America - The Official Thread

[samurai8juice]

It's not a smoking gun, but it certainly merits a deeper investigation (at the very least, the e-mails contradict previous statements on the subject).

Spoiler: The smoking gun

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Interesting observation here (among others, such as the Mystery of Jim) - four hours after Trump Jnr. confirmed the meeting with the Russian lawyer, Trump Snr. held a press conference in which he announced that he would be releasing damaging material on Clinton within the coming days:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...s-prayers-and-a-mysterious-friend-jim/8709016

The meeting took place two days later and Trump never revealed what material he had on Clinton. It's an interesting coincidence given that he claims he had no idea about the meeting.

 

[Grayfox]

So are these anonymous sources that trump talks about from "jim"

 

[BobK]

Trump takes criticism for his comments about Brigitte Macron's figure:

Of course, Trump could say literally anything about anything and there would be those criticizing.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Of course, Trump could say literally anything about anything and there would be those criticizing.

Like I said, it could be seen as perfectly benign if taken in isolation. But in light of some of the other comments he has made about women, don't you think his attitude towards them is troubling?

 

[BobK]

Like I said, it could be seen as perfectly benign if taken in isolation. But in light of some of the other comments he has made about women, don't you think his attitude towards them is troubling?

Not really, no.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Not really, no.

Wow. He repeatedly describes women that he disagrees with as "bleeding", openly brags about committing sexual assaults and otherwise only ever comments on their physical appearance and you have absolutely no issue with it?

 

[Dotini]

Wow. He repeatedly describes women that he disagrees with as "bleeding", openly brags about committing sexual assaults and otherwise only ever comments on their physical appearance and you have absolutely no issue with it?

Trump wasn't elected to be a choir boy, a pet monkey or a prisoner to political correctness. He was hired to bring about peace and prosperity. If he fails at that, we will dump on him for a lot more important things than being alpha.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

He was hired to bring about peace and prosperity.

And how is he going to do that when he clearly doesn't respect half the population?

 

[Dotini]

And how is he going to do that when he clearly doesn't respect half the population?

Results. Objective metrics and statistics such as employment, income and debt levels will determine the achievement of prosperity.
Reduced body counts and interventions will tell the story of peace. If and when these important results are (or are not) achieved, a presidents's worth, merits and shortcomings may be understood and seen in balance. Accountability will take place, have no doubt.

You are a foreigner, looking on from afar, hopefully a friendly one. But if you want our president to hold your hand and whisper soft cooing noises into your ear, you are clearly going to be disappointed. Suggestion: find a hobby, cause or crusade that you can be successful at. In the meantime, may I respectfully request you stop being such a nattering nabob of negativism about someone else's country?

 

[Johnnypenso]

You are a foreigner, looking on from afar, hopefully a friendly one. But if you want our president to hold your hand and whisper soft cooing noises into your ear, you are clearly going to be disappointed. Suggestion: find a hobby, cause or crusade that you can be successful at. In the meantime, may I respectfully request you stop being such a nattering nabob of negativism about someone else's country?

Anyone looking for those attributes in their leader should come to Canada. I think they would be very happy here. Or another couple of years anyway.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

In the meantime, may I respectfully request you stop being such a nattering nabob of negativism about someone else's country?

You're welcome to participate in the Australia thread if you wish. I won't think any less of you if you criticise our politicians. After all, it's practically a national pastime down here.

You will also note that I have not taken issue with America as a whole. Just with one man and with those immediately connected with him. After all, in the Uhlmann article I posted the other day, he noted that Trump seems happy to lead America into decline and enable the rise of Russia and China as the new superpowers - superpowers who will set new rules for the twenty-first century.

Right now the world needs America to be strong. Maybe more than ever before. Even if you try to frame it as a purely domestic issue, the decisions you make affect us all. The Global Financial Crisis was proof of that. There's no going back to the isolationism of the early twentieth century. But in the face of increasingly-violent extremism, a belligerent and nuclear-armed North Korea, and environmental concerns that will come to define future generations, you elected as your leader a man who carries out Twitter wars with former beauty pageant contestants a week after everyone had forgotten why he was arguing with her.

