US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Nippelspanner]

when someone actually bothers to have an intelligent discussion, I reply accordingly.
Yet you have proven just again you wouldn't... :hmmm:

[August]

Until then, this is just a political witch hunt.

That's what this is all about, what it always was about.

[Nippelspanner]

That's what this is all about, what it always was about.
And it is absolutely not OK!!!!!! ...except we hunt Hillary or other democrats, ehhh? :03:


:roll:

[August]

Interesting article:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rosensteins-compelling-case-against-comey-1494785294

By Kenneth W. Starr

May 14, 2017 2:08 p.m. ET
(https://www.wsj.com/articles/rosensteins-compelling-case-against-comey-1494785294#livefyre-toggle-SB10138455413199814712504583145264075186072)
Rosenstein’s Compelling Case Against Comey

Demands for a special prosecutor are way off base. The guardrails of our republic are secure.

The long knives are out. The ultimate doomsday scenario for a constitutional republic in peacetime—calls for impeachment of the president—has now been augmented by a growing chorus of voices demanding a far less dramatic but nonetheless profoundly serious step: appointment of a special prosecutor. Even for this less drastic move, the calls are way off base. At a minimum, the suggestion is premature.
The developing narrative, trumpeted on the weekend talk shows, is that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein must appoint a special prosecutor to restore his long-established reputation for integrity and professionalism. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from the entire matter.
The basic complaint is that the newly appointed second-in-command at the Justice Department lost public confidence by crafting a three-page memorandum to the attorney general that severely criticized then-FBI Director James Comey, whom President Trump quickly fired. At least one senator has already mocked Mr. Rosenstein’s May 9 memorandum as “laughable.” They are wrong.
Let’s see what the Rosenstein memorandum actually says. It is titled “Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI.” Mr. Rosenstein rightly praises the bureau as “our nation’s premier investigative agency.” Mr. Rosenstein singles out Mr. Comey for high praise as “an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice.” The memorandum goes on to praise the FBI chief for his long and distinguished public service.
Mr. Rosenstein then turns to the director’s profound failures during his stewardship of the FBI. Above all, the new deputy attorney general states: “I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary [Hillary] Clinton’s emails.” In this Mr. Rosenstein echoes the vehement complaints by Democrats during the 2016 campaign, and indeed comments only last week by Mrs. Clinton herself. Even Republicans had raised an arched eyebrow at what the director did and when he chose to do it. The deputy attorney general goes on to express befuddlement that Mr. Comey still refuses “to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.”
The memorandum then identifies the fatal offense of any FBI leader—the usurpation of the authority of the Justice Department itself. In a power grab, Mr. Comey had announced the ultimate prosecutorial decision, namely that Mrs. Clinton would not be prosecuted. The FBI director had no authority to do that. That was not all. Mr. Comey, the memo went on, “compounded the error” by holding a press conference releasing “derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation.” This was all way outside the foul lines of Justice Department professionalism.
Succinctly, but with devastating effectiveness, the Rosenstein memorandum demonstrates Mr. Comey’s egregious violations of long-settled Justice Department practice and policy. Mr. Rosenstein draws from the director’s testimony before Congress and his unprecedented letter to Congress days before the election. He addresses Mr. Comey’s argument that had he failed to insert himself once again into the presidential campaign—as voting was already under way in many states—it would have constituted “concealment".

[August]

Another interesting article. I really like this guys take on it.

http://www.dailyinterlake.com/article/20170513/ARTICLE/170519920

Yes, I was shocked that President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, but not for the same reasons as the howling national media and the hypocritical Democratic establishment.


I had long ago concluded that Comey had insulated himself from being fired because of his peculiar public role in the 2016 presidential election. Whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump had been elected last November, it was obvious that dumping Comey would be regarded as political payback. This was true even though virtually no one had confidence in Comey’s ability to do his job.



What I didn’t count on was Trump’s absolute disdain for political correctness or conventional wisdom. He had to know the reaction that would follow from his decision to unceremoniously fire Comey, and yet he did it anyway. You almost have to think he did it on purpose just to unleash the predictable firestorm of attacks from the D.C. establishment. How better to burnish his own credentials as the consummate outsider? In firing Comey, he did what virtually everyone had said should be done, and which hypocritically no one in the deep swamp state really wanted him to do. Suddenly, when Comey was gone, the Democrats and the media elite missed him terribly, and they lamented their loss with ashes and sackcloth on every available cable channel. Comey, we hardly knew ye! Or, as Joe Gillis reminded us in “Sunset Boulevard” while he was floating face down in a Hollywood swimming pool, “Funny how gentle people get with you once you’re dead.”


Of course, the talking heads of cable news turned the Comey firing into a 24/7 cause celebre. With each passing hour, it became more and more clear that the press was enthusiastically adopting the role Trump had christened for it as “the opposition party.” It was the news reporters and talk show hosts who were themselves sneeringly passing judgment on Trump. Every hour brought some new wrinkle of smug superiority as they rolled their eyes, raised their eyebrows, smirked and chortled at the supposed incompetence of Trump and his team.



Yes, they brought in the usual Democratic hit men to bolster the case that Trump was a danger to democracy and a menace to the earth, but the Democrats were just supporting actors. The lead role — the Norma Desmond role, if you will — was played by CNN, MSNBC and yes, even Fox News. As delusional Norma declaimed in Billy Wilder’s snarling “Sunset Boulevard,” “There’s nothing else. Just us, and the cameras, and those wonderful people out there in the dark. All right, Mr. De Mille, I’m ready for my closeup.”


That closeup has lasted for four long lingering days and nights as of this writing. Every new revelation has been distorted by media snobs like Jake Tapper and Chris Matthews into one more nail in Trump’s supposed political coffin. Tapper and others said, for instance, that the Russians were laughing at the United States, but these nabobs of negativism didn’t realize that the Russians were laughing at the U.S. media, not the American people. Trump actually got it, and he tweeted Thursday afternoon, “Russia must be laughing up their sleeves watching as the U.S. tears itself apart over a Democrat EXCUSE for losing the election.”


The actual example of that laughter was quite delightful when it wasn’t being distorted by the dishonest media. It happened on Wednesday when the Russian foreign minister snorted at NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell for her naivete. Mitchell had shouted out a question to Sergey Lavrov during a photo op with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson: “Does the Comey firing cast a shadow over your talks, gentlemen?” Lavrov first made a joke: “Was he fired?” (as if anyone could have missed that point!) and then he specifically made fun of Mitchell’s foolishness to think that U.S.-Russia relations were going to go on pause because of Comey’s employment status. He told her twice, “You are kidding! You are kidding!”



Unfortunately, neither Mitchell, not Tapper, nor any of the other overpaid TV hosts, analysts, reporters or anchors seemed to get the joke. Maybe they just take themselves too seriously. Certainly, no one else does.

[Bilge_Rat]

Yet you have proven just again you wouldn't... :hmmm:

so have you! well done! you must be so proud.....:arrgh!:

[Nippelspanner]

so have you! well done! you must be so proud.....:arrgh!:
And I never made that claim, you did.
This is about you, not me.

[Bilge_Rat]

And I never made that claim, you did.
This is about you, not me.

and just what claim did I make?

This is all about you..or you know it will be...:arrgh!:

[vienna]

Good Lord!...

It come down to "You are!", "No. you are!!", "No, You are!!!" as the argument for Bilge_Rat...

Yes, Bilge_rat, I already know your response...

"You are!!!!"... :har::har::har:




<O>

[Bilge_Rat]

Good Lord!...

It come down to "You are!", "No. you are!!", "No, You are!!!" as the argument for Bilge_Rat...

Yes, Bilge_rat, I already know your response...

"You are!!!!"... :har::har::har:




<O>

nice dance move there skippy.

so...still no proof of collusion between Trump and the Russians I see...:haha::haha::haha:

please feel free to post when you actually have some facts. :arrgh!:

[mapuc]

Proof !?

Do an ordinary American need these Proof or non-Proof about eventually connection between Trump and Russia ?

I say no-The only one or ones who need these "Evidence/Proof" is those who are investigation this accusation. When this investigation is over and if there is a verdict or not, they can aside with all the justice-paper release these proof.

Even then I'm not in position to put a verdict on your President-´cause I have not the knowledge to do so and it is not in my interest either.

Markus

[vienna]

nice dance move there skippy.

so...still no proof of collusion between Trump and the Russians I see...:haha::haha::haha:

please feel free to post when you actually have some facts. :arrgh!:

If you bothered to actually read carefully any of my previous posts on the Russian situation instead of engaging in juvenile schoolyard antics, relying on knee-jerk reactions instead of arguing facts, you would know I have repeatedly said I do not, let me repeat that in case you need to read it more than once, not, at this time, believe there is any proof Trump is/was directly involved in the Trump Campaign/Russian influence controversy; I have stated so before on multiple occasions and do so again. So, I don't have any facts to post on Trump's possible personal involvement. Life is so much easier when you actually pay attention...

However, I do believe there is more than ample proof there was questionable contact between Trump campaign associates and Russian political actors. If you want actual proof of that, I give you Michael Flynn, who has admitted to such and who has tacitly admitted to lying both to Congress and to Federal investigators about his activities, itself an actual Federal crime; his paper and records are also under a Senate subpoena since he has refused to deliver them without an immunity deal. I also give you Jeff Sessions, who has been found to have also lied to Congress about his dealings with Russian actors and has likewise thus committed a Federal crime; the fact he is still Attorney General is indeed remarkable for an ostensibly "law & order" administration. Others, like Page, Manafort, et al, are on the cusp of having subpoenas issued on them; all have already received formal requests, a step short of an actual subpoenas, to turn over documents to various investigatory agencies. The very fact subpoenas are being issued by the FBI, the Senate, the House, and at least one Federal Grand jury is a very significant indicator of how far the investigations have gone and how very serious they are: subpoenas are very serious and are not issued lightly...

While Trump has not been connected personally to the activities of his cronies, his actions regarding the investigations, in his official capacity as POTUS, have been those of a man desperately trying to hide possible guilt than those of a person who is above reproach. In fact, his latest action, the firing of the FBI Director, is an actual act of obstruction of justice and itself an actual Federal crime, and, by his own personal, recorded admission in a recent interview, he ordered the firing for the sole purpose of curtailing the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign/Russian influence scandals. There are Constitutional and legal experts, from all parts of the political spectrum, and far more knowledgeable than you or I, who have pointed out additional charges that could be levied if Congress or the investigating agencies saw fit to do so. So, while I can't offer any facts of Trump's connection to Russia, Trump, himself, is providing ever-increasing proof of criminality and unsuitability for office. No one really has to 'go after Trump': he's doing the job himself and, in typical Trump fashion, it appears when the hammer does come down, it will be "Yuuuge!!"...

So, then, I have more than once provided actual, verifiable cites for my postings and you have done little more than to engage in vague, juvenile heckling with out a single shred of counter-proof to support anything you claim. You mock Politifact, but, even like Breitbart, it like a broken clock, can be right sometimes. The only reason I used the Politifact article was because, after trying to find a concise article/source, they were the only one I could find that put the whole question into a relatable timeline. Mock, if you wish, the source (God knows a lot of us have mocked Breitbart, etc.), but I have yet to see you actually rebut the content of the article; in fact I have very rarely seen you rebut any of the arguments given by other with actual counter-facts or data; all we tend to see is schoolyard "sez you" sort of rhetoric...

Come back when you have some actual articulate facts or data to support your bluster; until then, enjoy your time on the swings and teeter-totter... :haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:



<O>

[Catfish]

I am getting thoroughly disinterested of all that Trump f.-upery :yep:

[Bilge_Rat]

so Vienna, I see you admit there is no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.

without actual evidence that Trump personally committed a criminal offence, the democrats can foam at the mouth all they want, but Trump will still be President for the next 4 years.

and what exactly do they have on the other Trump associates?

