America - The Official Thread

[ryzno]

An investigation in him does not change the fact he bullies people. Trump was that way before he even was elected. During the primaries he was bullying the other candidates like it was highschool and remember how he bullied Obama during his presidency. There are other ways to criticise someone you disagree with, but bullying and spreading weird untrue rumors is not something a president should do.

edit: removed comment, that wasnt neccessary to mention

And his number one competitor called me deplorable and a few other things...

I honestly can't understand why you are so concerned about a person that has almost zero affect on your daily life.

 

[PocketZeven]

And his number one competitor called me deplorable and a few other things...

I honestly can't understand why you are so concerned about a person that has almost zero affect on your daily life.

You are using whatboutism here. But I will nonetheless react.
1. Hillary has nothing to do with my comment.
2. She is not the president.
3. She did not call you personally deplorable. She specifically meant people with hatefull views and did not even insinuate all trump voters. Read the complete quote. Rightwing media has spun this quote endlessly.
4. the complete quote was followed by: They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. I assume you arent any of these.
5. I was referencing sitting presidents.


There is a big difference in singling out an individual to bullying then a comment about a group of people with hatefull views as a sitting president. A president should look out for everyone, even the ones he/she doesnt like.

The fact that Trump is President as emboldened extreme rightwing politicians in europe and all over the world. You might think it has zero effect, but his polarising behavious is influencing politics everywhere. It also legitimises bullying by politicians.

 

[ryzno]

Read the complete quote.

I sat there and watched her on TV say it...

Ok so she said half... Still a very strong statement to make about millions of people she doesn't know. She simply said that to get people like you to think that's how Trump voters are, brainwashing at its finest. I've see you say the same things about Trump supporters who you don't even know...

 

[PocketZeven]

I sat there and watched her on TV say it...

Ok so she said half... Still a very strong statement to make about millions of people she doesn't know. She simply said that to get people like you to think that's how Trump voters are, brainwashing at its finest. I've see you say the same things about Trump supporters who you don't even know...

Again, that has nothing to do with Trump's bullying. This statement had alsmost 0 effect on Trumps behavior.

 

[Danoff]

Again, that has nothing to do with Trump's bullying.

Except that it's very trumpian in nature.

 

[ryzno]

Again, that has nothing to do with Trump's bullying. This statement had alsmost 0 effect on Trumps behavior.

You gotta be a little heartless to get to the level he's gotten to before he became President, he was the same person then as he is now, that's exactly why so many people voted for him.

 

[TexRex]

Trump's been a deck for dicades; it's absurd to think he'd change suddenly when given a title and a degree of privilege that blows the privilege he's had since birth out of the water.

Plus his supporters (his core supporters, not simply the "at least he's not Hillary" set) eat it up, and that's not a strong incentive to cut it out.

It's also absurd to suggest his behavior is in response to an investigation, unless he acted that way long before because he could see the future and doing so was pretaliation. Of course the suggestion someone here made that he may be able to walk on water takes the absurd cake.

 

[ryzno]

It's also absurd to suggest his behavior is in response to an investigation,

Yeah, I should of left that part out... Good to see you still can't be bothered to quote people you have no problem criticizing.

 

[zzz_pt]

I sat there and watched her on TV say it...

Ok so she said half... Still a very strong statement to make about millions of people she doesn't know. She simply said that to get people like you to think that's how Trump voters are, brainwashing at its finest. I've see you say the same things about Trump supporters who you don't even know...

I'd suggest the half she's talking about was probably the male half.*

*couldn't resist

 

[Dotini]

The fact that Trump is President as emboldened extreme rightwing politicians in europe and all over the world. You might think it has zero effect, but his polarising behavious is influencing politics everywhere. It also legitimises bullying by politicians.

Yes, and it works for all sides. Trump brings authoritarians back into the fold of the Group of 20. Madness, genius or Forrest Gumpery, any way you slice it, there is a massive gush of authoritarians washing over Mother Earth right now. Prediction: Globally and nationally, this is just the beginning and far from the end of this trend. In the USA, Trump or no Trump, Democrats will aggressively appeal to populism and authority as they claw back power, and it will be spectacular. I expect massive abuses of human rights, legal rights, water and energy rights, as well as heavy censorship and curtailment of the internet.

Turkey’s leader was a “tough cookie” and Saudi Arabia’s crown prince a “friend” who has done a “spectacular job.” Trump said he had a “tremendous discussion” with Russia’s Vladimir Putin. China’s President Xi Jinping was “one of the great leaders in 200 years.”

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-helps-bring-shunned-authoritarians-123000871.html

 

[huskeR32]

They also didn't have a 2+ year FBI investigation against them. I already know what you're gonna say but it was a political attack, period.

An investigation that, for the millionth time, has produced a number of indictments and convictions. What exactly is your objection to that?

Do you have similar objections to the sixteen different Congressional Benghazi investigations carried out by the GOP? Was that a “political attack, period?” Please actually answer this.

Yeah, I should of left that part out... Good to see you still can't be bothered to quote people you have no problem criticizing.

Yeah, you definitely don’t want me to go back and count how many times you responded to people without quoting them.

