America - The Official Thread

[TexRex]

I mean...a day shy of seven months after that gaffe, 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from two U.S. Navy craft off the coast of Syria to hit a target ~250km away from Aleppo, supposedly (it's the likely impetus but I bear enough doubt in the administration responsible to question the reasoning provided) in response to events that occurred ~100km from the Aleppo.

That said, they may well not have been had Johnson been elected, Johnson may well not have been elected even if it weren't for that blunder, and the elected individual may well have made the exact same blunder if solicited at the same time as and in the same context as Johnson was, in lieu of Johnson. He may well not have offered the same self-depricating "I'm having an Aleppo moment" quip twenty days later that Johnson did, however.

The idea that that gaffe was enough to tip an individual's decision, no matter how precariously perched, is asinine.

 

[Danoff]

The idea that that gaffe was enough to tip an individual's decision, no matter how precariously perched, is asinine.

Asinine yes, but also indicative of self-deception. I honestly think that a large number of people who didn't particularly like Trump were looking for any and all reasons to discount any alternatives so that they could go with what they were comfortable with... voting team red.

I find it fun to remind those people the absurd reasons they told themselves at the time. But this one particular individual is so mentally split about politics, that he honestly still stands behind the decision to rule out Johnson based on that one gaffe. The double-standards are immense.

It's not so much that I think his one vote would have changed the election. But it has worked out quite badly for him personally as many of the people around him hold him personally responsible for the things Trump is doing and saying (some of which I think is fair when you vote for someone, if those things were predictable that is). My point to him, and everyone, is that voting is not about who wins or who else is running, but what you stand for. The only way to waste your vote is to vote for someone you don't agree with.

Trump is such a fantastic example of that phenomenon that I can't help but repeat myself to drill it in to those around me... you don't have to vote for someone you dislike just because you dislike the other person more. If you do, this is what you end up with - having supported, as others have put it, a dumpster fire.

I would be just as hard on Hillary supporters if things had gone the way I expected them to.

 

[Biggles]

Asinine yes, but also indicative of self-deception. I honestly think that a large number of people who didn't particularly like Trump were looking for any and all reasons to discount any alternatives so that they could go with what they were comfortable with... voting team red.

I find it fun to remind those people the absurd reasons they told themselves at the time. But this one particular individual is so mentally split about politics, that he honestly still stands behind the decision to rule out Johnson based on that one gaffe. The double-standards are immense.

It's not so much that I think his one vote would have changed the election. But it has worked out quite badly for him personally as many of the people around him hold him personally responsible for the things Trump is doing and saying (some of which I think is fair when you vote for someone, if those things were predictable that is). My point to him, and everyone, is that voting is not about who wins or who else is running, but what you stand for. The only way to waste your vote is to vote for someone you don't agree with.

Trump is such a fantastic example of that phenomenon that I can't help but repeat myself to drill it in to those around me... you don't have to vote for someone you dislike just because you dislike the other person more. If you do, this is what you end up with - having supported, as others have put it, a dumpster fire.

I would be just as hard on Hillary supporters if things had gone the way I expected them to.

I kinda feel bad for you Danoff. You're American ... & Donald Trump is your president. In spite of all your dedicated efforts, the Libertarian vote was a drop in the bucket compared to the Republican & Democratic voting blocks. I like Gary Johnson - he seems like a decent guy, as is William Weld. In any case, they are light-years ahead of Trump on any measure of character, integrity & reflective reasoning. For "Aleppo" to be considered some kind of defining moment in the election prospects of the Libertarian party seems like a sick joke to me. Trump seems to have an Aleppo moment practically every day. I came across this youtube clip which pretty much sums up the juvenile quality of Trump's thought processes:

 

[Danoff]

I kinda feel bad for you Danoff. You're American ... & Donald Trump is your president. In spite of all your dedicated efforts, the Libertarian vote was a drop in the bucket compared to the Republican & Democratic voting blocks. I like Gary Johnson - he seems like a decent guy, as is William Weld. In any case, they are light-years ahead of Trump on any measure of character, integrity & reflective reasoning. For "Aleppo" to be considered some kind of defining moment in the election prospects of the Libertarian party seems like a sick joke to me. Trump seems to have an Aleppo moment practically every day. I came across this youtube clip which pretty much sums up the juvenile quality of Trump's thought processes:

I agree with basically all of that. I take my duty to try to persuade people to think outside of party lines (on both sides) the same way I take it as a duty to try to get people to think outside of religious lines. I know that it's a drop in the bucket, but I've seen real progress on those fronts in my lifetime (despite absolutely staggering numbers who still participate).

