America - The Official Thread

[Imari]

Havent met leftwing american yet. But boy are some protective about their 2nd amendment. After trying to watch Fox news on youtube I now understand the unique view right wing americans seem to have. Its probably because of the 2 part system. You are always forced to be for or against, an enemy or ally. Republican vs Democrat.

I am happy that in most countries in europe we have multi party systems were virtually no one party can govern without a coalition. Although not perfect it just gives you more freedom to develop your own political views and opinions. In america it is like if its always do or die. There is very little room for compromise.

It's only relatively recently that the party divide has become so vociferous. Hopefully it's not permanent, but yes, currently it's more about us vs them rather than compromising to get to a good result for the country.

And really, a left-wing American would often be considered to be right of centre in many other countries. The US in general is pretty far right by default. The gun thing is essentially a cultural oddity, it's one of those things that is so entrenched as a part of being an American that it's largely beyond rational discussion. It's a bit like talking to someone about the merits of removing their testicles. The emotional response often overwhelms the actual discussion.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law

I get the purpose of the law...but if this guy isn't charged with something...wow. Having grown up in rural Texas, I know there are absolutely people with the mentality of "oh man, wouldn't it be great if I got to shoot somebody today!" when they leave the house with their concealed-carry. I'd bet this guy is one of them. It's like the flipside of the reactionary "offended-by-everything and I wanna make a lot of noise about it" millennial....the reactionary gun-toting moron who needs just enough plausible deniability (he pushed me, and I was scared!!) to actually murder somebody.

I've seen the video and IMO his act of defence conforms to the law as it's written in Florida. The victim doesn't need to be under imminent threat of death or injury he just has to believe that he is. Americans give wide latitude in personal security cases and most often the victim is given the benefit of the doubt. Don't assault people for saying words you don't like.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's only relatively recently that the party divide has become so vociferous. Hopefully it's not permanent, but yes, currently it's more about us vs them rather than compromising to get to a good result for the country.

And really, a left-wing American would often be considered to be right of centre in many other countries. The US in general is pretty far right by default. The gun thing is essentially a cultural oddity, it's one of those things that is so entrenched as a part of being an American that it's largely beyond rational discussion. It's a bit like talking to someone about the merits of removing their testicles. The emotional response often overwhelms the actual discussion.

You make a very good point. It does same there is far more emotion in american politics then factual rational thought. I was just watching news of Trump being recorded talking about a payoff to a playboy model. The country just has double standards... if this was Obama he would already been forced to resign. The current President has had 2 confirmed affairs while married and even during a pregnancy. In most countries the president/prime minister would be forced to step down by its party.

I've seen the video and IMO his act of defence conforms to the law as it's written in Florida. The victim doesn't need to be under imminent threat of death or injury he just has to believe that he is. Americans give wide latitude in personal security cases and most often the victim is given the benefit of the doubt. Don't assault people for saying words you don't like.

Are you agreeing with the incident morally? Or just stating that he was in his rights? Your answer seems a bit unclear.

 

[Imari]

You make a very good point. It does same there is far more emotion in american politics then factual rational thought. I was just watching news of Trump being recorded talking about a payoff to a playboy model. The country just has double standards... if this was Obama he would already been forced to resign. The current President has had 2 confirmed affairs while married and even during a pregnancy. In most countries the president/prime minister would be forced to step down by its party.

Not really double standards. Clinton was a Democrat and he served out his term. It's just that sexual infidelity is not seen as disqualifying for political office, despite the fact that all will loudly decry it as terrible.

I can't say I completely disagree. Not being able to keep it in your pants doesn't really have much to do with being a good President. It's poor form, but so is becoming a politician.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You make a very good point. It does same there is far more emotion in american politics then factual rational thought. I was just watching news of Trump being recorded talking about a payoff to a playboy model. The country just has double standards... if this was Obama he would already been forced to resign. The current President has had 2 confirmed affairs while married and even during a pregnancy. In most countries the president/prime minister would be forced to step down by its party.

I don't think so. Bill Clinton had numerous affairs, was accused of rape, got his cigar given the special treatment by an intern who also polished his hardware and his party wouldn't vote to impeach him, even though he went on national tv and lied about Miss Lewinsky. An affair became meaningless at that point as did lying. Democrats reap what they sew. The chickens are coming home to roost. Shouldn't it be a matter between him and his family anyway?

Another point I'd make is the same one I make among my friends. Do you really think that 🤬 porn stars, playboy bunnies and super models is going to count against him with his base?

