America - The Official Thread

[McLaren]

Trump reportedly under investigation for obstruction of justice:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...n-for-obstruction-of-justice-us-media/8619686

"All it appears to be is more investigation porn", as 1 comment put it. There is no confirmation that Mueller will pursue it; his team declined to comment on the Washington Post's report.

Mueller has not publicly discussed his work, and a spokesman for the special counsel declined to comment.

Accounts by Comey and other officials of their conversations with the president could become central pieces of evidence if Mueller decides to pursue an obstruction case.

 

[CodeRedR51]

There is no confirmation that Mueller will pursue it; his team declined to comment on the Washington Post's report.

https://www.wired.com/story/robert-mueller-special-counsel-investigation-team/

 

[McLaren]

https://www.wired.com/story/robert-mueller-special-counsel-investigation-team/

He's putting together a team to gather evidence; that's already known. Per the Washington Post, he has not decided to pursue the actual case yet.

It got a little like this with Bush Jr. too. A bunch of vitriol from the left, claiming that Bush was responsible for the deaths in Katrina, and that he was a mass murderer and an evil mastermind and that he was killing our youth in the military in exchange for lining the pockets of Halliburton executives. Some even claimed he orchestrated 9/11 for that purpose.

It's funny, because all we heard about building up to Obama was that the right wing folks could never stand for a Black president, that he'd be assassinated immediately, that those gun nuts are super violent and racist. And yet, all we seem to get during the Trump administration is severed heads, calls for execution of our elected government officials, protesters with signs saying things like "rape melania", and riots at universities. Yet somehow it's always the right wing that gets painted as backwards, violent, and gun-loving.

I'm going to link this because it's a giant pic, but these are a handful of comments picked from an Left-sided page that 6.5 million follow in response to today's shooting; around 2 dozen comments/2,800+ likes combined.
https://postimg.org/image/5aot8mpqh/

Also adding this because I thought it was funny; Virginia Gov. McAuliffe took a moment from being asked about shooting to state the need for tighter gun control because we lose 93 million Americans a day to gun violence meaning we'll all be gone by next week.

He did correct himself when a reporter questioned that number to his credit.

 

[PeterJB]

Hey look, more state sponsored support of terrorist nations:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-s...-days-after-accusing-it-of-funding-terrorism/

The strangest part is just a day or so ago, Trump said in a speech that Qatar funded terrorism:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-gulf-emirate-saudi-arabia-uae-a7788151.html

I can't even reason though this one. The Saudis, while a sponsor of terrorism, is needed by the US so we can land planes there while bombing ISIS strongholds. But Qatar? I'm not even sure. I know the US has troops stationed there, but it seems like it's not exactly strategically important when Saudi Arabia is right next door.

I supported him over Hillary and liked his anti-establishment stance, but really all he is is another corrupt millionaire that's full of 🤬.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I supported him over Hillary and liked his anti-establishment stance, but really all he is is another corrupt millionaire that's full of 🤬.

As a political entity you're caught between a rock and a hard place here, just like with the Saudi's. If Qatar is looking for weapons they are going to buy them from somebody. The alternative is to say no on principle, which sounds great in practice, but then they will turn to the Chinese or the Russians or someone else eventually and the west may lose power and influence in the country in the long run. Given that they are going to buy the weapons anyway, would you rather they buy them from the Russians or the Chinese? Politics is a dirty business.

 

[Joey D]

HuffPost pulls article that calls for the trial & execution for Trump & everyone in his administration. The writer of the article even dismisses the thought of bringing up facts to support his argument ("The sad thing is that I don’t even have to run through a laundry list of his wrongdoings and cite a litany of sources."). The bolded below is the author's own doing; playing judge, jury, and executioner.


This lunatic isn't doing the rest of the media favors, let alone Huffpost, writing stuff like this. It could be spun against the Left very easily, esp. in the wake of what happened today.

You can read the full cached version here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...afee4b094fa859f19ce+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

While I think Trump has probably committed crimes, I'm not sure calling for a death sentence is justified. With enough evidence, an impeachment hearing sure, but I don't think his stupidity should be punished by hanging.

Although, there were plenty of opinions out there when Obama was president calling for the same thing, as well as with Bush (and possibly Clinton, Bush, and so on, I'm too young to remember). The Internet is partially to blame for this though, anyone with a computer and a connection can spout whatever for the world to see now.

Given that they are going to buy the weapons anyway, would you rather they buy them from the Russians or the Chinese? Politics is a dirty business.