 

[Dotini]

Trump has had it.

All hail President Pence!

Oh damn.

For Pence to become president anytime soon, Trump would first have to be impeached by the House and then convicted by the Senate. Highly unlikely before November, since both are controlled by the president's party. The Dems likely could take over the House in the mid-term elections. But unless they take over the Senate too, an impeachment is meaningless as was Bill Clinton's over the Lewinsky affair.

 

[polysmut]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

 

[Danoff]

For Pence to become president anytime soon, Trump would first have to be impeached by the House and then convicted by the Senate. Highly unlikely before November, since both are controlled by the president's party. The Dems likely could take over the House in the mid-term elections. But unless they take over the Senate too, an impeachment is meaningless as was Bill Clinton's over the Lewinsky affair.

I don't know that I'd call it meaningless, removal from office is certainly its own process, but impeachment carries some meaning both with the public and with the sitting administration and congress. Also Clinton's impeachment was over perjury, just keeping that straight.

 

[TexRex]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Is there anything for which there isn't a Simpsons reference?

 

[polysmut]

Is there anything for which there isn't a Simpsons reference?

Avant-garde Belarusian industrial funk crossover. Though even on that I can't be sure. I haven't seen the newer episodes for a long time.

 

[ryzno]

I don't recall you answering me when I asked if you'd jump to Hillary's defense if it was determined that she, with the assistance of Russians, acted to subvert the democratic process--the real mandate of the investigation--simply on the basis of her not being Trump. That's precisely what you're doing with regards to other members or former menbers of Trump's inner circle, all while disregarding the aforementioned mandate.

Cause I honestly don't understand your question. You have points and questions mixed together without a single question mark.

 

[TexRex]

Cause I honestly don't understand your question. You have points and questions mixed together without a single question mark.

The mandate of the Special Counsel investigation is to determine if anyone acted to disrupt the democratic process of the 2016 presidential election and to hold accountable any individual(s) determined to have done so, as well as to hold accountable anyone who impedes the investigation. Trump is not implicated in any of that until he actually is.

You have suggested that if any part of the investigation doesn't have to do with Trump, it shouldn't be investigated or lead to legal action. That's not the mandate, but I asked if you would respond in a similar manner if Hillary is revealed as acting in the aforementioned capacity.

You've made it clear that you don't like Hillary and you think she's crooked--gee, I wonder where you got that idea--but if you think Manafort shouldn't be held responsible because she isn't Trump, I'd have to imagine you don't think Hillary should be held responsible either.

 

[Touring Mars]

Slight change of subject, but it would appear that an actress at the forefront of the #MeToo campaign is in a bit of trouble over the apparent fact that she has had a sexual relationship with a minor (i.e. statutory rape). Yesterday the actress issued a strenuous denial of the claims but these have already apparently been contradicted by the emergence of what looks like a selfie of the two of them in bed (oops) as well as screen captures of text messages that allegedly show her admitting to a friend that there was a sexual relationship. It's all a bit sleazy, but the implications for the #MeToo movement are pretty huge. In this particular case, it seems like both are blaming the other for instigating the alleged 'interaction', but it does beg the question of how much "trauma" either one could really have experienced when, as it would appear, they were quite happy about what they were doing with each other at the time. (For the record, the (male) 'victim' was 17 at the time of the alleged 'assault', which is below the legal age of consent in California.)

 

[baldgye]

(For the record, the (male) 'victim' was 17 at the time of the alleged 'assault', which is below the legal age of consent in California.)

It's also worth noting that the alleged 'assault' also took place in California.