-Carter Page was never officially part of the campaign and he never met or personally spoke to Trump;

-Michael Flynn was a 33 year career military officer that was appointed head of military intelligence by Obama. Exactly what is it that the Democrats think? That a guy like that would collude with Russia against the USA? That makes absolutely no sense;

same with the others, lots of innuendos, speculation, but no evidence that would hold up in court.

we are done. :ping:

[Rockstar]

And then what?

Skybird is first against the wall when I come into power, thats what. :D

[Nippelspanner]

That escalated quickly...

[Catfish]

^ .. which is probably the point why some people recently left.

[Nippelspanner]

^ .. which is probably the point why some people recently left.

Honestly, I don't think that's the actual reason.
Considering who left Subsim over the years, a rather clear picture becomes visible.
Look at the way Bilge_Rat (and others) debate people here.
As soon as they run aground and don't know what to say because there's no copy/paste material available yet on breitbart and Co, its nothing but trolling of the lowest form.
People just seem to be fed up to go out of their way to deliver honest arguments, backed up with either facts, or at least valid reasoning open for debate, to just hit F5 and find completely retarded nonsense like "muh tis ya source?!" instead of addressing any point made by being a dick and conveniently dismiss everything their opponent just carefully argumented, claiming "it's not intelligent enough" or other incredibly disrespectful insults like "being childish" - instead of reasonable arguments - or for heaven's sake, an argument at all!
The sole point for this kind of people isn't the topic, it is to destroy the political enemy no matter what, and that's a real issue.

People leave this forum because it more and more turns into a right-wing primate-cave where this sort of debate-tactics are tolerated by the administration team, while the most important thing now is to not swear.
Hell, you can even happily share pirated movie links - it's cool, just don't say the f-word.
And just like that you can debate in the most despicable and mean way and insult your opponent way worse, by disrespecting him like we've seen above. That's WAY worse than any f-bomb if you ask me, but the administration decided to not moderate debates besides protecting the countless children on this board(?) from bad bad words that probably destroy their soul upon reading.
I'd rather protect anyone from despicable human scum that, for example, seriously suggests to "nuke the middle east!", but hey - at least no one cursed, right? Phew!

The level of hypocrisy and arbitrariness went completely through the roof quite a while ago and I sincerely believe that's why we lost some incredibly valuable and interesting members and are now left with a right-wing circle jerk of stupidity where, vienna put it best, elementary school yard rhetoric is the way to go for many people.

As long as there won't be a sensible, honest and unbiased moderation of these topics that bear high danger of friction, naturally, there won't be any quality debate at all. Period.
I remember that resident nazi we had, fartenbohn or something?
In his case the moderation demanded he backs his claims up or be gone (holocaust denial craze).
Why isn't that the case always?
Why are people allowed to troll someone into oblivion like above?
Why isn't the moderation team, you know, moderating?
This is beyond me, frankly!

So, considering the above, personally, I don't see why anyone would invest the energy to create a well constructed post (ot post at all, for that matter) if the counter argument is just poo-flinging from an ape-like deplorable who only seeks to disrupt an opponents arguments by basically ignoring or insulting them.
That's the real problem here, not a swear word or an escalation now and then, it happens, no big deal - as long as both sides have an honest agenda and do not just want to disagree because "dem libruls stink!".

[Catfish]

^ some truth in that, just so much: While i agree with a lot of things it is not the solution to act likewise (though it is tempting, of course), or to leave, for reasons i posted in the Ger or UK thread (i think). edit: no, was #2748 here in this thread
Also do not like the bullying and intimidating (trying, at least) of some here. But it is much worse in other forums, after the election the tone was generally lowered everywhere.
Which again is why i posted the 'coming out' of the right back then, and was instantly bullied to my name being posted on other forums, or being hanged or whatever.
Would love to discuss but have no time now. Will try this evening if wife allows.
Your remembering of "Fartenbohn" was classic :D

[Skybird]

Skybird is first against the wall when I come into power, thats what. :D


https://germanlessonsgta.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/den-teufel-an-die-wand-malen.jpg?w=300&h=240

[Skybird]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html

:dead:

Stupidity gets redefined often these days. Hunting season opened for Russia.

[ikalugin]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html

:dead:

Stupidity gets redefined often these days. Hunting season opened for Russia.
Anon sources told WP. I wonder if WP would be sued for slander.

[em2nought]

https://germanlessonsgta.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/den-teufel-an-die-wand-malen.jpg?w=300&h=240

Without Skybird, I'm pretty sure the Allah Akbar guys are going to run amok, but then most people here are ok with that. :03:
http://i.imgur.com/EetVUpr.png

[MaDef]

Nippelspanner, my answer to your post is going to be short and to the point and there is no offense intended:

There is a reason that religion & politics are not discussed in polite circles and an old adage comes to mind when discussing those topics.
If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Bilge_Rat, you and the other Trumpateers need to dial it back a bit on the inflammatory language and insults, if the people you argue with all leave, you'll be in here arguing with yourself. That would be like paying for a hooker and then masturbating instead, kind of defeats the point of paying for a hooker. (unless of course that's your thing)

Skybird, you keep putting up links to news stories that are long on innuendo, short on facts & a non-sequitur as a comment. All your doing is setting yourself up for everyone else to take potshots at you. If you want a rational discourse you need to put a little more effort into your argument.

RANT OVER.

[Nippelspanner]

Nippelspanner, my answer to your post is going to be short and to the point and there is no offense intended:

There is a reason that religion & politics are not discussed in polite circles and an old adage comes to mind when discussing those topics.
If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Oh no worries, I don't worry about some heat - as long as the goal of the people in the kitchen is to create a good dish, if you see what I mean.

[vienna]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html

:dead:

Stupidity gets redefined often these days. Hunting season opened for Russia.


I wondered how long it would take Trump to really screw things up again and contradict the statements of his own people trying to defend him:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/05/16/daily-202-trump-s-chaotic-white-house-once-again-makes-a-bad-story-worse/591a4bc3e9b69b209cf2b83d/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/05/16/isis-russia-secrets-trump-white-house-meeting-jonathan-turley-column/101729966/


I estimated Friday would be the day, but Trump is getting more efficient with his screw-ups. In a way I really feel sorry for Spicer, Mcmasters, and others who have to be publicly humiliated by their buffoon of a boss; the upside for them would be they can get some very good book deals when its all over; the upside for the US would be, given the way Trump has been taken increasing aim at his glutes, he probably won't be around for much longer, although you've got to feel for Pence who will have to clean up the big, fat mess Trump's gonna leave behind...




<O>

[Dowly]

I heard they're planning to remake 'A few good men', though the script seems a bit short. :hmmm:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_mzT3iWsAE0Q1b.jpg

[Skybird]

In a way I really feel sorry for Spicer, Mcmasters, and others who have to be publicly humiliated by their buffoon of a boss;

I judge the respectability and integrity of a man also by his choice for whom he is willing to work and whose commands he is willing to take. You must not feel sorry for this can of mades you mentioned. Their choices speak against them, and will disqualify their character forever. Or in the unforgettable words of Obi-Wan Kenobi: who is the bigger fool - the fool, or the fool following him?

This primitive and bigmouthed prolet in the WH most likely has given the Russians the hints they need to add 1 and 1 together and identify the persons who were sources for Western intelligence becasue they were stupid wenough to take the risk and trust the American intel apparatus. At best these people will not be available as sopurces anylonger, which means other peoploe will get killed. At worst, thse persons who were the sources will be hunted down and killed themselves. Which leaves our services without said sources.

Worth to note: our press over here reports that European intel agencies have repeatedly asked the Americans for the information that Trump now has given to the Russians, and that has denied to share with the European "allies". This really says something.

I accused Bush jr of betraying the good willingness of the people serving in the armed forces and sending them on a mission based on lies and betrayal of the nation. Which in my book is treason. I accused Bush senior of betraying the Shia in Iraq when first having the CIA motivating them to rebel against Saddam, then leaving Saddam the helicopters he needed to mow them down, and leaving the Shia without the American support that they were promised. The result was genocide triggered and assisted by the US. What Trump here has done, is different. Both Bushs acted by cold-blooded, unscrupulous calculation, but Trump is too stupid to understand what he has done and is doing - he apparently was just about boasting and showing what a sensational big mouth he has. Cracker-barrel behaviour: trying to dominate the table and imporess, if not intimidate people by showing what a big shark you are. Slamming the fist on the table instead of thinking first, stomping the feet and cursing loud when not getting your will. He reminds of these type of gorillas you somtimes see sitting in bars or in the subway or in busses, with always extra wide-spread legs so that everybody has a first-class outlook on their formidable big package they have - or what they hold for that.

A boasting prolet. And he costs people their lives who every single day are much better than he will ever has been in all his wasted life.

No, wealth is not always a good standard to measure the intelligence or value of a person.

Yes, I have started to become really angry at this zero.

[August]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html

:dead:

Stupidity gets redefined often these days. Hunting season opened for Russia.


Yet another article based on unnamed sources. Don't you Never Trumpers ever have something real to complain about?

[Skybird]

Yet another article based on unnamed sources. Don't you Never Trumpers ever have something real to complain about?
Thank God journalism has been saved from you becoming a journalist. You would burn your sources like a smoker burns matches.

[Bilge_Rat]

let's see, WaPo story, no sources..

..let's see what National Security Adviser McMaster, who actually was in the meeting, says about the WaPo story:

White House says Trump info-sharing with Russia 'wholly appropriate'

National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster on Tuesday adamantly defended President Trump’s conversations with Russian officials as “wholly appropriate,” pushing back for a second day on a news report claiming the president revealed highly classified information on an Islamic State terror threat during that meeting.

During a tense White House briefing, McMaster suggested the details discussed in that meeting concerned ongoing operations that were public for months.

“The president in no way compromised any sources or methods in the course of that conversation,” McMaster said.

The same official publicly had refuted The Washington Post report on Monday evening, describing the claims as false.

The president himself has since acknowledged he shared “facts” about the terror threat with Russia, while saying he was in his right to do so.

McMaster on Tuesday continued to dispute the premise of the story. While acknowledging Trump shared information with the Russians, he maintained the discussion was appropriate.

“I stand by my statement that I made yesterday … the premise of that article is false,” he said.

“… That conversation was wholly appropriate.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/white-house-says-trump-info-sharing-with-russia-wholly-appropriate.html

..so how long before Democrats call on McMaster to resign? Oh wait, that has already happened. :ping:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/16/mcmaster-and-tillerson-are-complicit-in-trumps-dishonesty-so-must-they-resign/?utm_term=.3fec7ead8664

[Nippelspanner]

Yet another article based on unnamed sources. Don't you Never Trumpers ever have something real to complain about?
Funny, you did not complain at all about the use of anonymous sources when they were in favor of Trump/Republicans, or at least something against Hillary/dem libruls!
Now, I wonder why that might... be... :hmmm:

Ohhhh, right! :roll:

[Nippelspanner]

I bet my behind, if Hillary would be POTUS now, and would have made the very same mistake of "sharing information", the Trump fans here would LOSE it and immediately start the star-spangled "traitor!!!" banter again. 100%.

But when Trump does it?
It's fine, all good White House says, move along, keep moving. :salute:

[August]

Thank God journalism has been saved from you becoming a journalist. You would burn your sources like a smoker burns matches.

Yeah I am much too honest to be one of those snakes.

Seriously though how many of these so called news stories attributed to anonymous sources and published by hostile media organizations does it take for you not to swallow them hook line and sinker? You wish to believe it so much that you are willing to take anything negative someone says as gospel without any proof at all.

[August]

Here's a report from Rand Paul that the Obama administration spied on him and at least one other member of the opposition party in addition to members of the Trump administration.