Frankly, he deserves all of the criticism he gets.

 

[Danoff]

You will also note that I have not taken issue with America as a whole.

Yes and... you can take issue with the country if you want to, that's what this thread is for. I do not like the notion that you have to live here to criticize because, as you say, I want to throw stones at other countries as well.

Right now the world needs America to be strong. Maybe more than ever before.

This is one of the things I actually enjoy about the Trump administration, a reminder to the world that they need to stop relying so heavily on the US and take care of themselves. This is happening in a big way in Europe, where they are coming to the realization that the UN and the EU are not allowing them to collectively wield other nations' military and economic resources.

I say great, if this leads to countries making themselves more self-sufficient, especially "western" nations that largely respect human rights, great, that's what the world needs. The shadow of Russia and China (I'm not nearly as concerned about China actually, they seem to be starting to understand economics) looming while our president is... for lack of a better description... orange... might be exactly the spark that everyone needs.

 

[BobK]

Wow. He repeatedly describes women that he disagrees with as "bleeding", openly brags about committing sexual assaults and otherwise only ever comments on their physical appearance and you have absolutely no issue with it?

It would appear you have a serious reading comprehension problem. I said:

Not really, no.

and from that you get:

...you have absolutely no issue with it?

If I had absolutely no issue with it then I would have said so more emphatically. Why do you insist on twisting other peoples' words?

For the record I think he should tone it down. Am I losing any sleep over it? No, not at all. Nor am I ranting about it on discussion forums. So he's uncouth. Of far more concern to me is the job he does and the results he gets. I don't care what he or anybody else says on Twitter.

 

[Danoff]

Poorly written opinion piece on Donald Jr.'s meeting with the Russians, implying anyone who says it's reasonable is an idiot.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-14/no-one-else-would-take-the-russian-meeting

The article cites this as evidence of that position:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/ethical-dos-donts-opposition-research/

Naturally it doesn't really back up the Bloomberg position. The discussion (in the second link) is with two campaign managers (Republican and Democrat) both saying they would not have taken the meeting with the Russians. Mostly because they (and I'm paraphrasing here) would be concerned that it would reflect negatively on their candidates. They're concerned about blowback, where they're seen as playing dirty or being dishonorable for even making the claims or insinuations.

They highlight two major issues with Jr's meeting:
- Do we know the source is credible (ie: can we trust what we get from a "hostile" foreign government)?
- How does it look to be even talking with these people and then again how does it look to use whatever information you get, even if it can be verified?

Neither of those are really ethical concerns with the meeting itself, they're concerns about the response of the voting public. If you ascertain that your supporters actually respond positively to dirty pool, and don't really care where you get the information from, and you're desperate for a boost, your evaluation of whether you'd ever use this information and whether it's worth the risk of being exposed for having conversations with a foreign government that can be seen as hostile may change... entirely.

That can lead a reasonable person to decide it's worthwhile to sit down and hear the information, evaluate the proof, and decide that it is possible that they have something you might use.

All I'm seeing is armchair quarterbacking about the potential blowback from meeting to figure out what information (and proof) was to be had, and some very weak arguments that laws might be broken if further links can be put together where... you know... actual wrongdoing occurs.

It short, this story that has been on the top of my google newsfeed for what seems like a week, is still fluff. Could it turn in to something? Yes. Is it worthy of the circulation it's getting right now? Heck no.

 

[DK]

The Trump Tower "nothingburger" (as his cultists like to say) gets even more meatier - a fifth individual, former Soviet counterintelligence officer Rinat Akhmetshin, accompanied Natalia Veselnitskaya to the meeting with Trump Jr, Manafort & Kushner.

Who is Akhmetshin? Here's a briefer:

In 2012, President Obama signed into law the Magnitsky Act, named for a lawyer who suspiciously died in Russian custody after accusing Russian government officials and members of organized crime of using corporate identity theft against Hermitage Capital Management to fraudulently obtain and launder $230 million, some of which allegedly ended up in U.S. real estate projects. The Magnitsky Act imposed sanctions against those involved as well as other Russians designated as human rights abusers.

