebuking Trump over comments about a judge. The Supreme Court faces the same sort of quandary as other groups supporting Trump (like religious groups or, indeed, Congress - at least until recently) that they want him on their side, but the cost of that may simply be too high.

    Trump wants followers, not a partnership of equals. He's happy to lavish praise on those that do exactly what he wants, but he regards any show of independence as a threat to be challenged. That's a problem for the judiciary, which should be independent of the President under the constitution (and most judges want that to be the case in reality). While Trump's attacks on judges have not been as frequent or intense as some other targets - such as the media - they do keep coming. Over time that will have the effect of reducing the legitimacy of the judiciary in the eyes of some at least of the American public.

    It will be interesting to see how long Trump can restrain himself from fighting back against Roberts ...

    The answer was about 10 seconds.
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694

    Interpol presidency vote: Russia in surprise loss to South Korea

    https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-46286959?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR0pTsxBUv6WLtlnHL5GZJCocsweJk4xFkgYVXCkmH-YxIFTJxi4Q0nTlZY
    Good! Much was made about the Russian Candidate's ties to Putin. Hopefully, this will act as a minor Rebuke to Putin.

    Liked your tax cut? Don't count on holding on to that money for long!

    The tax windfall that wasn't: A troubling new IRS report suggests many Americans may be giving money right back to the government

    https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-the-tax-windfall-that-wasnt-20181101-story.html
    "But millions of Americans looking forward to their tax refunds are about to be disappointed, even upset. They will not see their expected refunds when they file their returns in 2019. Even worse, many will be required to pay extra taxes. Why the change? The Republicans’ push to sell their tax law to the American public is the culprit."

    And here's a little good news after all that.

    In a superhero cape, he feeds the city's hungry and homeless. And he's only 4

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/us/iyw-boy-helps-homeless-trnd/index.html?fbclid=IwAR3T_62o8Mp7yxT7ti69JB9AYCX04KjUX5zIIJEISf7g9pclnDuxrbocc-Y
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694

    'Who let this happen?': students rediscover antisemitism on Auschwitz field trip

    Government funded day-trip was part of effort to deal with racism across UK universities
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/21/who-let-this-happen-students-rediscover-antisemitism-on-auschwitz-field-trip?fbclid=IwAR1I1p6hLg8-wFdBBYnbzRG-BtW6ox9-MFqHdf8vlD2jYdAkjylzZ8xDYe0
    "For some, it was the railway tracks. For others, the piles of shoes or suitcases marked with their owners’ names: Hecht, Metzner, Klara and Sara Fochtmann. A rusted tin of face cream reminded one visitor of his grandmother; the book of names, recording the barest details of millions murdered in the Holocaust, made another weep.
    These were some of the images that 93 UK university students who this week visited the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau took home, along with a new understanding of the horrors of the Holocaust and a fresh commitment to countering antisemitism on campus."

    I think we (The USA) should do something similar for our own students. Yes, I know it would be expensive, but we should have less anti-semitism in this country. Similarly for a trip to slave quarters in the South.

    Roberts raps Trump for ‘Obama judge’ comment

    https://apnews.com/c4b34f9639e141069c08cf1e3deb6b84?cid=ed_npd_bn_tw_bn&fbclid=IwAR3mgz4HIPooxXNLh7LjBmNFc2K3x1-zbWxm5zIli83UCI7olUAZ_fLu7T4
    Hello, the Judiciary is Independent, and so it should be.

    Democrats flip Utah House seat as McAdams tops Rep. Mia Love

    https://apnews.com/d885be067eb24f9b90542b63f886075d
    Just another Democrat victory, nothing new here. :)
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,040
    edited November 2018

    What, exactly, do you think anyone here can do about a leader of a country who, in all likelihood, ordered the assassination of one of his own citizens?

    How about not issue an official statement proudly declaring "AMERICA STANDS WITH MURDEROUS TYRANT"

    Just don't do that. Really pretty simple.