Of course Paul doesn't name the person making the accusation either but according to the standards of some folks here it still must be taken as absolute proven fact.

On "America's News HQ" this afternoon, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) revealed that another senator confided in him that he was surveilled by the Obama administration. Earlier this week, Paul said reporters have told him they have evidence he was a target of Obama administration spying.
This is the first time that Paul mentioned another senator is also concerned about the Obama administration's surveillance.
He said if this proves to be true, it's a much bigger story than any allegations about collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the presidential election.
"It's about your own government spying on the opposition party," Paul said. "That would be enormous if it's true."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/11/sen-rand-paul-another-senator-told-him-he-was-surveilled-obama-admin

[Nippelspanner]

^ if people still continue to say that Obama wiretapped Trump's phone (no he didn't) or that Mrs Clinton would be bad and the devil and eeeeemaiiils (he lied, in fact he has lied all the time) i think it would be only fair if Trump fell over a wrong statement, or fake news.

Apart from that, nice try for diversion.
:yep:

[Catfish]

^ sorry, i just deleted my own post because i am sick and tired of all this. But yes i wrote it.

[Sailor Steve]

Honestly, I don't think that's the actual reason.
Considering who left Subsim over the years, a rather clear picture becomes visible.
I've seen members leave because they were asked once not to engage in certain behavior (in one case name-calling). Others have left because of the reasons you list. Most seem to leave because they're bored.

Look at the way Bilge_Rat (and others) debate people here.
As soon as they run aground and don't know what to say because there's no copy/paste material available yet on breitbart and Co, its nothing but trolling of the lowest form.
No, it isn't. I've seen trolling of the lowest form, and this is not even close.

The sole point for this kind of people isn't the topic, it is to destroy the political enemy no matter what, and that's a real issue.
While that is true for some, I read all the threads and I don't see that here. More than one person who has left here has been part of the hard-core Right, and did exactly what you are complaining about, and we have confronted them about it, and they have left.

People leave this forum because it more and more turns into a right-wing primate-cave where this sort of debate-tactics are tolerated by the administration team, while the most important thing now is to not swear.
The swearing part is a written rule that I can actually read and enforce without guessing the intent. There is no such rule governing debate tactics. We do try to limit the open insults, but General Topics is considered more open than other forums on the site, and so people are allowed more leeway in their posting.

Hell, you can even happily share pirated movie links - it's cool, just don't say the f-word.
We've been over that already, and Neal stated his reasons. Since it is his site, that should be the end of it.

And just like that you can debate in the most despicable and mean way and insult your opponent way worse, by disrespecting him like we've seen above. That's WAY worse than any f-bomb if you ask me, but the administration decided to not moderate debates besides protecting the countless children on this board(?) from bad bad words that probably destroy their soul upon reading.
I've seen people here "debate in most despicable and mean way", and again I've seen none of that in this thread. Maybe you've forgotten some of the true trolls we've had in the past.

As to the "disrespecting vs swearing" problem: As I've said, we do try to keep it civil, and there are certain lines we do enforce, but they have to be specific, such as name-calling. Every time somebody says anything remotely insulting we do look at it and make a decision. Sometimes the decision is a PM asking the person to tone it down. Other times the answer is to let it slide. In still other cases the person is indeed brigged, but usually not until after other methods have failed.

I'd rather protect anyone from despicable human scum that, for example, seriously suggests to "nuke the middle east!", but hey - at least no one cursed, right? Phew!
We do have specific rules regarding hate speech, and we enforce them the best we can, but not without first trying the other means mentioned above. Sometimes it's hard to know from a written post whether the person is being serious or not. You may think he really wants "them" all dead. whereas I may think from other posts that he's really making fun of people he thinks want "them" all dead. Sometimes we'll ask him privately to clarify what he really means. In that case you'll never even know, just as you are unaware of most of what goes on behind the scenes.

Oh, and about the swearing? You can blame that 100% on me, as I'm the only one who has ever gone out of his way to enforce that. Since bad news sticks around long after good news has gone, you may not have noticed that I slacked off on that a long time ago, so you're complaint there is a bit dated.

The level of hypocrisy and arbitrariness went completely through the roof quite a while ago and I sincerely believe that's why we lost some incredibly valuable and interesting members and are now left with a right-wing circle jerk of stupidity where, vienna put it best, elementary school yard rhetoric is the way to go for many people.
I agree to a point, but we don't have specific rules on how people must debate, and that's the way Neal wants it. Honestly, if every debate had to follow the true rules of debate, most of the people here would never be allowed to post, including yourself. It has even been suggested on occasion that General Topics be shut down altogether. That's not going to happen since this is where most of the posting goes on these days.

As long as there won't be a sensible, honest and unbiased moderation of these topics that bear high danger of friction, naturally, there won't be any quality debate at all. Period.
Some might argue that there never has been quality debate here. That's possibly true of any internet forum. Unless we have absolute debate rules that everybody has to follow that will continue to be the case. If we have such rules many people will be restricted from saying anything. While you may be happy that applies to people you don't like, it will also affect many with honest opinions but no formal training. In other words, if you can't say it exactly the way the rules require your opinion won't count, because you can't say it at all.

I remember that resident nazi we had, fartenbohn or something?
In his case the moderation demanded he backs his claims up or be gone (holocaust denial craze).
Why isn't that the case always?
See? Even you can't bring up that discussion without resorting to mockery and insult. It affects all of us.

Regarding that specific case, SubSim does have rules regarding hate speech and specifically Holocaust Denial. The member in question had been throwing out hints for a very long time that he believed in that particular concept. It was my decision to start a thread just for him and give him a chance to prove it. I was willing to let it go until it reached what I would consider a satisfactory conclusion. After some time it became apparent that was never going to happen, and steps were taken. Even he was granted a certain amount of slack.

The reason that "isn't the case always" is because everybody looks for sources to back up their beliefs, while very few look for sources to condemn their own beliefs. In that way most players in any political debate are dishonest. If someone is called to task every time he does that it would likely result in more flaming, not less. The difference would be that it would all be directed at us, rather than at the debate opponent.

Why are people allowed to troll someone into oblivion like above?
Why isn't the moderation team, you know, moderating?
This is beyond me, frankly!
Because what is obvious to you is not so much to everyone. You are also affected by your biases, whether you admit it or not.

So, considering the above, personally, I don't see why anyone would invest the energy to create a well constructed post (ot post at all, for that matter) if the counter argument is just poo-flinging from an ape-like deplorable who only seeks to disrupt an opponents arguments by basically ignoring or insulting them.
Again, I agree to a point. The problem is that when someone is good at it, it's not as obvious as you'd like it to be. The insulted person isn't as good at that kind of subtle insult, so they explode and start swearing and name-calling. Which of them gets into trouble? Not the one you would like, and maybe not the one I would like, but the rules are there to keep order, not to dictate how one should discuss things.

That's the real problem here, not a swear word or an escalation now and then, it happens, no big deal - as long as both sides have an honest agenda and do not just want to disagree because "dem libruls stink!".
But different people see that problem differently, and there will almost certainly never be any kind of agreement on exactly what it is, much less what can be done about it.

Now it's my turn.

From my own point of view you seem to spend a lot of time looking for reasons to criticize the Moderation Staff. There's nothing wrong with that, but you seem to be making it your sole purpose for posting lately. The bigger problem is that you can't start your own thread to discuss the subject, where people can answer or ignore at their leisure, but seem to have the need for derailing other threads. This makes you just as guilty as the ones you accuse. This thread is for the discussion of US Politics. Please try to keep it that way.

[August]

For more reports on the veracity of these unnamed sources:

Tips For Reading Washington Post Stories About Trump Based On Anonymous Leaks

By Mollie Hemingway (http://thefederalist.com/author/mzhemingway/)May 16, 2017


In the midst of an active shooter situation, we have tips for how to judge breaking news. We need similar tips to manage anti-Trump breaking news.

On May 10, the Washington Post‘s Philip Rucker, Ashley Parker, Sari Horwitz, and Robert Costa claimed:[Deputy Attorney General Rod J.] Rosenstein threatened to resign after the narrative emerging from the White House on Tuesday evening cast him as a prime mover of the decision to fire Comey and that the president acted only on his recommendation, said the person close to the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
But the “person close to the White House” who made the claim without using his or her name was contradicted by none other than Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein himself. The next day he said, “I’m not quitting” when asked by reporters. “No,” he said to the follow-up question of whether he had threatened to quit.
So I guess he must just be lying or incompetent like McMasters right? But there is more:


The story was based on anonymous sources, naturally, and noted “The news was first reported by the New York Times.” If true, it would support a narrative that Trump had fired Comey not due to his general incompetence but because he was trying to thwart a legitimate and fruitful investigation. Anonymous sources again had something very different to say from people whose comments were tied to their names, who all denied the report. The Justice Department spokeswoman immediately responded that the claim was false, and her quote was included in the story:Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said reports that Comey had requested more funding or other resources for the Russia investigation are ‘totally false.’ Such a request, she said, ‘did not happen.’
The next day under oath, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly denied that the probe into Russia was undersourced or requiring any additional funds. In response to one question about whether the FBI had sufficient resources to investigate, he said:‘If you are referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately,’ acting FBI director Andrew McCabe told lawmakers, adding that he was unaware of any request by the agency for additional resources.
And even more!:

Previous Washington Post stories sourced to anonymous “officials” have fallen apart, including Josh Rogin’s January 26 report claiming that “the State Department’s entire senior management team just resigned” as “part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior Foreign Service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.”The story went viral before the truth caught up. As per procedure, the Obama administration had, in coordination with the incoming Trump administration, asked for the resignations of all political appointees. While it would have been traditional to let them stay for a few months, the Trump team let them know that their services wouldn’t be necessary. The entire story was wrong.
Rogin also had the false story that Steve Bannon had personally confronted Department of Homeland Security’s Gen. John F. Kelly to pressure him not to weaken an immigration ban. Take it away, Kelly (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/john-kelly-responds-washington-post-steve-bannon-story-234743):‘It was a fantasy story,’ Kelly said. Of the reporter, he said: ‘Assuming he’s not making it up… whoever his sources are, are playing him for a fool.’
Each of these stories were explosive breaking news that served an anti-Trump narrative but later turned out to be false.
I recommend that the next time you folks want to post some of these fake news stories you first review the following guide:



http://cdn.thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Screen-Shot-2017-05-15-at-9.59.49-PM.png

http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/16/tips-for-reading-washington-post-stories-about-trump-based-on-anonymous-leaks/

[Nippelspanner]

^ sorry, i just deleted my own post because i am sick and tired of all this. But yes i wrote it.
Want me to delete it as well? Your call buddy, I'm fine with it/understand.

[Catfish]

Let it be, it's ok.
I have made around ten or so attempts in the last days to write some "elaborated" stuff here, even longer ones. I read it through and deleted all of them. Not because i'm afraid of Rockstar or threats, but "You are either a hater, or not." I choose not to be. I'm out.

[Bilge_Rat]

Look at the way Bilge_Rat (and others) debate people here.


moi? :o

[Skybird]

let's see, WaPo story, no sources..

..let's see what National Security Adviser McMaster, who actually was in the meeting, says about the WaPo story:



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/white-house-says-trump-info-sharing-with-russia-wholly-appropriate.html

..so how long before Democrats call on McMaster to resign? Oh wait, that has already happened. :ping:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/16/mcmaster-and-tillerson-are-complicit-in-trumps-dishonesty-so-must-they-resign/?utm_term=.3fec7ead8664

A close vasall of Trump says what Trump did was okay. So it must be true, if a close vasall says so.

C'mon. Is 1+1 really 11 ?

Not to mention the criminalization of free journalism that the US has seen in the past decade plus, under the strawmen excuse of "counter terrroism" and national security.