Yes, I'd rather them buy from one of those countries. There's no reason for the US to sell its weapons to a country that knowingly supports terrorism, which is something we claim to be fighting against. It just seems like a blatant display of the US funding terrorist nations so it can continue to fight them and justify its obscene military spending. I know the US is one of the largest arms dealers in the world, but it seems like some back channeling should be done so it doesn't seem so public.

 

[mustafur]

As a political entity you're caught between a rock and a hard place here, just like with the Saudi's. If Qatar is looking for weapons they are going to buy them from somebody. The alternative is to say no on principle, which sounds great in practice, but then they will turn to the Chinese or the Russians or someone else eventually and the west may lose power and influence in the country in the long run. Given that they are going to buy the weapons anyway, would you rather they buy them from the Russians or the Chinese? Politics is a dirty business.

Yes, because the Americans have the better weapons by a long margin, and the Saudis would unlikely want to settle for Chinese or Russian equipment anyway, given they where content with the significantly lower quantity in Obamas term, Saudi Arabia spent over Russia's entire military budget on that deal alone.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes, I'd rather them buy from one of those countries. There's no reason for the US to sell its weapons to a country that knowingly supports terrorism, which is something we claim to be fighting against. It just seems like a blatant display of the US funding terrorist nations so it can continue to fight them and justify its obscene military spending. I know the US is one of the largest arms dealers in the world, but it seems like some back channeling should be done so it doesn't seem so public.

So you're willing to risk losing all of your influence in the Middle East to the Russians or Chinese and that's an acceptable tradeoff? Note also, that in this thread and others, we are constantly being told that we are more likely to slip on a banana peel and bounce our head off curb and die than be killed by a terrorist so what the big deal anyway?

Yes, because the Americans have the better weapons by a long margin, and the Saudis would unlikely want to settle for Chinese or Russian equipment anyway, given they where content with the significantly lower quantity in Obamas term, Saudi Arabia spent over Russia's entire military budget on that deal alone.

If we didn't sell to them, they'd have no choice but to look elsewhere eventually, no matter how good our weapons were. Were they "content" with the lower quantity or simply waiting for a change in leadership so they could stock up?

Note: Banana peel scenario is a deliberate exaggeration for dramatic effect and not intended to represent the views of any particular poster.

 

[Danoff]

Given that they are going to buy the weapons anyway, would you rather they buy them from the Russians or the Chinese? Politics is a dirty business.

The point is we don't get to go around saying "so and so is supporting terrorism" and then hand weapons to people we claim are supporting terrorism. That's us supporting terrorism... of ourselves... and erodes the moral high ground. You can't go around condemning someone for being a criminal while putting a gun in his hand and telling him to shoot someone. So I'm with the others, no selling weapons to evil people.

 

[Joey D]

So you're willing to risk losing all of your influence in the Middle East to the Russians or Chinese and that's an acceptable tradeoff? Note also, that in this thread and others, we are constantly being told that we are more likely to slip on a banana peel and bounce our head off curb and die than be killed by a terrorist so what the big deal anyway?

The US's influence in the Middle East is a joke. The only thing we really have is Israel, pretty much every other nation in that area of the world isn't exactly fond of us, our way of life, or our intervention in their affairs. Losing influence over those countries and butting out of places where we don't belong, would actually probably go a long ways to combating terrorism.

And being killed by a terrorist isn't something I worry about, extending military conflict in a region and spending even more money on a fruitless war is something I worry about. Qatar isn't going to fly an F-15 to Washington DC and drop a bomb, but they very well could use those weapons against Israel, which would pull the US into yet another Gulf War. Or they could target any number of US or allied stations in the region.

 

[Danoff]

And being killed by a terrorist isn't something I worry about, extending military conflict in a region and spending even more money on a fruitless war is something I worry about. Qatar isn't going to fly an F-15 to Washington DC and drop a bomb, but they very well could use those weapons against Israel, which would pull the US into yet another Gulf War. Or they could target any number of US or allied stations in the region.

But even if they don't... if they use our weapons for any kind of underhanded nonsense... like just threatening to use them in order to get some group to capitulate to some backward policy... that's on us now.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The point is we don't get to go around saying "so and so is supporting terrorism" and then hand weapons to people we claim are supporting terrorism. That's us supporting terrorism... of ourselves... and erodes the moral high ground. You can't go around condemning someone for being a criminal while putting a gun in his hand and telling him to shoot someone. So I'm with the others, no selling weapons to evil people.

I wasn't aware that U.S. had the moral high ground for a half a century or so.

The US's influence in the Middle East is a joke. The only thing we really have is Israel, pretty much every other nation in that area of the world isn't exactly fond of us, our way of life, or our intervention in their affairs. Losing influence over those countries and butting out of places where we don't belong, would actually probably go a long ways to combating terrorism.