    EDIT - as I think about this, how is it even an appropriate circumstance in which to say "we stand with them?" That's the sort of sentiment you express in favor of someone who has been victimized or oppressed, or something. It doesn't even make sense to say "we stand with" a country that successfully eliminated a voice of dissent without facing any consequences. It's just odd.
    On the one hand, we "stand with" many countries who have done truly awful things over the years...but "stand with" is relative and really means "we have some business dealings or trade deals here and there" and doesn't really mean "we are best friends". On the second hand, far more has been made of this incident than it deserves because journalists freaked out about it. On the third hand, I have cautioning people about the problems of becoming too close to Saudi Arabia for a long time given their history of abysmal abuse of various groups of people and the events which occurred a mere 17 years ago.

    re: Trump and Federal judges..... If you think Trump has pushed the boundaries of political decorum before, just wait until he *ignores* a temporary restraining order that some Federal judge issues and he proceeds with doing whatever it was caused the judge to say "no". *That* will be a Constitutional crisis that none of us want to see.
    LadyRhian said:


    I think we (The USA) should do something similar for our own students. Yes, I know it would be expensive, but we should have less anti-semitism in this country. Similarly for a trip to slave quarters in the South.

    There is a Holocaust Museum in the Texas Book Depository building in downtown Dallas; it is on the ground and first floors while Oswald's window is up on the sixth floor. Schools in the area regularly hold field trips to visit both locations.
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694

    What, exactly, do you think anyone here can do about a leader of a country who, in all likelihood, ordered the assassination of one of his own citizens?

    How about not issue an official statement proudly declaring "AMERICA STANDS WITH MURDEROUS TYRANT"

    Just don't do that. Really pretty simple.

    EDIT - as I think about this, how is it even an appropriate circumstance in which to say "we stand with them?" That's the sort of sentiment you express in favor of someone who has been victimized or oppressed, or something. It doesn't even make sense to say "we stand with" a country that successfully eliminated a voice of dissent without facing any consequences. It's just odd.
    On the one hand, we "stand with" many countries who have done truly awful things over the years...but "stand with" is relative and really means "we have some business dealings or trade deals here and there" and doesn't really mean "we are best friends". On the second hand, far more has been made of this incident than it deserves because journalists freaked out about it. On the third hand, I have cautioning people about the problems of becoming too close to Saudi Arabia for a long time given their history of abysmal abuse of various groups of people and the events which occurred a mere 17 years ago.

    re: Trump and Federal judges..... If you think Trump has pushed the boundaries of political decorum before, just wait until he *ignores* a temporary restraining order that some Federal judge issues and he proceeds with doing whatever it was caused the judge to say "no". *That* will be a Constitutional crisis that none of us want to see.
    LadyRhian said:


    I think we (The USA) should do something similar for our own students. Yes, I know it would be expensive, but we should have less anti-semitism in this country. Similarly for a trip to slave quarters in the South.

    There is a Holocaust Museum in the Texas Book Depository building in downtown Dallas; it is on the ground and first floors while Oswald's window is up on the sixth floor. Schools in the area regularly hold field trips to visit both locations.
    It's different to actually *go* to Auschwitz.
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    @LadyRhian Screw Pikachu! That little attention hogging rodent is way too overrepresented as it is!
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694
    I like Clefairy and Clefable.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694
    edited November 2018
    Cue Trump Blowback in 3... 2... 1...

    Republicans slam Trump for giving Saudi Arabia a pass in killing of Jamal Khashoggi

    https://www.salon.com/2018/11/21/republicans-slam-trump-for-giving-saudi-arabia-a-pass-in-killing-of-jamal-khashoggi/?fbclid=IwAR1gdqRDPrG2FcUFdLxZ8kEe0HimWu-msKiwpqwPUVI5SNopvsEdAjC2S3g

    Only three Senators. Three, mind you.
    Three Republican senators are speaking out against President Donald Trump's obsequious letter defending Saudi Arabia's crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, from accusations that he ordered the assassination of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
    "I never thought I’d see the day a White House would moonlight as a public relations firm for the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia," Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee wrote on Twitter on Tuesday while including a link to Trump's statement.
    He added in a pair of additional tweets, "Congress will consider all of the tools at our disposal to respond, including requiring by law a determination on the role of MbS" and "Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t” won’t cut it. So tonight, @SenatorMenendez and I sent a second Global Magnitsky letter to the president requiring that he specifically determine whether Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman is responsible for the murder of Jamal #Khashoggi."