It is journalist ethics that sources are to bve protected. And nobody would speak with journalists anymore if the journalists would reveal the sources' identity against its will. The press then could not serve its counter-controlling function anymore. Which is what alkready the past amdionstraitons in the WH wanted to limit. The Duck of the United States just tries to enforce this by behaving like a Trump in a China shop.

[Platapus]

The issue of presidents and classified information is complicated.

The president is the ultimate authority of classification for all classified information generated by the US. He has what is called Original Classification Authority (OCA). Sometimes it is called original classifying authority.

The president can designate other US government officials with OCA. For example, the Secretary of State has OCA for all classified information originating from the Department of State, but not for information originating from, for example, the Department of Defense.

When an OCA determines that a piece of information is to be protected at a classification level (classification), at another classification (reclassification) or that the information is no longer classified (declassification), this decision has to be documented. Otherwise there is a real risk that different organizations will treat the same information at different levels.

One could make the argument that the PotUS ain't gonna do no documentation as he has people to do so. That is probably a viable viewpoint. I don't think anyone expects the PotUS to actually sit down and fill out the classification/reclassification/declassification paperwork. However, that means that the PotUS needs to coordinate his classification decision either before disclosure (best practice) or immediately after disclosure. In any case, the PotUS' classification decisions need to be documented.

A wise president would carefully coordinate classification decisions with the major stakeholders, but there is no legal requirement to do so. The president is the OCA for the United States and not just for the Executive Branch.

There are no federal laws that restrict the president's OCA concerning information whose classification originates from the United State's government. There are, however, policies that govern the OCA activity.

6 U.S. Code § 485 is a federal law that establishes policy for information sharing within the US and foreign governments but does not limit the president's OCA. 6 U.S. Code § 485 does not address classified information at all, but uses general terms such as "terrorism and homeland security information".

If, and this has not been demonstrated, Trump disclosed classified information to someone, he has not violated any federal law. He may have violated policy however. But Law and policy are two different things. If Trump did use his OCA in disclosing this information, there needs to be documentation of that classification decision. Again, that is policy not law.

All this applies to classified information that originates from the US.

One of the issues of the alleged action was that the disclosure involved information that was classified by another country and given to the US under an information sharing agreement. Some of these agreements are very sensitive. Rarely are they are governed by US federal law (especially the sensitive relationships). However, there are US policies governing how this information needs to be handled. There may be foreign laws involved, and most importantly, there are sensitive relationships that are formulated on mutual trust.

If, and this has not been demonstrated, Trump disclosed classified information that originated from a foreign government he has

1. Not violated any US federal law.
2. May have violated US policy.
3. May have violated the laws of the other country. Not that this matters much as the president is, for practical purposes, not bound by federal laws of other countries.
4. Probably violated the trust with regards to not only the country of agreement, but with other countries we have other agreements. If he violated the trust of country A, why would countries B-Z think he would not violate their trust.

Assuming that Trump did what he is being accused of, and that has not been settled. Trump has

Not broken any federal laws
Broken policy
Certainly adversely affected the level of trust in other nations.

My opinion: What he did was not illegal, but incredibly shortsighted, in violation of existing policy, and potentially harmful to the US' relationships of trust that will take years/decades to repair.

[Skybird]

Platapus, nobody ever said he knew what he was doing, and that he violated a law. That is right the point: he is too dumb to realise what he is doing. He behaved like a stupid prolet of the block showing around his brandnew thick, fat golden clock to impress the others.

I just have read that Israel seems to be very happy. The DOTUS seems to have compromised Israeli agents' lives and safety. It seems that much of the information/sources/material this all is about comes from or links to Israeli intel operations. Its further reprted in German media that the US intel community was busy today with sending intense warnings to their - former? :) - Israeli colleagues. Via Russia, the informaiton indicated or revelaed by Trump could end up in Israel's and Washington's arch enemy, Iran.

You can be within the allowed range of laws - and still be a retard doing plenty of damage and risking lives.

[skidman]

The most powerful nation in the world is run by an derisory amateur. And even now there are some subsimers defending him. Absolutly unbelievable and very very sad.:k_confused:

[Bilge_Rat]

A close vasall of Trump says what Trump did was okay. So it must be true, if a close vasall says so.



so let me see if I understand your logic.

WaPo makes a claim and provides zero backup, zero on the record sources, zero evidence, but it is anti-Trump so it must be true?

H.R. McMaster, Rex Tillerson. Dina Powell all make on the record statements that the WaPo story is false, so they must be lying?

The onus here is not on the White House, WaPo made an accusation, they have to back it up.

To backtrack, WaPo accused Potus of disclosing "highly classified info", "code word" info which according to them is the most secret info and of compromising an intel source.

according to McMaster, Tillerson and Powel, the WaPo story is false:

McMaster’s central contention was that the details discussed in that meeting concerned ongoing operations that were public for months and information available in “open source reporting.”

“The president in no way compromised any sources or methods in the course of this conversation,” McMaster said.

The same official publicly had refuted The Washington Post report on Monday evening, describing the claims as false.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/white-house-says-trump-info-sharing-with-russia-wholly-appropriate.html

[Skybird]

so let me see if I understand your logic.

WaPo makes a claim and provides zero backup, zero on the record sources, zero evidence, but it is anti-Trump so it must be true?

H.R. McMaster, Rex Tillerson. Dina Powell all make on the record statements that the WaPo story is false, so they must be lying?

The onus here is not on the White House, WaPo made an accusation, they have to back it up.

To backtrack, WaPo accused Potus of disclosing "highly classified info", "code word" info which according to them is the most secret info and of compromising an intel source.

according to McMaster, Tillerson and Powel, the WaPo story is false:



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/white-house-says-trump-info-sharing-with-russia-wholly-appropriate.html
First you - metaphorically speaking - beat up somebody and cut off his tongue and threaten to ruin his career and to imprison him, and then you wonder why he is avoiding you and does not speak out in public anymore?

Okay, we both have understood that we do not wear the same colours. Lets leave the thread nuking button covered for today.

[Bilge_Rat]

Okay, we both have understood that we do not wear the same colours. Lets leave the thread nuking button covered for today.

No need to get worked up on this story, this is at most a two day story. By tomorrow the News lemmings will be onto a new "scandal".

[Torvald Von Mansee]

No need to get worked up on this story, this is at most a two day story. By tomorrow the News lemmings will be onto a new "scandal".

You must be a multi-gold metalist in mental gymnastics!!

Trump was an idiotic choice for President. Own it.

[Nippelspanner]

No, it isn't. I've seen trolling of the lowest form, and this is not even close.
When a person here acts like a 5 year old continuously and then dares to tell his opponent "stop acting like a child", and when a person dismisses every argument the other side brings up because he has no argument to deliver and instead creates some cheap diversion like the collective attack of the source in general instead of what was said, yes, that is trolling of the lowest form, in my opinion. You disagree? Fine. No need to agree, I have my opinion, you have yours. Just please don't tell me what I have to see as trolling and what not.


While that is true for some, I read all the threads and I don't see that here.
Then open your eyes. Sorry, but it's so blatant, so obvious, I don't know what else to tell you. You can easily spot it by the hypocritical acts of some people here, like condoning the use of "unknown sources" (for example) one day when it suits their point of view, and criticizing the same the next day, when it is against their own views.
But again, have it your way - I don't need you to approve.


The swearing part is a written rule that I can actually read and enforce without guessing the intent. There is no such rule governing debate tactics.
Yes, exactly. That's the point. There is none, but maybe there should be one if discussions on this board are, often, no longer of any value because some people often refrain to the dirtiest debate tactics only because they run out of arguments. It is questionable if there has to be a written rule for that at all. Doesn't that fall among the usual Nettiquette of "being respectuful" and against trolling etc? To me it does, but maybe our views differ here, again.
Think of political talk shows. Two sides argue, one guy is the "referee" that steps in when it gets nasty - and I don't talk solely about insults here, mostly I'm referring to what we just witnessed a few pages back, when a person while participating in a debate isn't doing anything useful and is behaving dismissive/deconstructive.
No easy job and there's sure potential for bad judgement. But that's just how it is - and still worth it in my opinion.


We've been over that already, and Neal stated his reasons. Since it is his site, that should be the end of it.
Should be, could be - why would I care?
Yes, Neal's page, his rules, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize it/talk about it (granted, not necessarily if it is OT, sure)?


I've seen people here "debate in most despicable and mean way", and again I've seen none of that in this thread. Maybe you've forgotten some of the true trolls we've had in the past.
Again, you have your POV, I have mine.
Just because we had worse trolls/incidents doesn't mean that this sort of behavior doesn't fall under trolling.


As to the "disrespecting vs swearing" problem: As I've said, we do try to keep it civil, and there are certain lines we do enforce, but they have to be specific, such as name-calling.
Honestly, I do not think they always have to be "specific".
That sure makes it easier for the staff, but as I said above, think of it like a political talk show. No infractions or bans there either - never asked for that. I asked for moderation, not "punishment".


We do have specific rules regarding hate speech, and we enforce them the best we can, but not without first trying the other means mentioned above. Sometimes it's hard to know from a written post whether the person is being serious or not. You may think he really wants "them" all dead. whereas I may think from other posts that he's really making fun of people he thinks want "them" all dead. Sometimes we'll ask him privately to clarify what he really means. In that case you'll never even know, just as you are unaware of most of what goes on behind the scenes.
I do not care what goes on "behind the scenes", nor do I care for this approach, but your example just proves what a bad call it is, especially because the "public never knows" - that's the whole problem.
And no, the person I am referring to was dead serious about it, at least it was absolutely in line with the usual drivel of the person in question, and it wasn't the first time either things like that were said here (by multiple people over the years).

Again: I do not need you to approve of my observations and/or opinions, I am here long enough and I do know the active members well enough by now. In the end, I can only judge people by what they say, and if someone seriously suggests to use nuclear weapons wherever just because he's a right-wing nut that is unable to think further than a yard and a half, sorry, I will judge him accordingly.
It's called self-responsibility.
People surely judge me by my output as well, hence, I only say what I mean. And if in doubt, there's a nice collection of smileys available.


Oh, and about the swearing? You can blame that 100% on me, as I'm the only one who has ever gone out of his way to enforce that. Since bad news sticks around long after good news has gone, you may not have noticed that I slacked off on that a long time ago, so you're complaint there is a bit dated.
I get the feeling that you misunderstood a part of my post.
The point isn't swearing or not, it is the fact that swearing is (was?) still the number one thing here that must never ever happen, while other things like trolling or the call for mass-murder is largely ignored, as this thread proves.
I mean, how "dangerous" is an f-bomb in comparison to the above? That's my point.
I'm fine with the no-swearing rule in general, or while I find it silly if enforced like crazy, I can accept it.
What happens here on Subsim reminds me of something that happened during the Vietnam war: You may drop lots of Napalm on civilian villages and burn women and children, but beware not to write "F... you Charlie!" onto the bomb before take off - that's really rude and not very Christian!
Do you see my point? No need to agree, just curious if I fail so badly to bring my point across, which of course is a huge possibility considering English isn't my native language and I get lost in translation at times, without noticing.
Oh and yes, I noticed you're not throwing around infractions like crazy anymore as soon as a questionable term arises. I did indeed. :03:


I agree to a point, but we don't have specific rules on how people must debate, and that's the way Neal wants it.
Yes, got that. And that's the problem in my opinion.