 

[BobK]

Slight change of subject, but it would appear that an actress at the forefront of the #MeToo campaign is in a bit of trouble over the apparent fact that she has had a sexual relationship with a minor (i.e. statutory rape). Yesterday the actress issued a strenuous denial of the claims but these have already apparently been contradicted by the emergence of what looks like a selfie of the two of them in bed (oops) as well as screen captures of text messages that allegedly show her admitting to a friend that there was a sexual relationship. It's all a bit sleazy, but the implications for the #MeToo movement are pretty huge. In this particular case, it seems like both are blaming the other for instigating the alleged 'interaction', but it does beg the question of how much "trauma" either one could really have experienced when, as it would appear, they were quite happy about what they were doing with each other at the time. (For the record, the (male) 'victim' was 17 at the time of the alleged 'assault', which is below the legal age of consent in California.)

It seems to me it's that it's just an example of the blatant hypocrisy we've (or at least I have) come to expect nowadays.

 

[TexRex]

California Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter to be arraigned on charges of misusing $250,000 in campaign funds.

I particularly like this bit:

On Wednesday, Hunter stood firm, saying the indictment was politically motivated and repeating his assertion that prosecutors on the case were supporters of failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

In other words, "I'd have gotten away with it if they were Trump supporters."

 

[05XR8]

California Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter to be arraigned on charges of misusing $250,000 in campaign funds.

I particularly like this bit:


In other words, "I'd have gotten away with it if they were Trump supporters."

*ahem*

 

[TexRex]

*ahem*

Yeah, I was this close to captioning a Scooby Doo screen grab.

 

[the_boy]

California Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter to be arraigned on charges of misusing $250,000 in campaign funds.

I particularly like this bit:


In other words, "I'd have gotten away with it if they were Trump supporters."

I think they went as low as trying to blame their kid on some of the spending

 

[Biggles]

It seems to me it's that it's just an example of the blatant hypocrisy we've (or at least I have) come to expect nowadays.

This young man was seduced by a beautiful, older, Italian movie star into having sex ... & then was paid $380,000? I think I remember having a dream ... I mean a nightmare ... like that when I was 17.



Damn! I'm such a hypocrite.

 

[Danoff]

 

[TexRex]

This young man was seduced by a beautiful, older, Italian movie star into having sex ... & then was paid $380,000? I think I remember having a dream ... I mean a nightmare ... like that when I was 17.



Damn! I'm such a hypocrite.

Well, the whole thing is hypocritical.

Neither hypocrisy nor "rampant hypocrisy" are particularly new, though. It's human nature to be hypocritical and humans have been rampant for...how long now?

The desire to point out others' hypocrisy probably isn't particularly new either, but what is new is the ease of spreading word of hypocrisy, and the ease with which word of hypocrisy reverberates within groups united by political and/or social views, to then be used to pick at issues those groups oppose.

Incidents like this undermine even the most admirable of ventures--which #MeToo certainly is not, but it's affecting change. Victims of abuse are developing the wherewithal to come forward without fear of retaliation, but it's on the employers of the accused to respond appropriately, using accusations to launch thorough investigations of abusive behavior rather than shooting from the hip and just canning the accused as a response.

I think they went as low as trying to blame their kid on some of the spending

I haven't heard/read that, so I take it with a grain of salt...but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[PocketZeven]

You mean like during WWII? When one country developed nukes and used them to usher in an era of relative peace?

True, but remember the USA then is not the USA now. It does really depend on the person with the finger on the trigger. So its best to not have it at all in my opinion.

 

[Touring Mars]

I kinda feel bad for you Danoff. You're American ... & Donald Trump is your president. In spite of all your dedicated efforts, the Libertarian vote was a drop in the bucket compared to the Republican & Democratic voting blocks. I like Gary Johnson - he seems like a decent guy, as is William Weld. In any case, they are light-years ahead of Trump on any measure of character, integrity & reflective reasoning. For "Aleppo" to be considered some kind of defining moment in the election prospects of the Libertarian party seems like a sick joke to me. Trump seems to have an Aleppo moment practically every day.

Ironically, Johnson's good character probably didn't help the situation - it came over as a weakness. But as you say, Trump says and does worse so often it is scarcely believable, but people love him for it - if it had been Trump who couldn't say where Aleppo was, he probably would have said '...and I don't care either, these :censored:hole countries are all the same anyway!' and his ratings would have gone up.

This young man was seduced by a beautiful, older, Italian movie star into having sex ... & then was paid $380,000? I think I remember having a dream ... I mean a nightmare ... like that when I was 17.