 

[Dotini]

For the current cycle of civilization going back some 6000 years, the basic recipe has been agriculture, patriarchy authority, and gold. In the 70's Nixon took us off the gold standard. Now, believe it or not, Trump is making moves to put the world back on the gold standard.

 

[Danoff]

For the current cycle of civilization going back some 6000 years, the basic recipe has been agriculture, patriarchy authority, and gold. In the 70's Nixon took us off the gold standard. Now, believe it or not, Trump is making moves to put the world back on the gold standard.

D) Not enough information

Link?

 

[TenEightyOne]

For the current cycle of civilization going back some 6000 years, the basic recipe has been agriculture, patriarchy authority, and gold.

Agriculture, mostly. Patriarchy, sometimes. Gold, not always. In any case you can distill those three into one word: property. I can't think of any working societies where liberty and progression haven't been defined by material culture.

 

[ryzno]

Do you have similar objections to the sixteen different Congressional Benghazi investigations carried out by the GOP? Was that a “political attack, period?”

No, people died.

 

[Dotini]

I can't think of any working societies where liberty and progression haven't been defined by material culture.

Okay, our liberty and progress is based on materialism. Materialism, atheism and communism. Battle on.

But the battle will wait while I launch my new fishing boat over the 4th of July. I will drink plenty of beer, make loud noises and stinking smoke. My ferry waits.

 

[huskeR32]

No, people died.

I can buy that logic for one investigation. But sixteen? At what point should they have been expected to stop throwing a tantrum that they couldn’t prove their conspiracy theories? At some point, it does become political nonsense, regardless of whether people died. So, when is that point reached in your eyes? The 20th investigation? The 100th?

And if people dying elevates an investigation beyond “political attacks,” but 34 indictments and 8 convictions does not, then where does that line lie? I’m pretty sure you’re the first person I’ve ever encountered who would make the argument that investigations into real crimes are not justified. So I’m really interested in hearing your reasoning here.

 

[ryzno]

I can buy that logic for one investigation. But sixteen? At what point should they have been expected to stop throwing a tantrum that they couldn’t prove their conspiracy theories? At some point, it _does_ become political nonsense, regardless of whether people died. So, when is that point reached in your eyes? The 20th investigation? The 100th?

And if people dying elevates an investigation beyond “political attacks,” but 34 indictments and 8 convictions does not, then where does that line lie? I’m pretty sure you’re the first person I’ve ever encountered who would make the argument that investigations into real crimes are not justified. So I’m really interested in hearing your reasoning here.

I've explained it before, it started over a fake dossier...

 

[huskeR32]

I've explained it before, it started over a fake dossier...

It wasn’t. From a memo released in February of 2018 by House Republicans (emphasis mine):

[Information about George Papadopoulos] triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016

That investigation is the same one that Mueller eventually took control of. And that date is important because that investigation wasn’t given a copy of the Steele dossier until September of 2016.

So, unless you’re saying that the FBI has a time machine, your assertion that the investigation was started by the dossier is flatly false.

As to the “fake” bit, I’m still waiting for you to flesh that out, as I requested three months ago:

By the way, can you provide a source that unequivocally establishes that the Steele Dossier was untrue? Last I remember reading about it, parts of it had been corroborated, others remained unverified, but none of it had been shown to be untrue.

 

[ryzno]

It wasn’t. From a memo released in February of 2018 by House Republicans (emphasis mine):



That investigation is the same one that Mueller eventually took control of. And that date is important because that investigation wasn’t given a copy of the Steele dossier until September of 2016.

So, unless you’re saying that the FBI has a time machine, your assertion that the investigation was started by the dossier is flatly false.

As to the “fake” bit, I’m still waiting for you to flesh that out, as I requested three months ago:

I might be a simpleton but at my job they have multiple ways of verifying I went to a stop regardless if I picked up anything.
First they can see in the GPS system if I actually stopped, then if they question it they'll call me and ask the color of the door, regardless they'll call the donor.
If I lied, I get written up for it. If I lied what I said is fake.

Ok but if I'm correct the FISA court used it to start the whole thing.

 

[huskeR32]

I might be a simpleton but at my job they have multiple ways of verifying I went to a stop regardless if I picked up anything.
First they can see in the GPS system if I actually stopped, then if they question it they'll call me and ask the color of the door, regardless they'll call the donor.
If I lied, I get written up for it. If I lied what I said is fake.

What?

Ok but if I'm correct the FISA court used it to start the whole thing.

The FISA warrant issued against Carter Page was only one small part of the larger investigation. So while it was indeed issued largely on the basis of the Steele dossier, that in no way makes it accurate to say the entire investigation was started for that reason.

And, again, you’re ignoring the reality of time here. The FISA warrant against Page was issued in October of 2016, four months after the start of the FBI investigation.

 

[ryzno]

What?



The FISA warrant issued against Carter Page was only one small part of the larger investigation. So while it was indeed issued largely on the basis of the Steele dossier, that in no way makes it accurate to say the entire investigation was started for that reason.

And, again, you’re ignoring the reality of time here. The FISA warrant against Page was issued in October of 2016, four months after the start of the FBI investigation.