Honestly, if every debate had to follow the true rules of debate, most of the people here would never be allowed to post, including yourself.Oh you'd be surprised how nice and civil I can be, when the usual trolls do not get the better of me and my often weak self-control. :03:
If a debate is fruitful and civil in the first place, with people participating that use solid argumentation without the usual "muh derm librul traitorz!!" kind of drive-by posting, then I see no reason to be snarky/aggressive or deconstructive myself - while I do not mean to condone such behavior in the first place, don't get me wrong.
Oh and by the way, the same as you rowed back on infractions for the slightest bad word, I rowed back on being too direct, at times. At least I'm trying, I promise. :O:


It has even been suggested on occasion that General Topics be shut down altogether. That's not going to happen since this is where most of the posting goes on these days.
Yeah, I wouldn't think it's a bad call altogether, honestly.
While GT is - in theory - a nice section with lots of potentially great debates, or topics in general (not always about debating, isn't it?), I see no big point at the moment when I take a look at the debates happening here, or the meaningless spam-attacks by some members. Sure, the quality or necessity of any post is always subjective and up for interpretation/opinion, but that's how I see it with GT at the moment. 95% of the topics could be purged if it were me.
However, considering the threads that should be valuable, while they aren't (like this one), I believe they are useless due to a handful of people participating in them using debate tactics with the sole purpose of being deconstructive, to destroy the political enemy, ignoring any argument - not even addressing it (that for example, is a form of trolling).
This can only happen because there's no moderation in that regard. Yes, I know, different opinions here - but it is my honest opinion about it, based on months, actually years, of participating and/or observing what's going on here.


Some might argue that there never has been quality debate here. That's possibly true of any internet forum. Unless we have absolute debate rules that everybody has to follow that will continue to be the case. If we have such rules many people will be restricted from saying anything. While you may be happy that applies to people you don't like, it will also affect many with honest opinions but no formal training. In other words, if you can't say it exactly the way the rules require your opinion won't count, because you can't say it at all.
You really misunderstand me, I think.
I am not asking for some magic rule that can be enforced like a hammer as soon as a person says something "wrong".
I am asking for moderation, for moderators to chime in at point X and remind person Y that he/she should start to deliver some arguments and be so kind to actually address the arguments of the opponent, instead of being a dismissive Richard that insults the other side of "being childish", while acting like a 5 year old himself. God, please, Steve, tell me you see what I mean here? I swear I'm close of tearing up.


See? Even you can't bring up that discussion without resorting to mockery and insult. It affects all of us.
Oh please, calling a friggin Nazi that denies the holocaust and got banned anyways "Fartenbohn" is such a big deal Steve, really. :shifty:
Meanwhile, let's enjoy how others continues to troll those that try to have a debate by being dismissive, inflammatory and insulting. :yeah:
Perfect example. The term proportionality comes to mind.


Now it's my turn.

From my own point of view you seem to spend a lot of time looking for reasons to criticize the Moderation Staff. There's nothing wrong with that, but you seem to be making it your sole purpose for posting lately. The bigger problem is that you can't start your own thread to discuss the subject, where people can answer or ignore at their leisure, but seem to have the need for derailing other threads. This makes you just as guilty as the ones you accuse. This thread is for the discussion of US Politics. Please try to keep it that way.
Not quite, but close.
I'm not looking for reasons to criticize the moderation, I just happen to stumble over them and that gets frustrating as I really, really liked Subsim once. Not much at all anymore, honestly - but that sure is my problem and not the point. And it sure isn't my sole purpose for posting, it's just all that I can post at the moment because this is, for me, a huge problem and I simply see no reason to invest the time and energy into participating in detail, like vienna for example, only to see my posts to be dismissed without any counter-argument. Hell, we have people here that have been "caught" not even reading links/sources others provide, yet they participate and say "it's all lies, fake news! muh!". No thanks, I won't waste my time as long as this practice is tolerated here.

And yes, technically I am very guilty of derailing the thread by bringing this up. However, if that is such a big deal considering the value (subjective) of most debates here lately, is another question - but technically you're spot on, sure. I do not see, or agree, that this makes me "just as guilty", though. I didn't complain about people derailing - a very minor problem tbh -, I complain about trolling, about sinister motives and questionable moral-viewpoints.
I'd like to believe that there is a rather big difference? :hmmm:

Yes, the topic is US politics. But is it really off-topic to point out when the topic suffers by the actions of certain people? While it is technically OT/derailing, the intention is a very different one.
I see your point, and hope you see mine.
Again, no need to agree, I'm not asking for that.

Thanks for the honest exchange.

[Von Due]

I'm not going to comment on whether it was legal or illegal to share whatever he shared, simply because I have no idea about the details of what was shared. What I can say though is that, especially because it is unknown, it was unwise.

What seems clear is that the information was gotten from an allied intel organisation under agreement that the info would not be shared without the permission of the original intel organisation, as is common in that business, and if there is something that will damage the cooperation between different nations' intel, it is when trust is damaged. Regardless of legal status according to US law, this can have severe consequences on future collaboration between different nations in a time when cooperation is key to face international terrorism and organised crime.

So, right or wrong (according to US law). It was very unwise and potentially damaging to intel, US intel included.

[Bilge_Rat]

Trump was an idiotic choice for President. Own it.

I blame the Democrats, they picked Hillary.

[Bilge_Rat]

When a person here acts like a 5 year old continuously and then dares to tell his opponent "stop acting like a child", and when a person dismisses every argument the other side brings up because he has no argument to deliver and instead creates some cheap diversion like the collective attack of the source in general instead of what was said, yes, that is trolling of the lowest form, in my opinion. You disagree? Fine. No need to agree, I have my opinion, you have yours. Just please don't tell me what I have to see as trolling and what not.

That looks very much like trolling. I have reported your post.

[Jimbuna]

A bit late in the night for me to respond in detail but I have read the exchange between you (Nippelspanner) and Steve.

IMHO a frank and fair exchange but life, the internet and moderation are usually never in sync.

The moderation team attempt to do their best in as fair and balanced a way as possible but are only human at the end of the day.

Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

[Nippelspanner]

That looks very much like trolling. I have reported your post.
Thank you for delivering a perfect example.

[Jimbuna]

That looks very much like trolling. I have reported your post.

Fair point. The comment quoted was deleted by the poster at my request earlier today.

Enough already, stay on topic as of now.

[Platapus]

The most powerful nation in the world is run by an derisory amateur. And even now there are some subsimers defending him. Absolutly unbelievable and very very sad.:k_confused:

You are way off the mark. I don't understand how you could possibly make such a comment about our president.

He is not a derisory amateur, he is a bigly amateur. Yuge in fact. :03:

[Nippelspanner]

You are way off the mark. I don't understand how you could possibly make such a comment about our president.

He is not a derisory amateur, he is a bigly amateur. Yuge in fact. :03:
Tremendous!

[Dowly]

Fair point. The comment quoted was deleted by the poster at my request earlier today.
What comment is that? The one you are responding to is post #2805 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2484642&postcount=2805), in which Bilge_rat quotes Nippelspanner's post #2802 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2484628&postcount=2802), neither of which has been deleted by your request.

Do try to pay attention, Jimbuna.

[em2nought]

No need to get worked up on this story, this is at most a two day story. By tomorrow the News lemmings will be onto a new "scandal".

I knew President Trump should have slapped Judge Jeanine on the butt during that interview. :D
https://coedmagazine.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/screen-shot-2016-11-14-at-3-59-24-pm.png?w=750&h=422&quality=85&strip=all

[em2nought]

With her prior permission of course so we could have then called them out for more "fake" news. :03:

[Platapus]

I blame the Democrats, they picked Hillary.

I would agree. Hillary was probably the only candidate that could possibly lose against a candidate like Trump. That is her legacy.

I often feel that if the democrats had nominated a total random citizen, that person would have won... but the same could have been said about the republicans. Pretty much anyone could have beaten Hillary, in my opinion, .. even a person like Trump.

While I disliked Hillary as a candidate and thought she was crooked, self-serving, and ill-suited for the position of PotUS, I have to confess that despite all that, I am having a hard time imagining that she would have been worse than Trump.

It was truly a race to the bottom.

The depressing part is that if history continues, 2020 will be even worse.

[em2nought]

I often feel that if the democrats had nominated a total random citizen, that person would have won... but the same could have been said about the republicans. Pretty much anyone could have beaten Hillary, in my opinion, .. even a person like Trump.

Mike Rowe would have won in a true landslide
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/mike-rowe-works.jpg

[August]

I'm not going to comment on whether it was legal or illegal to share whatever he shared, simply because I have no idea about the details of what was shared. What I can say though is that, especially because it is unknown, it was unwise.

What seems clear is that the information was gotten from an allied intel organisation under agreement that the info would not be shared without the permission of the original intel organisation, as is common in that business, and if there is something that will damage the cooperation between different nations' intel, it is when trust is damaged. Regardless of legal status according to US law, this can have severe consequences on future collaboration between different nations in a time when cooperation is key to face international terrorism and organised crime.

So, right or wrong (according to US law). It was very unwise and potentially damaging to intel, US intel included.

You're making the assumption that whatever he said was classified. Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch given that nobody knows what information was allegedly shared? I mean I would agree with you if the story is true but so far I see nothing but phantoms and wishful thinking by a politically biased and hostile media organization.

WaPo claims they got the story from unidentified "former and current government officials". Apparently not a single person thought enough this apparent crisis to step forward and give the story authenticity, not one.

Also did you ever consider how a former government official could possibly know what was said in this meeting? Obviously they were not there yet that doesn't stop the post from claiming them as authorities on it.

Bilge_Rat is right, it'll be about two days before this story's lack of legs causes it to crumble like every other one has before it. Not to worry though, by then the chattering classes will have moved on to the next fake outrage.

[August]

What comment is that? The one you are responding to is post #2805 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2484642&postcount=2805), in which Bilge_rat quotes Nippelspanner's post #2802 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2484628&postcount=2802), neither of which has been deleted by your request.

Do try to pay attention, Jimbuna.


Why don't you give the guy a break, he said it was late.

[August]

Mike Rowe would have won in a true landslide


I agree and if he ran as a Republican the Dem media would have demonized him just as much hysteria as they do with Trump. But this is not about individuals like him or Clinton. It's a national ideological schism that continues to widen.

[Von Due]

You're making the assumption that whatever he said was classified. Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch given that nobody knows what information was allegedly shared? I mean I would agree with you if the story is true but so far I see nothing but phantoms and wishful thinking by a politically biased and hostile media organization.

WaPo claims they got the story from unidentified "former and current government officials". Apparently not a single person thought enough this apparent crisis to step forward and give the story authenticity, not one.

Also did you ever consider how a former government official could possibly know what was said in this meeting? Obviously they were not there yet that doesn't stop the post from claiming them as authorities on it.

Bilge_Rat is right, it'll be about two days before this story's lack of legs causes it to crumble like every other one has before it. Not to worry though, by then the chattering classes will have moved on to the next fake outrage.

To address the highlighted bits
I don't think "allegedly" fits into this. They could of course, in theory, exchange pasta recepies but neither you nor I think that is a very good theory. That information was passed on is not the question. The question is rather what sort of information and we both agree, none of us know what that info is.

Phantoms and unidentified people, in that business phantoms and unidentified people are pretty much all you and I can hope to see unless all hell breaks loose for real. Intel is not a business where people stick their heads out unless they want it chopped off, or there is nothing to gain from secrecy.

As for noone knows, well, we know there is a minimum of 2 people knowing, that's a far cry from noone. Were they alone or were there others there? 2 is the minimum but there could of course have been more than 2 there. 1 more and loose lips go a long way.

EDIT: There are Israeli reports too on how the Israelis are unhappy with this whole thing and we don't even know if the US got info from Israel.

[Dowly]

Why don't you give the guy a break, he said it was late.I don't recall asking you about what comment he meant. Do correct me, if I am wrong.

[GT182]

Here's one thing to ponder. And I'm not naming names. I know you can figure that out. ;)

How could you vote for and elect someone that would not and did not protect one of our Ambassadors in a foreign nation and the US personnel that were there to protect him and his staff, when US troops were able told to stand down? And then said person denies responsibility and the POTUS stands behind said person.