 

[PocketZeven]

Not really double standards. Clinton was a Democrat and he served out his term. It's just that sexual infidelity is not seen as disqualifying for political office, despite the fact that all will loudly decry it as terrible.

I can't say I completely disagree. Not being able to keep it in your pants doesn't really have much to do with being a good President. It's poor form, but so is becoming a politician.

But the right just seem to ignore his infidelity as if its normal to pay off women for their silence. And they even praise him for suggesting to pay by cheque and not cash?!?!

I don't think so. Bill Clinton had numerous affairs, was accused of rape, got his cigar given the special treatment by an intern who also polished his hardware and his party wouldn't vote to impeach him, even though he went on national tv and lied about Miss Lewinsky. An affair became meaningless at that point as did lying. Democrats reap what they sew. The chickens are coming home to roost. Shouldn't it be a matter between him and his family anyway?

Another point I'd make is the same one I make among my friends. Do you really think that 🤬 porn stars, playboy bunnies and super models is going to count against him with his base?

Maybe but in europe his own party would haveforced him to step down. And you are using the exact double standards I was pointing out.

 

[Johnnypenso]

But the right just seem to ignore his infidelity as if its normal to pay off women for their silence. And they even praise him for suggesting to pay by cheque and not cash?!?!

There's no law against paying someone to not talk about you. The fact that he wanted to pay by cheque should increase his integrity not decrease it.

 

[PocketZeven]

There's no law against paying someone to not talk about you. The fact that he wanted to pay by cheque should increase his integrity not decrease it.

I wasnt talking about the law. Personally I would not follow a leader who cheats on his wife, while she was pregnant. That only shows that person doesnt honor his promises or have integrity. And to be clear... I would be more understanding if he just visited some prostitutes. In these cases he actively persued a relationship.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I wasnt talking about the law. Personally I would not follow a leader who cheats on his wife, while she was pregnant. That only shows that person doesnt honor his promises or have integrity. And to be clear... I would be more understanding if he just visited some prostitutes. In these cases he actively persued a relationship.

I'm not sure how cheating once with a prostitute is better than cheating multiple times with a single person. What relationship did he pursue with these women other than an ongoing sexual one?

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm not sure how cheating once with a prostitute is better than cheating multiple times with a single person. What relationship did he pursue with these women other than an ongoing sexual one?

Nevermind.

 

[Northstar]

But the right just seem to ignore his infidelity

People (including me) overlook lots of questionable things people do/have done, it's not limited to political alignments or even politics.

 

[TenEightyOne]

People (including me) overlook lots of questionable things people do/have done, it's not limited to political alignments or even politics.

Quite, but Trump's accused of serial infidelity, and that's just in the latest round of unproved accusations. A lot of people take private fidelity as a guide to a person's wider honesty and the higher the office the truer that is.

We already know that Trump is accused of having a six month affair with somebody who was paid off. The important part of that story is that Trump claims to have no knowledge of the payment or how it was made... but now it transpires that he's on tape authorising the payment via his lawyer in person.

 

[PocketZeven]

People (including me) overlook lots of questionable things people do/have done, it's not limited to political alignments or even politics.

Correct but there is only 1 POTUS.

Quite, but Trump's accused of serial infidelity, and that's just in the latest round of unproved accusations. A lot of people take private fidelity as a guide to a person's wider honesty and the higher the office the truer that is.

We already know that Trump is accused of having a six month affair with somebody who was paid off. The important part of that story is that Trump claims to have no knowledge of the payment or how it was made... but now it transpires that he's on tape authorising the payment via his lawyer in person.

That is what I meant, the right dont seem to care he keeps lying. They accept the explanation that his answers need to be interperted. Maybe he will come up with a statement claiming he meant to say yes, because a double negative is a positive?!?

 

[Imari]

But the right just seem to ignore his infidelity as if its normal to pay off women for their silence.

The right overlook Trump because he's a Republican. The left overlook Clinton because he's a Democrat.

it's not about the infidelity. That clearly strikes on both sides of the aisle. What somehow surprises you is that parties will ignore it from their own members. Which isn't really surprising, as it's been clearly shown that the public don't care.

Quite, but Trump's accused of serial infidelity, and that's just in the latest round of unproved accusations. A lot of people take private fidelity as a guide to a person's wider honesty and the higher the office the truer that is.

We already know that Trump is accused of having a six month affair with somebody who was paid off. The important part of that story is that Trump claims to have no knowledge of the payment or how it was made... but now it transpires that he's on tape authorising the payment via his lawyer in person.