Damn! I'm such a hypocrite.

The weird thing is that, according to her anyway, it was the guy that 'jumped her' (presumably meaning he instigated proceedings), and then decides to sue. Sounds like a pretty nasty piece of work, but the damage that cases like this will do to actual abuse victims is immense. I think both of them should be locked up for oxygen wastage.

 

[Imari]

The weird thing is that, according to her anyway, it was the guy that 'jumped her' (presumably meaning he instigated proceedings), and then decides to sue. Sounds like a pretty nasty piece of work, but the damage that cases like this will do to actual abuse victims is immense. I think both of them should be locked up for oxygen wastage.

Meh, if a 17 year old female jumped a 37 year old male, he'd still get locked up no question how aggressive she was about it. As long as statutory laws exist, people have to be aware that underage is underage, no matter how eager and willing the participant. An adult is expected to turn away the 17 year old in that situation, regardless of gender.

Still, I doubt that he "jumped her" out of nowhere. A 17 year old doesn't get into a 37 year old's pants without an invitation or violence. I'm sure she made it clear that his advances would be welcome. From what I've read, it really doesn't sound like a case of surprise penis. She made sure they were in a room together, alone, and they had some drinks. Progressing from that to the no pants dance isn't exactly a surprise.

 

[TexRex]

An adult is expected to turn away the 17 year old in that situation, regardless of gender.

Abso-frickin-lutely. Of course when the adult in such a circumstance neglects to turn away, and when proceeding with sexual relations constitutes criminal activity, that adult should be held accountable as dictated by law.

This happens entirely too often, but it's typically not news unless the adult involved holds a position of authority over the minor ("Teacher engages in sexual acts with student.") or, as could have manifested in this instance had "#MeToo" not been a factor, if the adult is a celebrity or public figure.

But what we have here is a matter of optics as much as a general legal matter. Invariably, those who take issue with a movement use such an incident to attack that movement.

Edit: Of course I have no doubt "the other side" would act in a similar manner had the implicated been a vocal detractor of the movement.

 

[PocketZeven]

Meh, if a 17 year old female jumped a 37 year old male, he'd still get locked up no question how aggressive she was about it. As long as statutory laws exist, people have to be aware that underage is underage, no matter how eager and willing the participant. An adult is expected to turn away the 17 year old in that situation, regardless of gender.

Still, I doubt that he "jumped her" out of nowhere. A 17 year old doesn't get into a 37 year old's pants without an invitation or violence. I'm sure she made it clear that his advances would be welcome. From what I've read, it really doesn't sound like a case of surprise penis. She made sure they were in a room together, alone, and they had some drinks. Progressing from that to the no pants dance isn't exactly a surprise.

Funny how this most likely wouldnt be blown up if this happened in a state or country where it wasnt illegal.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Funny how this most likely wouldnt be blown up if this happened in a state or country where it wasnt illegal.

In Canada this would have been perfectly legal even if he was 14 years old up until just a few short years ago.

 

[Dennisch]

Here in the Netherlands it would have been legal, if (BIG if) she didn't offer him the money while seducing him. But she did eventually pay him big bucks, making it prostitution.

Knowing how I was when I was 17, if a woman of that magnitude asked me to go with her, I would not have said no, I would not need any gifts, and I would get naked as soon as the door closed behind me. But then again, 35 year old Dennisch would still do that.

 

[Rallywagon]

There are plenty of states in the US where the age of consent is below 18. Cali isn't one of them though

 

[Touring Mars]

Knowing how I was when I was 17, if a woman of that magnitude asked me to go with her, I would not have said no, I would not need any gifts, and I would get naked as soon as the door closed behind me. But then again, 35 year old Dennisch would still do that.

When I was 18, I got chatting to a woman who was playing a gig in a bar in Edinburgh - it turned out she was 38 and she was mortified when I told her I was 18, but nevertheless she invited me for a jam session at her place. It turned out she was in a relationship with a guy (ironically about the same age as I am now) and he was less than impressed, believing that it was all my idea - which was the polar opposite to the truth... when I turned up at their flat with my guitar, he made me feel about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit. I must admit, I was completely naive and didn't even entertain the idea that there was anything but an 'artistic' connection there, but that guy's hostile behaviour made me realise that there was more to it than I had realised.