If you agree with , and vote for that said person then you are a bigger fool than that said person is.

[Jimbuna]

What comment is that? The one you are responding to is post #2805 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2484642&postcount=2805), in which Bilge_rat quotes Nippelspanner's post #2802 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2484628&postcount=2802), neither of which has been deleted by your request.

Do try to pay attention, Jimbuna.

I don't recall asking you about what comment he meant. Do correct me, if I am wrong.

Well, FYI, I was referring to the post #2765 and the comment " stop acting like a child" but I obviously forgot you're not able to read deletions.

Do try to pay proper attention, Dowly and furthermore do make a proper attempt to stop sniping me at every given opportunity.

[Dowly]

Well, FYI, I was referring to the post #2765 and the comment " stop acting like a child" but I obviously forgot you're not able to read deletions.Then why didn't you refer to that post? Instead you quoted Bilge_rat who quoted Nippelspanner? See where the confusion might be?

Do try to pay proper attention, DowlySee, I did. That's why I asked what quoted comment you meant, as your quotation made no sense.

and furthermore do make a proper attempt to stop sniping me at every given opportunity.Nah.

[Nippelspanner]

Here's one thing to ponder. And I'm not naming names. I know you can figure that out. ;)

How could you vote for and elect someone that would not and did not protect one of our Ambassadors in a foreign nation and the US personnel that were there to protect him and his staff, when US troops were able told to stand down? And then said person denies responsibility and the POTUS stands behind said person.

If you agree with , and vote for that said person then you are a bigger fool than that said person is.
Here's another thing to ponder.

With the sounds of gunfire in the distance and occasional tracer bullets flying overhead, the security team was eager to get going. Yet the officer in charge — the chief of base — was telling them to wait because the calls to the militias were not being answered. He and his deputy, who are unnamed, said they didn't want the team mistakenly getting into a firefight with friendly militia forces. Although sending the security squad and all the heavy weaponry from the annex to the mission would leave the annex defenseless, according to the report, the top officials at the annex gave them the green light, according to the testimony.
At 10:05 p.m., 23 minutes after the frantic call from the mission, the annex team was rolling.
Kris Paronto, a former Army ranger, is one of the men who rushed to the compound from the CIA annex to help bring people back. "Thirty minutes we were told to wait," he told Hannity (http://video.foxnews.com/v/5004940252001/benghazi-hero-says-patriotism-trumps-politics/?#sp=show-clips) June 28. "Twice the word 'wait' was used. Once the words 'stand down' was used. But to me that's semantics."
Not exactly. The dictionary definition of a stand-down order (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stand%E2%80%93down) means your force is no longer on alert or operational. The chief of the annex was adamant that he never told the security team to actually stand down — only to wait. While members of the security team reported hearing the phrase "stand down," the narrative in the GOP report offers no evidence that, contrary to Hannity's claim, the team was told it wasn't going to be sent to help.
More here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/sean-hannity/hannity-misleads-claim-about-benghazi-stand-down-o/

[MaDef]

Here's another thing to ponder.

More here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/sean-hannity/hannity-misleads-claim-about-benghazi-stand-down-o/To use the words of Hillary Clinton, at this late date what does it matter? those 4 Americans are still dead.

[Nippelspanner]

To use the words of Hillary Clinton, at this late date what does it matter? those 4 Americans are still dead.
It matters because some people still act as if she herself, with glowing demonic eyes, issued the order to stand down as in "do not help" - which is simply not true as the official report proves.
Further, the republicans tend to misunderstand, conveniently, the relevance and context of said order, as the article addressed.
If your name would be Hillary Clinton, would you still say it doesn't matter?

Be a little honest here.

[MaDef]

It matters because some people still act as if she herself, with glowing demonic eyes, issued the order to stand down as in "do not help" - which is simply not true as the official report proves.
Further, the republicans tend to misunderstand, conveniently, the relevance and context of said order, as the article addressed.
If your name would be Hillary Clinton, would you still say it doesn't matter?

Be a little honest here.All politics aside let me put my answer in terms everyone here who has been in a Navy can understand. Hillary Clinton was responsible for what happened in Benghazi in the same way a ship's captain is responsible for the welfare of his ship and crew.

[em2nought]

https://pics.me.me/busted-lfiddich-to-trump-caught-meeting-with-russian-submarine-captain-17204004.png

[vienna]

For the DEMs, this has been Christmas and Trump has been their Santa Claus. The careless handling and misuse of highly classified intelligence is an exceedingly serious matter and fully a reason Trump should not be in the Oval Office; to support this view, I will quote an expert even Trump's most ardent supporters can believe and respect:

“This is really, if we bring it up, this is like Watergate, only it’s worse, because here our foreign enemies were in a position to hack our most sensitive national security secrets. We can’t have someone in the Oval Office who doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘confidential.’ ”

I mean, you gotta believe Donald Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/05/15/on-the-campaign-trail-trump-was-very-worried-about-revealing-americas-secrets/?utm_term=.f7e9e8c98293

The latest screw-up by Trump regarding his attempts to derail any investigation into Russian interference in US political matters has really put Trump into an even tighter corner. He has been unable to refute, with evidence, his denials while the balance of probability stacks even higher against him. If only there was some way of giving reliable, certain, proof of his denials... :hmmm: say, wait a minute!!,... I know!!,... what if there was a tape? You know, a recording of the actual conversation between Comey and Trump; I mean Trump has broadly hinted at such a tape system and Trump should really want to clear his name, so that tape would be ideal!...

Let's see where Trump stands: he seemingly doesn't want to release the tapes, so the tapes really must not have anything to back up Trump's side of the story, so he is actually guilty of criminal obstruction of justice. On the other hand, the tapes don't exist, which means Trump has openly lied to attempt to squelch Comey from making statements or giving possible testimony and he has no means to refute Comey, in which case Trump is actually guilty of criminal obstruction of justice. Seems Trump is in a 'lose-lose' position...

So far, there are two House committees, two Senate Committees, at least one open FBI investigation, and God knows how many other yet to be revealed investigations of Trump associates and, perhaps, even Trump himself, for his apparent attempts to impede investigations. The latest involving the reported existence of a memo by Comey documenting a meeting with Trump where Trump attempted to get Comey to drop the FBI investigation into Michael Flynn is going to prove very, very troubling for Trump; Comey is/was well known to be a meticulous documenter and note taker who exceeded even the high documentation standards of the Federal government in general, and the FBI, in particular. It isn't just the one memo, if it is proven to exist, that is the really big problem, its the strong likelihood all memos and documentation attendant to Comey's dealing with Trump and Trump's White House members will be opened up to examination; if the memo by Comey regarding the one-on-one Trump meeting about the Flynn investigation is found and verified, the probability is there is contemporaneous documentation of the other interactions Comey had with Trump; this does not bode well for the Trump tenure...

The House Oversight And Government Reform Committee, chaired by GOP Representative Jason Chaffetz, has formally requested the Justice department to turn over all “memoranda, notes, summaries, and recordings referring to and relating to any communications between Comey and the President”:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/congress-reacts-to-comey-memo-report/526947/

Here is a link to the actual text of the letter from Jaffetz to the Acting Director McCabe; please note, on page four (4) of the letter, under Definitions, the full extent of what is being requested and the highly precise enumeration of terms:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/Sections/Today%20SPECIAL%20SERIES/2017-05-16%20JEC%20to%20McCabe-FBI%20Memos.pdf

Jaffetz has made it very clear, and public, he is more than willing to issue a subpoena if the Justice Department fails to comply with the request, a subpoena carrying with it the full force of law and the threat of criminal action if there is further non-compliance...

Jaffetz is also Trump's worst nightmare: Jaffetz has already announced he will not stand for re-election to Congress in 2018, so he is, in essence, a 'lame duck' and, as such, is pretty much immune to party pressure or pressure from the White House; Jaffetz has got nothing to lose and, it might be assumed, he would not want to exit his Congressional career as being part of a partisan cover-up; being pretty much answerable to no one has a very liberating effect...



<O>

[eddie]

All politics aside let me put my answer in terms everyone here who has been in a Navy can understand. Hillary Clinton was responsible for what happened in Benghazi in the same way a ship's captain is responsible for the welfare of his ship and crew.

So was Reagan when he got 200 Marines killed in Lebanon, but that doesn't mean as much as 4 Americans getting killed in Libya.

[vienna]

Just came across this this morning; it supplements the other links posted in my last post and further details just how serious Comey's memos could be:




...

Former top Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller pretty much called it on all of this about a week ago: One thing I learned at DOJ about Comey: he leaves a protective paper trail whenever he deems something inappropriate happened. Stay tuned. https://t.co/sENlYyhL5B
— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) May 12, 2017 (https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/status/862849567221534721)

...


The reason we've learned about the Flynn memo appears to be because Comey shared it with others who are providing its details to the news media now. Perhaps other memos weren't shared with others, or not with people who would leak their details to the press. And if those other memos do come to light and show similar exchanges with Trump, that's going to be very difficult for the White House to combat in the court of public opinion.

That's because the notes will have been written before Trump fired Comey, and before Comey had an ax to grind. At that point, the White House would basically have to argue that Comey created a fictitious paper trail without a clear motivation.

There are a lot of ifs and assumptions in the above. We don't know how extensive Comey's notes are, how many of these situations there may have been with Trump or what will come to light. But the prospect of those memos seeing the light of day has to be frightening for a White House that is already taking on water.

And for a president who issued a pretty outlandish threat last week, it's a remarkable turn of events.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/16/president-trump-should-be-very-afraid-of-james-comeys-memos/?utm_term=.4264e6429683


The GOP had better hope the Trump administration, via AG Jeff Session's DOJ doesn't get 'shredder happy' or try to make the memos get 'lost'; that would be very stupid and dumb move, but we all know Trump and his cohorts don't do stupid and dumb things...




<O>

[MaDef]

So was Reagan when he got 200 Marines killed in Lebanon, but that doesn't mean as much as 4 Americans getting killed in Libya.
Seeing as how the circumstances and the lead-up to both those incidents are completely different, what's your point in bringing it up? And as I asked before, in the context of this discussion what does it matter? There's no way of putting those particular genie's back in their respective bottles.

[Nippelspanner]

Seeing as how the circumstances and the lead-up to both those incidents are completely different, what's your point in bringing it up?
I think, but I'm not sure, that this is the point:

All politics aside let me put my answer in terms everyone here who has been in a Navy can understand. Hillary Clinton was responsible for what happened in Benghazi in the same way a ship's captain is responsible for the welfare of his ship and crew.