    So, it's Bob Corker, Bob Menendez and Lindsay Graham. Rand Paul also called out the President, but not entirely- he gave him some cover.

    Donald Trump is terrified

    His lies have begun to backfire, and he’s running scared
    https://www.salon.com/2018/11/21/donald-trump-is-terrified/

    But what we haven’t done is look at what Donald Trump’s lies have done to him. They’re backfiring, and he’s showing signs that he knows they’re beginning to hurt him.
    His lie that the Mueller investigation is a “witch hunt” is working only for his base. An October poll by CNN found that about 60 percent of the public supports the Mueller investigation, while about a third of the public “consider it an effort to discredit Trump’s presidency.”
    But keeping the base energized has a big downside. He has thrown everything he could think of at the wall, and the problem is, it stuck, and now he’s stuck. He can’t fire Mueller because he has made such a big deal about Mueller’s investigation being a “witch hunt” that if he fired him now, it would be an admission of guilt. Trump’s near constant barrage of attacks on Robert Mueller have only served to make him look like he’s got something to hide. He succeeded in backing himself into a corner he can’t get out of, and he did it the same way he does everything else: with lies and an outsized ego.

    Trump has painted himself into the same corner with his continual lying about his willingness to be interviewed by Mueller and his investigators. In a scene from Bob Woodward’s “Fear” John Dowd, Trump’s lawyer, put the president through a mock interview on January 27 of this year. Trump lashed out after only a few minutes being peppered with the type of questions Special Counsel Robert Mueller would ask, calling the whole investigation “a goddamn hoax.” Trump then told Dowd he didn’t want to testify. By March, Trump had changed his mind and told Dowd he would be “a real good witness” in an interview with Mueller. “I’m afraid I just can’t help you,” Dowd replied to Trump, according to Woodward. He resigned the next day.
    Now comes news that Trump spent three days last week in “intense” meetings with his lawyers as they crafted responses to written questions from Mueller’s investigators. Trump told reporters at the White House last Friday that he was crafting the responses to Mueller’s questions himself. “My lawyers are not working on that. I write answers. My lawyers don’t write answers. I answered the questions very easily. Very easily,” Trump said in answer to a shouted question after a bill signing. Then on Sunday, he told Fox News host Chris Wallace that he “probably” won’t answer questions from Mueller in person.
    Yes he will. No he won’t. Yes he will, probably. No he won’t, maybe. The man who said repeatedly he wasn’t afraid to answer Mueller’s questions turns out to be a man with a lot to hide.

    I agree with a lot of this article. His lies are catching up with him, and they are closing in around him. More lies won't get him out of the spot he is in. In fact, they'll only make it worse. The only people who believe all his lies are his base, and they only make up a small portion of the electorate.

    Trey Gowdy is going after Ivanka Trump’s emails — and he’s given her a deadline

    https://www.salon.com/2018/11/21/trey-gowdy-is-going-after-ivanka-trumps-emails-and-hes-given-her-a-deadline/

    So, it looks like while Trump might say Ivanka and Hillary aren't alike in their e-mail scandals, Republicans aren't in agreement with him.
    Post edited by LadyRhian on
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    I have no confidence in Tres Gowdy after his partisan hack performance at the Kavanaugh hearings. He's probably thinking he can provide cover for Crooked Ivanka by running a sham investigation and clearing her before she faces a real investigation.
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694

    I have no confidence in Tres Gowdy after his partisan hack performance at the Kavanaugh hearings. He's probably thinking he can provide cover for Crooked Ivanka by running a sham investigation and clearing her before she faces a real investigation.