But after Access Hollywood, his creepy comments about going out with his daughter, and all the other misogynist things that he did well before being elected I find it hard to believe that all of a sudden people would actually start to take this stuff seriously. I'd say at least half of Americans don't take private fidelity as a guide to a person's honesty, or they don't particularly value honesty in a President.

That he had sex with a porn star and paid her off if anything just proves that he's exactly the man that they thought he was when they voted for him. A man who grabs life by the pussy. That he lied about knowing about the payment is no surprise, he's been shown to lie when he knows the media have recordings of him. Why would he not lie when there's a chance that no one finds out?

 

[Northstar]

Correct but there is only 1 POTUS.

And? Lots of presidents over the years have had side action (Clinton, JFK, Jefferson, LBJ, FDR have had confirmed side action and several more are rumored to have had some, including Washington) .

Much like when anyone else in the world cheats on their spouses, it's exactly none of my business.

 

[BobK]

That only shows that person doesnt honor his promises or have integrity.

And that, in a nutshell, describes pretty much any politician of any stripe.

 

[ryzno]

Stormy Daniels cancelled her show this weekend at the Pink Pony over family problems.

 

[Tornado]

That only shows that person doesnt honor his promises or have integrity

No one who voted for Donald Trump really cared for him to be in the timezone of integrity. No one, not even the most outraged of talking heads in CNN regarding Stormy or any other hookers that are unturned, ever expected it to begin with.

 

[PocketZeven]

No one who voted for Donald Trump really cared for him to be in the timezone of integrity. No one, not even the most outraged of talking heads in CNN regarding Stormy or any other hookers that are unturned, ever expected it to begin with.

I guess he normalized it.

 

[Northstar]

I guess he normalized it.

Pretty sure it's been "normalized" since before Trump's father's father's father's father was even born. I mean I'm sure at one point in some ancient past politicians had something resembling integrity, but that probably lasted all of 5 minutes.

 

[TexRex]

I guess he normalized it.

I mean...Clinton was impeached due in part to lying (perjury) and you'd have to imagine Nixon did a great deal of it in the midst of the Watergate scandal. Of course it didn't start with them either.

I don't necessarily agree with others' assertions that it's to be expected of a politician, as I have faith that there are countless individuals--who occupy minor offices and who lack the aspirations of occupying major ones, rather wishing to affect change on a community level--that just don't "need" to.

I do expect a fair amount of it in the major offices, and I'd even go so far as to approve of it as I've no doubt that there's things of which the general public probably shouldn't be made aware. I don't think it's inherently deceitful.

What bothers me most about Trump's inclination to lie (or reveal "alternative facts") is that it's frequently so inconsequential, fed by his rampant narcissism, and it's just so danged transparent. Of course there are also the ever-changing explanations of events, such as the source and knowledge of Stormy Daniels' payoff--which is to say nothing of events that led up to and indeed "necessitated" it, I don't particurlaly care about that--and the Helsinki "gaffe" that are nothing but deceitful.

 

[BobK]

I mean...Clinton was impeached due in part to lying (perjury) and you'd have to imagine Nixon did a great deal of it in the midst of the Watergate scandal. Of course it didn't start with them either.

Actually it wasn't "in part" for perjury, that was the whole reason for his impeachment. However the press (and the public) focused on what he was lying about and not the serious issue of lying under oath.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Actually it wasn't "in part" for perjury, that was the whole reason for his impeachment

I think that was only in part? Wasn't the other count Obstruction of Justice?

 

[TexRex]

Actually it wasn't "in part" for perjury, that was the whole reason for his impeachment. However the press (and the public) focused on what he was lying about and not the serious issue of lying under oath.

I'm given to understand that there were two charges of which he was found guilty--perjury and obstruction of justice. The former is lying directly, and while the latter may well and often does include lying, it's a separate charge for a reason and, in all likelihood (though admittedly I don't know the ins and outs of the case), was necessary for the former to come into play. Anyway, two charges means each was a part of the resulting impeachment.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Stormy Daniels cancelled her show this weekend at the Pink Pony over family problems.

I wonder if it has anything to do with her not being able to motorboat the customers anymore.

Trump's Interview Thursday with Joe Kernen of CNBC talking about a new job training program, the Federal Reserve, trade, China, Putin etc. Caution: No fireworks or gotcha questions.

 

[Imari]

I don't necessarily agree with others' assertions that it's to be expected of a politician, as I have faith that there are countless individuals--who occupy minor offices and who lack the aspirations of occupying major ones, rather wishing to affect change on a community level--that just don't "need" to.

Sure. There are absolutely people who get into politics just because they want to make the world a better place.