In 2013, the Justice Department opened a case to seize the U.S. assets of Russian-owned Prevezon Holdings, which received millions of dollars from the theft and used it to purchase real estate in New York, according to the department’s complaint. In response, Prevezon Holdings and the Kremlin launched a campaign to undermine the Magnitsky Act and discredit Magnitsky’s claims of corruption, according to a 2016 complaint by Hermitage CEO William Browder. Fusion GPS and Rinat Akhmetshin, among others, were involved in the pro-Russia campaign in 2016, which involved lobbying congressional staffers to attempt to undermine the Justice Department’s account of Magnitsky’s death and the crime he uncovered, repeal the Magnitsky Act itself, and delay efforts to expand it to countries beyond Russia, according to Browder’s complaint. Akhmetshin, a Russian immigrant, has reportedly admitted to being a “soviet counterintelligence officer,” and has a long history of lobbying the U.S. government for pro-Russia matters. Fusion GPS was reportedly tasked with generating negative press coverage of Browder and Hermitage.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If I had absolutely no issue with it then I would have said so more emphatically. Why do you insist on twisting other peoples' words?

It's not my fault if you use ambiguous, dismissive wording. Why do you think I asked such a provocative if it wasn't to get a reaction?

former Soviet counterintelligence officer

"Former Soviet counterintelligence officer"? That could mean anything!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

This is one of the things I actually enjoy about the Trump administration, a reminder to the world that they need to stop relying so heavily on the US and take care of themselves. This is happening in a big way in Europe, where they are coming to the realization that the UN and the EU are not allowing them to collectively wield other nations' military and economic resources.

I say great, if this leads to countries making themselves more self-sufficient, especially "western" nations that largely respect human rights, great, that's what the world needs.

I don't think it's necessarily that simple. Even if Trump were to get his way and America distances itself from the rest of the world, what you do is still going to have an impact. Like I said, the Global Financial Crisis has its origins in the United States. Would we have gone into recession without the sub-prime mortgage crisis? Probably. But would we have fallen so far and so hard without it? I doubt it. I haven't seen any journals or commentary or analysis or the like to suggest it.

Trump seems to think that he can cut America off from the rest of the world, "fix it" (whatever that means) and then rejoin and then have America reassume its position as if nothing happened. But it doesn't work that way. Historically, politically, culturally, economically - everything, really - America has set the agenda. It would be irresponsible to cut yourselves off without giving up that ability to influence.

 

[Imari]

That can lead a reasonable person to decide it's worthwhile to sit down and hear the information, evaluate the proof, and decide that it is possible that they have something you might use.

I guess. I think the major gut reaction a lot of people have to it is a candidate for high office or their campaign should not be knowingly involving foreign governments in the political process.

If Putin called up a candidate last year and said "Buddy, how would you like help winning magnificent US election?" (in comic Russian accent, of course), one might expect someone who valued US sovereignty over winning to say "Thanks but no thanks, that's not how we roll here". The response "You know what, show me what you got and we'll talk" is a little disconcerting for some, because the attitude behind it is that the ends justify the means.

While accepting foreign help to win an election might not be strictly illegal, it is pretty strongly opposed to the spirit of a free and fair election. If someone is willing to violate that simply because they're so sure that they know what's best for the country even though the voters might not, I'm not sure that they're really the sort of person that belongs in charge. That's the start of a slippery slope that ends up with dictators like Castro and Kim Jong Un, who don't even bother to ask the populace what they think because then they'd have to go to the bother of rigging the system in their own favour.

To be clear, Trump is not Castro or KJU, not even close. But disregarding that the election process is supposed to display the will of the American people and not the will of Putin and his Russian buddies is a solid first step on the road to dictatorship. There's no shame in losing an election fair and square, that's the will of the people. There is a problem with winning an election because of influence from people that you're not being elected to represent.

 

[BobK]

It's not my fault if you use ambiguous, dismissive wording.

No, you're not. You are, however, responsible for twisting it into something I did not say.

Why do you think I asked such a provocative if it wasn't to get a reaction?

That's easy. I think you asked that because you're a troll.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think you asked that because you're a troll.