And being killed by a terrorist isn't something I worry about, extending military conflict in a region and spending even more money on a fruitless war is something I worry about. Qatar isn't going to fly an F-15 to Washington DC and drop a bomb, but they very well could use those weapons against Israel, which would pull the US into yet another Gulf War. Or they could target any number of US or allied stations in the region.

I think you missed the part where they are going to buy weapons anyway so any terrorism/war/conflict is going to continue unimpeded in the long run. These conflicts have existed in this region for centuries. I think that the chances of using those weapons against Israel or against U.S. or allied stations in the region would be reduced by maintaining influence there. I don't see how cutting them off is going to reduce those chances, again, given they are going to buy weapons anyway.

 

[Danoff]

I wasn't aware that U.S. had the moral high ground for a half a century or so.

Some... it's not totally gone. But we don't help ourselves by playing "dirty" politics.

 

[mustafur]

I wasn't aware that U.S. had the moral high ground for a half a century or so.

Gee I wonder why that is, could it be because of their constant meddling in Middle East politics??

How are we supposed to know what the Middle east would be like stability wise if we have to go back soo far before intervention, British intervention aside Iran would likely be a full blown democracy right now for example, and Iraq wouldn't be full of suicide bombers.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Gee I wonder why that is, could it be because of their constant meddling in Middle East politics??

How are we supposed to know what the Middle east would be like stability wise if we have to go back soo far before intervention, British intervention aside Iran would likely be a full blown democracy right now for example, and Iraq wouldn't be full of suicide bombers.

You have no way of knowing what the fate of Iran would have been, and Saddam may have caused many more deaths all on his own. He killed Kurds by the 10's of thousands didn't he? Who's to say he wouldn't have finished the job in his later years and possibly started another regional conflict and hopped on the terrorism financing bandwagon like his neighbours? And if we weren't meddling, chances are, someone else would be. Do you think they'd be better off turning them over to the influences of the Russians and/or the Chinese?

 

[mustafur]

You have no way of knowing what the fate of Iran would have been, and Saddam may have caused many more deaths all on his own. He killed Kurds by the 10's of thousands didn't he? Who's to say he wouldn't have finished the job in his later years and possibly started another regional conflict and hopped on the terrorism financing bandwagon like his neighbours?

We know the direction they where going in, either way Iraq now is objectively worse then what Saddam ever did, even if it was horrific.

and this Terrorism financing bandwagon is a joke, America has taken the Side of the Sunnis, but when was the last Shia terrorist done an attack on a Western country?
Their terrorism is domestic and mostly rebel which muddies the word.

 

[Danoff]

We know the direction they where going in, either way Iraq now is objectively worse then what Saddam ever did, even if it was horrific.

I wouldn't hang your hat on that one.

 

[mustafur]

I wouldn't hang your hat on that one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

Really now?

 

[Johnnypenso]

We know the direction they where going in, either way Iraq now is objectively worse then what Saddam ever did, even if it was horrific.

and this Terrorism financing bandwagon is a joke, America has taken the Side of the Sunnis, but when was the last Shia terrorist done an attack on a Western country?
Their terrorism is domestic and mostly rebel which muddies the word.

But you don't know what Saddam, and/or his children or heirs, would have done had they been in control and potentially had Russian or Chinese weapons free flowing into the country. I've seen estimates of a million or more killed by Saddam through wars, genocide, imprisonment and torture. It's easy to armchair quarterback and slot in the best possible outcome and shout, "look at what you did!".

 

[Danoff]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

Really now?

You lost me. What are you drawing from the 1953 event to support that Iraq is present day worse than it was under Saddam?

 

[mustafur]

But you don't know what Saddam, and/or his children or heirs, would have done had they been in control and potentially had Russian or Chinese weapons free flowing into the country. It's easy to armchair quarterback and slot in the best possible outcome and shout, "look at what you did!".

But see your looking at the worst case sceniaro, and besides the reasons why America invaded Iraq where completely fabricated and unlikely to even happen if not for Cheney Lies.

Even still that's the Middle East's Problem, Iran would likely have their Military measure anyway.

 

[mustafur]

You lost me. What are you drawing from the 1953 event to support that Iraq is present day worse than it was under Saddam?

You quoted two parts of what I said that had Iran and Iraq, I went with the first thing.
But yes, Iraq is a significantly worse ****hole then it was pre invasion.

Sometimes it's best to leave the overthrowing of said governments to the people of said country, afterall they have to live there not us.

 

[Johnnypenso]

But see your looking at the worst case sceniaro, and besides the reasons why America invaded Iraq where completely fabricated and unlikely to even happen if not for Cheney Lies.