I do expect a fair amount of it in the major offices, and I'd even go so far as to approve of it as I've no doubt that there's things of which the general public probably shouldn't be made aware. I don't think it's inherently deceitful.

OK, hold the phone. There are totally things of which the general public shouldn't be made aware. That doesn't mean that you have to lie about them.

If asked about something that is a state secret, the correct response is to say "I'm sorry, that information is classified". Not lying.
If asked about something that is a personal secret, the correct response is to say "I'm sorry, that's a personal matter and I'm not comfortable sharing that with you". Not lying.

Lying is inherently deceitful. It's kind of the definition of lying.

 

[TexRex]

OK, hold the phone. There are totally things of which the general public shouldn't be made aware. That doesn't mean that you have to lie about them.

If asked about something that is a state secret, the correct response is to say "I'm sorry, that information is classified". Not lying.
If asked about something that is a personal secret, the correct response is to say "I'm sorry, that's a personal matter and I'm not comfortable sharing that with you". Not lying.

Lying is inherently deceitful. It's kind of the definition of lying.

Yeah, no...you're absolutely right. I suppose I was equating noy being forthcoming with information with lying, but that's just my upbringing showing through.



Actually, a similar notion was reinforced for me about a decade ago, which was that if I ever find myself deciding whether or not I should make things known, I probably should.

Of course things aren't always as clear cut as that, and such is the case with aforementioned classified information; there's often an all but completely justifiable reason to withhold information. As I said, the convention isn't inherently deceitful--but I have no doubt it is at times, indeed right now, where information coming to light would prove merely inconvenient for some rather than potentially harmful to the general public.

 

[Imari]

Actually, a similar notion was reinforced for me about a decade ago, which was that if I ever find myself deciding whether or not I should make things known, I probably should.

That's a human relationship heuristic, and a good one. If you're looking to build long term relationships with someone or a group of people, you should notify them of information that they would want to know if you can. That's what builds trust.

Of course things aren't always as clear cut as that, and such is the case with aforementioned classified information; there's often an all but completely justifiable reason to withhold information. As I said, the convention isn't inherently deceitful--but I have no doubt it is at times, indeed right now, where information coming to light would prove merely inconvenient for some rather than potentially harmful to the general public.

Again, I think it's about how you do it. Simply refusing to share information is fine. Replacing it with other false information is not. One is truthful, the other is deceitful. There are super-oddball cases where there's a need to lie in order to obfuscate true information that has been unintentionally released, but I think that's a rarity.

As far as the damage to the general public or the state from the instances of actual deceit, that's a case by case basis. Lying about Stormy Daniels is probably inconsequential. Lying about the inauguration or illegal voters is dumb but doesn't really matter. If it turns out that Trump has lied about his relationship with Putin and Russia, that would be a different kettle of fish.

Of course, this relies on the public being aware that they've been lied to so that they can judge whether it was an inconsequential lie or not. And therein lies the reason for it. If you're not caught lying, the lie is as good as the truth.

 

[TexRex]

That's a human relationship heuristic, and a good one. If you're looking to build long term relationships with someone or a group of people, you should notify them of information that they would want to know if you can. That's what builds trust.

Definitely. And not that it's particularly prudent, but I'm compelled to note that it wasn't an issue of secrecy or dishonesty, but a general lack of communication stemming from me not being in a good place that was proving damaging. But as thankful as I am for our daughter as a rule, I'm particularly thankful for her being the motivation to seek help. I'm happy to say that the missus and myself are in the best place we've been.

Well that was cathartic. Aaaaanyway...



Yeah, for what it's worth, I don't want to see a certain someone go for anything relating to sexual misconduct, as that just means there's someone who scares the bejeezus out of me just waiting to take his place. It'd be far better for damning information regarding campaign misconduct to come to light and be acted upon, as it may result in a more considerable reshuffling (surely there's something akin to "fruit of the poisonous tree" when it comes to the line of succession), and I think I can tolerate a President Ryan, at the bare minimum he strikes me as more respectful of the station even if his policy views don't align with mine...heck, I've already started capitalizing President again.



Yeap, I need to get back to sleep...

 

[BobK]

I think that was only in part? Wasn't the other count Obstruction of Justice?

I'm given to understand that there were two charges of which he was found guilty--perjury and obstruction of justice. The former is lying directly, and while the latter may well and often does include lying, it's a separate charge for a reason and, in all likelihood (though admittedly I don't know the ins and outs of the case), was necessary for the former to come into play. Anyway, two charges means each was a part of the resulting impeachment.

I stand corrected. You gentlemen are absolutely right.