So I'm a disruptive and malicious bully because I challenged you on your underwhelming reaction to some rather disgusting comments?

Here's a hint: a troll would be someone who as a response to criticism from a woman would describe her as having a low IQ and bleeding from recent plastic surgery in an obvious attempt to portray her as too stupid to appreciate a unspoken but undeniable wisdom that comes with being a man and too ugly to perform her civic duty of looking pretty for a man.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So I'm a disruptive and malicious bully because I challenged you on your underwhelming reaction to some rather disgusting comments?

Here's a hint: a troll would be someone who as a response to criticism from a woman would describe her as having a low IQ and bleeding from recent plastic surgery in an obvious attempt to portray her as too stupid to appreciate a unspoken but undeniable wisdom that comes with being a man and too ugly to perform her civic duty of looking pretty for a man.

So you and Trump are both trolls. Glad you cleared that up.

 

[BobK]

So I'm a disruptive and malicious bully because I challenged you on your underwhelming reaction to some rather disgusting comments?

Hey, if the shoe fits.... seeing as how you by your own admission were provoking to get a reaction. That's not "challenging", that's trolling.

 

[Corsa]

Ah the corruption, greed, lies, and backstabbing ways of politics, corporations and maybe your neighbor next door.
Maybe I'm greedy hell who knows?

Things were much more simple 100 years ago.
The corruption generally occurred and stayed behind closed doors, as it should.
There is a certain point when we begin to receive too much information.
I can't even watch the news here in the US anymore, it's just overexamining this, rewashing that.
I blame the internet, yes the thingy I'm typing on right now is causing alot of unnecessary problems.
The drama we see play out daily on Twitter has been around since Homo Naledi was walking around Africa hunting, gathering, scratching his balls.

I love America, I love the internet.
Both have given me cheeseburgers and Gtplanet.

I hate how we're losing precious hours of our lives debating Trump said, Putin did, forgive me... back to debating

America!

 

[Danoff]

I guess. I think the major gut reaction a lot of people have to it is a candidate for high office or their campaign should not be knowingly involving foreign governments in the political process.

If Putin called up a candidate last year and said "Buddy, how would you like help winning magnificent US election?" (in comic Russian accent, of course), one might expect someone who valued US sovereignty over winning to say "Thanks but no thanks, that's not how we roll here". The response "You know what, show me what you got and we'll talk" is a little disconcerting for some, because the attitude behind it is that the ends justify the means.

While accepting foreign help to win an election might not be strictly illegal, it is pretty strongly opposed to the spirit of a free and fair election. If someone is willing to violate that simply because they're so sure that they know what's best for the country even though the voters might not, I'm not sure that they're really the sort of person that belongs in charge. That's the start of a slippery slope that ends up with dictators like Castro and Kim Jong Un, who don't even bother to ask the populace what they think because then they'd have to go to the bother of rigging the system in their own favour.

To be clear, Trump is not Castro or KJU, not even close. But disregarding that the election process is supposed to display the will of the American people and not the will of Putin and his Russian buddies is a solid first step on the road to dictatorship. There's no shame in losing an election fair and square, that's the will of the people. There is a problem with winning an election because of influence from people that you're not being elected to represent.

How is accepting evidence of wrongdoing of the other candidate disregarding the election process or against the will of the American people? It's bringing information to the American public so that they can make an informed decision. I get the part where we might be concerned that the information is fabricated, and even the part where we're concerned about how they need to be "repaid" for their help, but verifiable information on wrongdoings of the opposing candidate? That's information the American people should have, no matter the source.

To be clear, if ISIS came forward during the election with dirt on Trump and handed it to Hillary... and it was verifiable, I'd want her to come out with it.

 

[McLaren]

Trump takes criticism for his comments about Brigitte Macron's figure:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...e-macron-beautiful-during-paris-visit/8707816

In any other context, this might not be an issue - women over the age of fifty are regarded as sex symbols in France. But in light of Trump's other comments about women, you have to wonder if he's trying to play to local sensibilities, or if it reveals a deeper attitude towards women.