[August]

Interesting article on the Comey firing and the lefts latest false allegations:



By Gregg Jarrett Published May 16, 2017 Fox News



Three months ago, the then-FBI Director met with President Trump. Following their private conversation, Comey did what he always does –he wrote a memorandum to himself memorializing the conversation. Good lawyers do that routinely.
Now, only after Comey was fired, the memo magically surfaces in an inflammatory New York Times report which alleges that Mr. Trump asked Comey to end the Michael Flynn investigation.
Those who don’t know the first thing about the law immediately began hurling words like “obstruction of justice”, “high crimes and misdemeanors” and “impeachment“. Typically, these people don’t know what they don’t know.
Here is what we do know.
Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law.
So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ? If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it.
Obstruction requires what’s called “specific intent” to interfere with a criminal case. If Comey concluded, however, that Trump’s language was vague, ambiguous or elliptical, then he has no duty under the law to report it because it does not rise to the level of specific intent. Thus, no crime.
There is no evidence Comey ever alerted officials at the Justice Department, as he is duty-bound to do. Surely if he had, that incriminating information would have made its way to the public either by an indictment or, more likely, an investigation that could hardly be kept confidential in the intervening months.
Comey’s memo is being treated as a “smoking gun” only because the media and Democrats, likely prompted by Comey himself, are now peddling it that way.
Comey will soon testify before Congress about this and other matters. His memo will likely be produced pursuant to a subpoena. The words and the context will matter.
But by writing a memo, Comey has put himself in a box. If he now accuses the President of obstruction, he places himself in legal jeopardy for failing to promptly and properly report it. If he says it was merely an uncomfortable conversation, he clears the president of wrongdoing and sullies his own image as a guy who attempted to smear the man who fired him.
Either way, James Comey comes out a loser. No matter. The media will hail him a hero.
After all, he gave them a good story that was better than the truth.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/16/gregg-jarrett-comeys-revenge-is-gun-without-powder.html

[August]

Yet another article on the perils to our nation being created by the media:

The 25th Amendment is not, however, a way for elites to get rid of a president they despise without having to persuade the millions of people who voted for him that he is indeed unfit for office. Douthat is indulging a dangerous fantasy here. It might feel good to write a column calling for the president’s removal. It might give pundits a rush of blood to the head. But this is not a parlor game.
The country is deeply divided. People have taken to attacking each other in the streets and threatening congressmen when they venture outside Washington. We’re still recovering from a presidential election that actually ended marriages and tore families apart. Trump’s election was, more than anything else, a giant middle finger to the political establishment, which has lost the confidence of the American people.
If now seems like the right time for that establishment to launch an unconstitutional coup to remove the president through a specious application of the 25th Amendment, then I respectfully submit that you’re underestimating the precariousness of national life at this moment.


None of this is a defense of Trump. Perhaps it will turn out that he really is unfit for office. He certainly seems to be woefully deficient in the qualities necessary for a successful presidency, like prudence, patience, and a general seriousness and curiosity about the world. Of course, the torrent of news this week should worry every American.


But we should be equally worried about the illegal leaks that have fueled the news this week. Understand what these leaks mean: an unelected fourth branch of the government, the administrative state, is trying desperately to undermine the duly elected leader of the executive branch. The press is on the side of the administrative state, and would like nothing more than to be rid of this troublesome president, whom nobody important voted for anyway.


The argument for removing Trump at this juncture amounts to an elitist desire to nullify the votes of some 63 million Americans. Some, like Douthat, are no doubt motivated by a paternalistic urge to redirect the misguided frustrations of their benighted countrymen. Douthat took to Twitter Wednesday morning to bolster his case, saying that removing Trump “harnesses a central use of an elite—their ability to respond swiftly to a situation the public as a whole can’t reckon with.” He seems unaware that the public has already rendered judgement on the elite, and no longer wants their swift response. (Note that this was the exact same justification for the bank bailout, which incensed most Americans.)


http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/17/media-elite-indulging-dangerous-fantasies-removing-trump-office/

[Platapus]

Barring any health issue, the 25th amendment can't be used to remove Trump from office. The provisions of the 25th amendment do not replace the impeachment process.

Being a buffoon does not qualify as being "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,..." as stated in the 25th amendment. Being a buffoon is also not an impeachable offense.

If congress wishes to remove Trump from office, they will have to go through the impeachment process

Just like with the calls to impeach Bush and Obama, there has to be a federal law being broken.

There are no federal laws prohibiting egotistical, unprepared, inexperienced, buffoons from being president... even if they do dumb stuff.

[Skybird]

There are no federal laws prohibiting egotistical, unprepared, inexperienced, buffoons from being president... even if they do dumb stuff.
Or congress men who only support Trump and delay rebellion due to realising that with the plebs that voted Trump he still is popular, and so rebelling against him would threaten their own re-election.

Enjoy.

Trump has moved closer to impeachment, but he is not really close to it.

[em2nought]

So I picked up a nice new rifle today, heavy barrel for prolonged firing. :03: Too bad I'm fat and old though, I'll probably end up like those at the beginning of Zombieland if armed rebellion comes. :hmmm:

[mapuc]

Now I can't remember his name-I saw about 10 minutes ago more or less some Republican on a press meeting saying things that made me remember what August had posted on the page before this page.

Why didn't the FBI director go directly to Justice-something.

It made me wonder-why did he wait until now ?

Markus

[August]

Now I can't remember his name-I saw about 10 minutes ago more or less some Republican on a press meeting saying things that made me remember what August had posted on the page before this page.

Why didn't the FBI director go directly to Justice-something.

It made me wonder-why did he wait until now ?

Markus

Off the top of my head I can think of two possible reasons.

Either he didn't think what Trump said constituted a violation of the law or he kept these notes (which we haven't seen yet btw) as an insurance against being fired or as revenge in case of it. Both make his testimony somewhat suspect but i'll wait to hear what he has to say when he testifies or if these notes (or Trumps tapes) are made public.

[GT182]

No matter what Trump does, someone will bitch about it and try to get him impeached..... the Press, Democrats, H. Clinton, and some Republicans.

I think Comey is out for revenge for his being fired... pure and simple. IF he has notes they could have been written at any time..... before or just a few days or so after being fired.

[August]

Here's what Comey had to say on May 3rd about being told to stop an investigation.

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where often times they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1705/03/wolf.02.html

So what changed since May 3rd?

Did Comey lie to Congress then or is he lying (if you can believe what the NYT says he says) now?

[Dowly]

Fox News now too confirms the existence of the "Comey memo".

Comey was prodigious note-taker; more memos may exist, sources say (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/17/comey-was-prodigious-note-taker-more-memos-may-exist-sources-say.html)

In February, Comey wrote in a memo that Trump had asked him to
shut down the investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn. The memo's existence was first reported Tuesday by The New York
Times and was confirmed by Fox News Wednesday.Also, from the same article:
Following the memo's release, some congressional Republicans
criticized Comey for not reporting the conversation with Trump to his
superiors at the Justice Department. However, a former U.S. government
official told Fox News, "That's not how it works."

Comey was conducting an investigation as to whether President Trump was
colluding with the Russian government," the official said. "He’s not going to
stop that in order to blow the whistle on a smaller crime (obstruction of justice)."

[vienna]

Context is everything; here's context:



[Senator] HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?

COMEY: In theory yes.

HIRONO: Has it happened?

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.


The question was specific to the ability of the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice being able to halt an investigation; what you have here is a specific answer to a specific question; had a Senate committee member asked specifically if the President had sought to impede or halt an investigation or legal process, then the answer would have been different; as it stands, the quote cited is not by any stretch an indication of perjury or, even, evasion; if they wanted a specific answer to a specific question, they got it...

Comey was still FBI Director and he had a job to do and part of that job was the continuing investigation of the Russian influence allegations and the possible connection to the Trump election campaign. He had to be very careful about what he said so as not to tip the FBI's hand as to what the agency knew and he still has to be mindful, even after being fired, since the investigation is still ongoing...

The question was raised in an earlier post, citing a Fox News Op-Ed piece, of why Comey did not report or express his concerns to higher officials at the Department of Justice; there is a two word answer: Jeff Sessions. As attorney General, Sessions has shown himself, aside from being highly unqualified for the AG post, as someone who is more a loyalist to Trump than he is to the Constitution and the rule of law. Sessions is so tainted, personally, by the Russia scandal that, after lying to Congress on specific questions, under oath and penalty of perjury, he had to recuse himself from any involvement in the investigations or legal proceedings related to the scandals. This is not the person with whom anyone would feel confident in sharing concerns about the conduct of the President, particularly if you knew he would just go scurrying off to the White House to tip off Trump. Until he was fired, Comey was in the position of having to be wary of Sessions' influence on the investigations his agency was carrying out; for him there was no one higher up who could be fully trusted...

Comey's apparent uneasiness about trusting higher-ups is not with precedent and context. For those of us who can remember the Nixon-Watergate scandal vividly, the code name "Deep Throat" is very familiar. He was the then anonymous source for the Washington Post reporters who broke open the scandal that led to the ouster of Nixon. About three decades after Watergate, the name of the anonymous "Deep Throat" source was revealed: he was Mark Felt, a career FBI agent who at the time he was "Deep Throat" was serving in the capacity of Deputy Director of the FBI, the second highest position in the agency...

The questions about Comey's memos and notes seem to imply they could have been 'created' after the fact or some such situation. It has been common practice for lawyers, and their staffs, to keep detailed notes and archives of memoranda and other documentation regarding interactions both within and outside their practices. Over 40 years ago, I went to work, for the first time, at a large law firm and was introduced to the whole legal profession's 'document everything' mindset; even though I had come from an audit accounting background, the law firm's standards for documentation was stricter than I had encountered at the banks that had employed me, and those are very strict; and law firms are very diligent about archiving everything, often in excess of any legislated or mandated requirements; 'Cover Your Ass' (CYA) is the mantra of legal practice. I have little doubt Comey, and the vast majority of FBI investigators, ever really deviate or ignore CYA in their dealings. Given how dodgy the tenor and conduct of the Trump administration has been, it would be a reasonable guess Comey, and perhaps others, had/have been extra diligent in their documentation. Consider this: if Comey either discussed with or had shown other FBI associates evidence or indications of concerns about Trump & Co., how likely is it at least one, if not more of them, had made their own notes about the discussion(s)? Corroboration of Comey's memos is not a farfetched idea...

As far as the possibility of the memos being made up after the fact, when a Director, senior official, or any other person charged with investigations is either dismissed or resigns, the standard protocol is to immediately secure and preserve their work product, sort of the government's own version of CYA. Unless someone can pull off a caper that would strain the credulity of even the most far-fetched spy novelist's imagination, the possibility is virtually nil...

[ikalugin]

C'mon. Is 1+1 really 11 ?
Depending on how you define "+" operation - sure. May even be a commutative group.

[ikalugin]

Possibly related to the Russia-Trump story:
http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/54479

[vienna]

It's all Greek to me...




<O>

[August]

I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

In case anyone is fooled by this latest media dog and pony show, that's the important part of what Comey said. Note that the prodigious note taker and legal expert does not qualify his statement with "Unless anyone else asks me then i'll keep it secret unless I get fired" nor does he say that "this only applies to the justice department anyone else gets a pass".

Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would (or should at least) result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361)

He did not do that so no violation, just more of a hostile political media putting the worst possible spin on anything to do with the president. If Trump said "I like puppies" the NYT headline the next day would be "Trump hates kittens". Do not take what they say as anything but the political lies they are.

If anyone actually wants the facts they'll have to wait for the hearings and see whether Trumps tapes, if they exist, contradict what Comey testifies, but unless there is something more substantial my money is on Trump being vindicated.

Folks make no mistake, this is the so called Deep State fighting for it's survival and their treason is being gleefully abetted by power hungry Democrats. Given the power of their allies in the press they have a fair chance of succeeding but if they do they will put this country on the path to civil war.

[vienna]

In case anyone is fooled by this latest media dog and pony show, that's the important part of what Comey said. Note that the prodigious note taker and legal expert does not qualify his statement with "Unless anyone else asks me then i'll keep it secret unless I get fired" nor does he say that "this only applies to the justice department anyone else gets a pass".

Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would (or should at least) result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361)

He did not do that so no violation, just more of a hostile political media putting the worst possible spin on anything to do with the president. If Trump said "I like puppies" the NYT headline the next day would be "Trump hates kittens". Do not take what they say as anything but the political lies they are.

If anyone actually wants the facts they'll have to wait for the hearings and see whether Trumps tapes, if they exist, contradict what Comey testifies, but unless there is something more substantial my money is on Trump being vindicated.

Folks make no mistake, this is the so called Deep State fighting for it's survival and their treason is being gleefully abetted by power hungry Democrats. Given the power of their allies in the press they have a fair chance of succeeding but if they do they will put this country on the path to civil war.