Even still that's the Middle East's Problem, Iran would likely have their Military measure anyway.

I'm not looking at any scenario because I didn't propose one, I simply said you have no idea what would have happened and then referenced what we already know about Saddam. I don't know what would have happened, do you?

 

[mustafur]

I'm not looking at any scenario because I didn't propose one, I simply said you have no idea what would have happened and then referenced what we already know about Saddam. I don't know what would have happened, do you?

I obviously don't know but history can be used as a measure for what it may lead to.

I just don't agree with meddling in affairs of a country soo far away from your own that has shown to put your own national security at risk for negligible results.

 

[Danoff]

You quoted two parts of what I said that had Iran and Iraq, I went with the first thing.
But yes, Iraq is a significantly worse ****hole then it was pre invasion.

I'm not sure you're really thinking that one through. Your might even be right, I don't know - haven't been there, but Saddam was a brutal dictator.

 

[Dotini]

I just don't agree with meddling in affairs of a country soo far away from your own that has shown to put your own national security at risk for negligible results.

Agreed. Not only does it put your own national security at risk, it puts your own personal security at risk. JFK had the top off his skull blown off for meddling in the affairs of Cuba and Latin America. GW Bush and Tony Blair will never be absolved from the infamy of their invasion of Iraq and the creation of a region of failed states. We will be living with the blowback from their actions for generations. These are simply unavoidable destiny, the costs of empire and its acolyte poodles. When you or your nation plays the great game, you win or you die, be it personally or nationally. No regrets, no apologies, no changes. We are chained on the grinding wheel of history, and there's no getting off.

 

[DDastardly00]

Well, read it before you judge it. Caesar's assassination is the centrepiece of the play, but it's the events afterwards that are most meaningful.

Be that as it may, it is a meaningful and relevant to question whether a violent depiction of a trump-like figure in place of Julius Caesar is appropriate in this hyper-partisan age. Imagine if it was Obama, would the left be singing the same tune? You and I both know they wouldn't. There would be a thousand stories from the media about how it was inappropriate and racist; regardless of however well-intended the meaning of the assassination is meant to be in Shakespearean terms .

I've seen the video of the assassination scene from the play in NY, and it comes across as violent visceral pornography for the angry, agitated left and from the instant standing ovation the scene receives from the Audience, it's clear to me that Shakespeare's message isn't being received as intended by the audience if his message was to warn against the dangers of political violence, in fact, they seem to be cheering it on. It's painfully obvious that they are.

TLDR, while I appreciate your spoiler-free explanation of Julius Caesar, I'm just going to have to go ahead and disagree with you that the message is being received as intended. The timing of the modern day take on Shakespeare's Caesar using Trump and Melania imagery by a left-leaning producer, leads me to believe the motivation for doing so is also very suspect too.

Edit,

Sorry if I sounded like Bill Lumbergh at the end, I just reread it an that voice popped into my head.

 

[polysmut]

Be that as it may, it is a meaningful and relevant to question whether a violent depiction of a trump-like figure in place of Julius Caesar is appropriate in this hyper-partisan age. Imagine if it was Obama, would the left be singing the same tune?

I'd like to look at that question with a more fundamental wording that avoids specific individuals.

Be that as it may, it is a meaningful and relevant to question whether a violent depiction of a US President-like figure in place of Julius Caesar is appropriate in this hyper-partisan age. Imagine if it was the previous President, would the opposition be singing the same tune?

It looks to me like a nonsense question. I don't see the value in suggesting that art doesn't have a place if we happen not to like that particular art.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I've seen the video of the assassination scene from the play in NY, and it comes across as violent visceral pornography for the angry, agitated left and from the instant standing ovation the scene receives from the Audience, it's clear to me that Shakespeare's message isn't being received as intended by the audience if his message was to warn against the dangers of political violence, in fact, they seem to be cheering it on. It's painfully obvious that they are

You expect to make a meaningful assessment of the entire play based on an extract of a single scene? You have to look at the play as a whole.

The assassination of Caesar does not close out the play the way the deaths of other characters in the Shakespearean canon - like Othello, Hamlet, Macbeth or Romeo and Juliet - do. It actually happens very early in the play. The characters who assassinate Caesar justify their actions as a necessary evil to protect Rome, but when they take over, they're arguably just as bad as Caesar was when he was in power.

 

[Northstar]

Imagine if it was Obama, would the left be singing the same tune? You and I both know they wouldn't. There would be a thousand stories from the media about how it was inappropriate and racist; regardless of however well-intended the meaning of the assassination is meant to be in Shakespearean terms .

Umm...

I remember hearing a little about it when it debuted, but not any more than the usual Guthrie plays.