But then, we're not talking about Trump Jnr.'s meeting with the Russian lawyer, but maybe that's the point.

The only thing one has to wonder is your pathetic attempt to find issue with him complimenting a woman for a change. It's as if the man does 1 thing right, and you have to find an angle to justify your ridiculous standards.

Find some real criticisms.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The only thing one has to wonder is your pathetic attempt to find issue with him complimenting a woman for a change.

Like I said, taken in isolation it's fairly benign. But considered in the context of all of his other comments about women, is it really a compliment?

Hey, if the shoe fits....

Nothing I said was disruptive or malicious. Apparently my only crime as it were is daring to disagree with you. You don't represent Trump - he represents you. You elected him to speak for you, and what he has chosen to say is a disgrace. By staying silent, you condone it.

 

[Obelisk]

I voted Trump, but I don't agree with him. Does that put me under this:

You elected him to speak for you.

Or this:

By staying silent, you condone it.

Just like it puts @BobK, in your eyes?

I don't say anything about Trump amd his behavior because the political climate and its members are so over-sensitive that making even an innocent comment of disagreement will get me shredded to pieces. I value my life more than my political views, but I don't condone his conduct.

Don't bother answering me, PM. I'm adding you to my ignore list by midnight.

 

[Imari]

How is accepting evidence of wrongdoing of the other candidate disregarding the election process or against the will of the American people? It's bringing information to the American public so that they can make an informed decision.

Accepting the information is not the same as bringing it to the American public. You note that information that we're discussing wasn't available before the election.

If the Russians have information of wrongdoing that they wish to see a candidate investigated or prosecuted for, they can present it to the appropriate US authorities. If a political party is offered information of wrongdoing that they wish to see a candidate investigated or prosecuted for, they can present it to the appropriate US authorities.

If your goal is transparency and justice, then the first thing to do is get in touch with the FBI or appropriate enforcement agency. They will then advise you on how to proceed. It may be that you should continue to make the contact and report back to them, or they may wish to take matters into their own hands. You do not simply offer the information to the party with the biggest stake in discrediting the accused.

By not engaging the authorities, Trump's campaign is denying the American people the ability to have their investigative agencies look into the matter. The American people also don't get to make an informed decision, as the Trump campaign is under no onus to present all the information (safety of the country notwithstanding).

By keeping the meetings and information to themselves rather than reporting to the authorities, that is undermining the correct process and giving the Trump campaign the ability to decide information what should and shouldn't be made available to the American people. That's not their call, not when we're talking about potential crimes by candidates for the highest office in the land. And that's not the sort of behaviour that shows a great deal of adherence to the traditional American values of freedom and transparency.

That's information the American people should have, no matter the source.

I agree, and the appropriate agency to handle that is the government authorities. Not an opposing political party. My problem is not that the information came from the Russians. The problem is how the Trump campaign chose to handle it afterwards.

To be clear, if ISIS came forward during the election with dirt on Trump and handed it to Hillary... and it was verifiable, I'd want her to come out with it.

So would I. If ISIS came forward during the election with dirt on Trump and handed it to Hillary, I'd want it reported to the government as soon as possible. Preferably so that the professionals can investigate and verify it. No offense, but I trust the FBI to do the verification a lot more than I trust Eric Trump. The US government has a lot of people whose job is specifically to deal with this sort of stuff. That the Trump campaign would not simply handball this to them makes me very wary.

If someone sends me an email claiming that they're the Russian government and that they're offering information that will discredit the current Australian government, I don't run along with it until I can see how much it would benefit me, regardless of whether or not I might dislike the people affected. I report it to the people who are trained and employed to handle security and justice in my country and allow them to do their job.

I think we agree on what should happen; critical information should be made public, or at least passed to appropriate authorities. What I don't get is how you think that happened in this case.

By staying silent, you condone it.

Yeah...no. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you so late in life, but the world isn't actually all black and white.

 

[McLaren]

Like I said, taken in isolation it's fairly benign. But considered in the context of all of his other comments about women, is it really a compliment?

Yes, it was. Only people like you want to turn every single thing he does into a negative.

Take it as a sign he's not a complete tit 100% of the time, and move on.