You know what I'm saying and fair enough, I stand corrected.

 

[huskeR32]

You know what I'm saying

I really don’t.

I’m asking you for sources of which parts of the dossier have been proven false. What has that go to do with your work and GPS?

 

[ryzno]

I really don’t.

I’m asking you for sources of which parts of the dossier have been proven false. What has that go to do with your work and GPS?

My point was if what I say to my job can't be verified, they will not accept what I say as the truth. 1 lie, 5 lies or 50 lies it should have never been approved. I swear I've said this here before. I tried to use my job as an example but I'm sure you won't agree so I give up.

 

[huskeR32]

My point was if what I say to my job can't be verified, they will not accept what I say as the truth.

Who said the dossier “can’t be verified?” That’d be a great thing to offer up in response to my request for sources.

1 lie, 5 lies or 50 lies it should have never been approved.

What is the “it” here? The dossier? In that case, you can’t even show 1 lie, let alone 5 or 50. If you want the discussion to be “this report should be discredited because it contains lies,” you ought to be able to demonstrate what those lies are.

Also, what does “it never should have been approved” mean? Who “approved” the report? How? Why?

I swear I've said this here before.

You've said a lot of things before, and those things often get responded to with valid questions and critiques that you ignore. I’m not sure why you expect everyone to just blindly accept what you say when you can’t be bothered to follow up on things or provide substantiation to dubious claims.

I can’t even count the times I’ve seen people respond to you with links to sources. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen you do the same. You just use anecdotes about your personal experiences, which frankly, don’t and shouldn’t really count for much in discussions of national or global events.

I tried to use my job as an example but I'm sure you won't agree so I give up.

I can’t even begin to understand what it is you want me to agree with. Because your job uses GPS to verify that you delivered packages on time, that means… what, exactly? That any and every thing is similarly easy to verify, and therefore we are always immediately able to confidently declare something “fake” just because we aren’t privy to evidence that corroborates it? Do you understand how classified material works? That intelligence agencies don’t send daily reports to the gmails and yahoos of everyday citizens?

The FBI might be sitting on a mountain of evidence showing that virtually the entire report is true (similarly, that it’s almost all false). They’re naturally going to keep that evidence sealed. Intelligence agencies can’t really do their job effectively if they constantly give away the intelligence they have.

 

[Danoff]

My point was if what I say to my job can't be verified, they will not accept what I say as the truth.

The default position being disbelief. I get it. But there is a difference between not believing something and claiming it is a lie. To claim it is a lie you would need proof. To not believe it you just need to be unconvinced. There is an important distinction, because the disbelief state can later become belief in light of new evidence, whereas the lie position should stick.

The point is that you've made up your mind here about something that you should not have made up your mind about. In the absence of evidence your response should be "I don't know" rather than "I know it is a lie".

 

[ryzno]

husker
You yourself said there are things in the dossier that haven't be verified. It shouldn't have been used.
Danoff
I have made up my mind, that the warrant should have never approved until EVERYTHING was verified and everything that was found should not have been accepted in court.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff
I have made up my mind, that the warrant should have never approved until EVERYTHING was verified and everything that was found should not have been accepted in court.

So I'm going to admit that I don't know a lot about the Steele Dossier. I intentionally tried to avoid learning about it. So keep in mind that I'm commenting with essentially no knowledge of what it is, what it contained, and how it was used (although I can gather that it was bad for Trump).

Warrants are not approved once everything is verified, the judicial standard for a warrant is "probable cause" to believe that a search is justified. The standard is not "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or even "a preponderance of evidence". It's probable cause.

I don't know what was or was not offered as evidence or accepted as evidence in any proceeding, and the rules of evidence are many and complicated. But this a particularly pertinent section: "If the evidence is documentary, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that it is authentic, and must be able to demonstrate the chain of custody from the original author to the present holder."

Evidence also has to be relevant.

 

[Rage Racer]

I heard Trump is going to celebrate the Independence Day with a military parade, with tanks and warplanes? I'm looking forward to see.

Why? Because in Russia, there are many so-called 'liberals' (people with pro-Western views) who speak hatefully about our Victory Parade (on May, 9th). Like, "It's militarism, promotion of war! Machines designed for killing people are driven through streets, this is disgusting! Only dictatorships like North Korea do that!" (apparently these people are unaware about how France celebrates the Bastile Day, when somebody tells them about it, they get surprised).

I wonder what will they think now.

 

[Danoff]

I heard Trump is going to celebrate the Independence Day with a military parade, with tanks and warplanes? I'm looking forward to see.

Why? Because in Russia, there are many so-called 'liberals' (people with pro-Western views) who speak hatefully about our Victory Parade (on May, 9th). Like, "It's militarism, promotion of war! Machines designed for killing people are driven through streets, this is disgusting! Only dictatorships like North Korea do that!" (apparently these people are unaware about how France celebrates the Bastile Day, when somebody tells them about it, they get surprised).

I wonder what will they think now.

I've been spending entirely too much time today trying to decide why a parade with tanks and soldiers and missiles is distasteful to me and yet a fighter jet flyover is just good clean fun.