    Well, he's only there until Dec. 7th. After that, Elijah Cummings takes over.
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659

    I have no confidence in Tres Gowdy after his partisan hack performance at the Kavanaugh hearings. He's probably thinking he can provide cover for Crooked Ivanka by running a sham investigation and clearing her before she faces a real investigation.

    Remind me again, what did Gowdy have to do with the Kavanaugh hearings? I have no respect for Gowdy, but that stems from his part championing the Benghazi hearings.
  • BillyYankBillyYank Member Posts: 2,768

    On the third hand,

    A chance to use "On the gripping hand" and you missed it. I'm so disappointed.

    -----------------

    Asa Bibi and her family still haven't been able to leave Pakistan. Rand Paul has reportedly been urging the Trump to offer asylum, so good on him. No country has come forward yet, though there are rumors France has privately offered to take them in. Everything is uncertain right now, with some sources in Pakistan say she'll be able to leave as soon as some country offers asylum and other sources saying she can't leave until another review of her case. The Netherlands has reportedly evacuated some of it embassy staff after granting Bibi's lawyer temporary asylum.

    I never thought I'd be this close to hating an entire people. It's not a good feeling.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850

    I have no confidence in Tres Gowdy after his partisan hack performance at the Kavanaugh hearings. He's probably thinking he can provide cover for Crooked Ivanka by running a sham investigation and clearing her before she faces a real investigation.

    Remind me again, what did Gowdy have to do with the Kavanaugh hearings? I have no respect for Gowdy, but that stems from his part championing the Benghazi hearings.

    Yes, his job during the waning parts of the Obama years was the endless Benghazi hearings, which morphed into "but her emails". Naturally, like many of them, he saw the writing on the wall a year ago in the House and announced he was retiring, likely to some judgeship appointment, or at a bare minimum a lobbying firm. He has been walking about the past year as if he had nothing to do with ushering in Trump in the first place, trying to morph himself into some centrist voice so he can do TV appearances for the rest of time. But yes, Gowdy was the Republican attack dog in the second half of the Obama years, but he was in the House. Grassley was in charge of the Kavanaugh hearings, and will continue to chair the Judiciary in the Senate.
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694

    Neo-Nazis Are Organizing Secretive Paramilitary Training Across America

    https://www.vice.com/amp/en_ca/article/a3mexp/neo-nazis-are-organizing-secretive-paramilitary-training-across-america?utm_campaign=sharebutton&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR0qQF3zEIAI3sWKOqmnEK8Kmr91jt-3_-stn7tcv0UQnIvNOxDFBX5y-FY
    A neo-Nazi who goes by the alias Norman Spear has launched a project to unify online fascists and link that vast coalition of individuals into a network training new soldiers for a so-called forthcoming “race war.”

    Well, that doesn't sound very good. I'm all in with Antifa, so I hope that if it comes down to it, Antifa wins.

    Hugh Laurie made a CBE by Prince Charles

    https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-46291743?fbclid=IwAR3iZUt42vK9Sh6z447807qO7wtWg87S5cLTPAA1WryL9sSgANiQRaDSVsE
    Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. It's the Highest award you can be awarded. Higher than MBE (Member of...) and OBE (Officer of...)
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963

    I have no confidence in Tres Gowdy after his partisan hack performance at the Kavanaugh hearings. He's probably thinking he can provide cover for Crooked Ivanka by running a sham investigation and clearing her before she faces a real investigation.

    Remind me again, what did Gowdy have to do with the Kavanaugh hearings? I have no respect for Gowdy, but that stems from his part championing the Benghazi hearings.
    He was the 'bulldog' that all the Republican Senators gave all their time to to intimidate the witness and 'win'. Maybe I'm thinking of the Peter Strok hearing.

    Anyway, he's a hack. Unfortunately, I mean he seems like he's genuinely interested in justice but he's been doing Republican party hackery trying to feed obviously fake narratives like Bengahzis emails.
Sign In or Register to comment.