He didn't have to qualify it, the qualifier is in the exact text of the question, specifically referencing "the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice"; its Law School 101: answer only the question asked, exactly as asked -- do not offer any other information other than what is asked for; this goes hand-in-hand with that other basic rule of question and testimony: don't ask a question for which you don't have a very good idea of the answer. There is also the matter that, at the time of the testimony, the FBI had an open investigation into the Russian-Trump Campaign matter and it is a fair statement to say the integrity of the very serious investigation supersedes the Senate panel's intentions. Loose lips sink ships, something somebody ought to teach that blowhard Trump...

I'm going to guess you got your legal cites (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) from the op-ed piece by Fox News personality Gregg Jarrett; here is another piece explaining the fallacies of Jarrett's claims, by Robert Chesney, who has an extensive legal background including as a professor of Constitutional Law and having worked at the DOJ on intelligence issues, I'd say a bit better than a Fox 'talking head':

No, Jim Comey Is Not In Legal Jeopardy --

https://lawfareblog.com/no-jim-comey-not-legal-jeopardy



<O>

[Rockstar]

Thats great you found another opinion, mystery solved.

[MaDef]

I think, but I'm not sure, that this is the point:
It's more of a deflection rather than a direct answer. That's why I don't post in here very often.

[Skybird]

"The enemy is overwhelming!..................................... .................................................. ..........But I will conquer him!"

https://www2.pic-upload.de/img/33188868/1.jpg (https://www.pic-upload.de)

by: Stuttman, Der Tagespiegel

[vienna]

This article explains the appointment of the Special Counsel, his purview, and his background information:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/deputy-attorney-general-appoints-special-counsel-to-oversee-probe-of-russian-interference-in-election/2017/05/17/302c1774-3b49-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html

It is interesting to note the Deputy Attorney General, Rod J. Rosenstein, acting in place of the recused AG, Jeff Sessions, apparently made the decision on his own and the Trump Administration had no knowledge of the appointment until about 30 minutes before the public announcement. It appears, also, the DOJ, under Rosenstein, is asserting its independence forcefully and publicly...



<O>

[Skybird]

And this article whispers about president Pence.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/17/mike-pence-president-trump-238525

Question is whether Pence really is that good a choice either. When people start to defame evolution theory on the grounds of religious beliefs, I start to feel a terrible itching in both my brain hemispheres. Not to mention the damage such leadership could mean for the already shaken education sector. He might know better the rules of the game than Trump does, but whether he indeed would play the game for the better, is something I would not be so certain of.

Plus he agreed to work for Trump. Everybody willing to subordinate himself to somebody like Trump, in my book is a burned name, forever.

[Rockstar]

What I find interesting in the WAPO article.

"My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination."

The investigation is now official which ought to shut people up for awhile. Anything said hereafter by those not directly involved with the investigation stems from their unqualified imagination.

Except for the political hacks, fanboys and blowhards it should be kinda quite now.

[August]

Everybody willing to subordinate himself to somebody like Trump, in my book is a burned name, forever.

I'm curious, does that hate also extend to the 62 million people who voted to put him in that chair?

[Platapus]

18 USC section 4 addresses Misprision of a felony. In its basic form it establishes a separate felony for someone who does not report a crime they witness. It is rarely prosecuted due to some SCotUS rulings.

The code states.

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.What this law attempts to establish is a mandatory duty of a citizen to report a felony. The SCotUS ruled in Marbury v. Brooks, 20 U.S. [7 Wheat.] 556, 5 L. Ed. 522. that while it is desirable for every citizen to have a duty to report felonies, to have a law that punishes a citizen for not reporting a crime is unreasonable.

Because of this case and other cases, almost all of the states have abandoned their misprision laws and those few states that still have them rarely prosecute for them. The reason is that the SCotUS ruled that in order for the federal government to successfully prosecute someone for Misprision of a Felony, the government must prove all of the following elements of the crime.


(1) another person actually committed a felony;
(2) the defendant knew that the felony was committed;
(3) the defendant did not notify any law enforcement or judicial officer;
(4) the defendant took affirmative steps to conceal the felony.


It is the last element that is the tricky part. It is not enough that a person knows of a felony but that they take affirmative steps to conceal the felony. Affirmative steps do not include passively not reporting it.

So can Comey's actions quality for Misprision? Lets re-examine the elements of the crime.


1. another person actually committed a felony

a. We don't know if Trump actually committed a felony. Lacking that Comey can't have committed Misprison. Misprison is usually a later charge after the felon is brought to trial. It is tough to start with Misprison.

b. If we think that Comey did commit Misprision then we also must think that Trump is guilty of committing the felony. You can't have Comey guilty without having Trump guilty.

2. the defendant knew that the felony was committed

a. The felony of obstructing justice may not have been committed when Trump asked (in an official manner) Comey to stop the investigation. Just the asking, even in an official manner may have been a weak case to make.

b. But after Comey was fired in a manner that Comey may reasonably expect to be because of his non acceptance of the asking; that may have been when the felony was egregiously committed. Asking someone to stop an investigation is wrong, firing them because they refuse is really wrong.

3. the defendant did not notify any law enforcement or judicial officer;

a. The crime of Misprison is not commonly levied on law enforcement personnel. There is no expectation that a police officer, knowing that a crime may have been committed has a duty to immediately let another police officer know. The fact that a law enforcement officer knows him or herself that a felony has been committed is enough.

b. Comey, being the Director of the FBI, himself would qualify as notifying a law enforcement officer. He is one of the top federal law enforcement officers in the country. In addition Comey did notify other FBI officers of his concerns.


4. the defendant took affirmative steps to conceal the felony.

a. There does not seem to be any evidence that Comey tried to conceal this felony action. If Comey had destroyed his notes or told the other FBI officers to forget what he said, that would be an affirmative action of concealment.


b. With the crime of Misprison of a Felony, the time between knowledge and reporting is not defined. One would have to prove the position that Comey waited an unreasonably long time and it would be up to the courts to decide whether it was reasonable or unreasonable.

Based on this, 18 USC section 4 Misprison of a Felony would be a very hard charge to prove against Comey.

[ikalugin]

It's all Greek to me...




<O>
Leader of Israel called Putin. This is circumstancial evidence supporting the hypothesis that Trump disclosed classified information he got from Israel.

[Nippelspanner]

lots of law-talk
Are you a lawyer/into law in any way?
Sure sounds like it.:Kaleun_Applaud:

[Skybird]

I'm curious, does that hate also extend to the 62 million people who voted to put him in that chair?
It certainly is no compliment for them, to say the least.

Their often existing dissapointment and feeling to be lost behind may be explainable, but it is no excuse to fall for somebody like this. Plus they are often suffering form circumstances that were polticall created by posers the same people have voted for before, in past decades.

Its 62 million arguments in favour of Jason Brannon's latest broadside against having general elections at all.

"The instinct of worship is still so strong upon us that,
having nearly worn out our capacity for treating kings
and such kind of persons as sacred, we are ready to
invest a majority of our own selves with the same kind
of reverence."
Auberon Herbert

^ And that is a very stupid thing to do.

And btw, it is no "hate" for Trump that I feel, even if you claim that. It is utmost contempt. Thats is something very different.

[August]

And btw, it is no "hate" for Trump that I feel, even if you claim that. It is utmost contempt. Thats is something very different.

"Hate" and "utmost contempt" are the same thing Skybird. But then again you knew that... :03:

[Nippelspanner]

"Hate" and "utmost contempt" are the same thing Skybird. But then again you knew that... :03:
*sigh*

No, they are absolutely not - unfortunately you don't know that.
Hate is no synonym of contempt, they are related, yes, but not interchangeable and differ in meaning/level of severity indeed.

[Nippelspanner]

It certainly is no compliment for them, to say the least.

Their often existing dissapointment and feeling to be lost behind may be explainable, but it is no excuse to fall for somebody like this. Plus they are often suffering form circumstances that were polticall created by posers the same people have voted for before, in past decades.

Its 62 million arguments in favour of Jason Brannon's latest broadside against having general elections at all.

"The instinct of worship is still so strong upon us that,
having nearly worn out our capacity for treating kings
and such kind of persons as sacred, we are ready to
invest a majority of our own selves with the same kind
of reverence."
Auberon Herbert

^ And that is a very stupid thing to do.

And btw, it is no "hate" for Trump that I feel, even if you claim that. It is utmost contempt. Thats is something very different.
Excellent post! :up:

[u crank]

It certainly is no compliment for them, to say the least.

Their often existing disappointment and feeling to be lost behind may be explainable, but it is no excuse to fall for somebody like this.

It was a tough choice. I think that had the other candidate won the level of corruption in Washington DC would have went off the scale.

[Buddahaid]

It was a tough choice. I think that had the other candidate won the level of corruption in Washington DC would have went off the scale.

You'd have to invent a new scale to measure the scale of the old scale's scale, I think.:arrgh!:

[August]

You'd have to invent a new scale to measure the scale of the old scale's scale, I think.:arrgh!:

The cost of the blue-chip commission they'd create to study it would be like 3-4 of the old scales just by itself.

[Skybird]

&quot;Hate&quot; and &quot;utmost contempt&quot; are the same thing Skybird. But then again you knew that... :03:

Every Golden Retriever is a dog, but not every dog is a Golden Retriever. You twist simple facts into alternative facts like Trump. Just that Trump is a relatively new phenomenon to me. From you I know it since many years.

[Nippelspanner]

Every Golden Retriever is a dog, but not every dog is a Golden Retriever. You twist simple facts into alternative facts like Trump. Just that Trump is a relatively new phenomenon to me. From you I know it since many years.
Well come on, now you're just fake news. What are you, a librul?!

[vienna]

Trump:

"I tell you, this is a golden retriever! Listen, I am well known as an authority on dogs, and this is a golden retriever! If you think otherwise, you're just being duped by the Obama/Clinton conspiracy against me!!...

...oh, and my dog may have had contact with a Russian wolfhound, but I'm gonna deny it..."...


https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/04/25/opinion/25conversationWeb/25conversationWeb-master768.jpg





<O>

[August]

Every Golden Retriever is a dog, but not every dog is a Golden Retriever. You twist simple facts into alternative facts like Trump. Just that Trump is a relatively new phenomenon to me. From you I know it since many years.

The simple fact is that your entire argument is based on anonymous sources promoted by a hostile media and you're just mad that your opinions aren't being respected. You can play semantics games if you want but that's what you are doing.

[August]

Hey wouldn't it be a hoot if at the end of all this they end up inditing Clinton instead?

[Nippelspanner]

The simple fact is that your entire argument is based on anonymous sources promoted by a hostile media and you're just mad that your opinions aren't being respected. You can play semantics games if you want but that's what you are doing.
Anonymous sources where no problem to you when they were in favor of your own views. Now when they are against your views, you demonize them?
How do you expect to be taken serious in any political debate when your hateful bias is already glowing in the dark?

And for heaven's sake, stop speaking so very loaded. You do it all the time!
You may not respect anyone's opinions, however, stop talking as if your ignorant point of view applies to anyone else.
But then again Sky and me are just some pesky foreigners, eh? :03:

Also, the semantics-game was started by you!
You lost, and now you complain that the game was played in the first place. :doh:

Another classic August! :yeah:

[Buddahaid]

Oh please. This will only get worse.
http://sidoxia.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/rams.jpg

[August]

Yeah you're right.

[vienna]

An interesting op-ed piece on those who stand to stand to be more adversely affected than most by the Trump implosion:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-impeachment-staff-quit-20170518-story.html




<O>

[Dowly]

In other US politics news:

FCC votes to start rolling back landmark net neutrality rules (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/05/18/fcc-votes-to-start-rolling-back-landmark-net-neutrality-rules/)

The Republican-led Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to begin undoing a key decision from the Obama era that could relax regulations on Internet providers.For those who don't know what the fuzz is about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak

[Nippelspanner]

An interesting op-ed piece on those who stand to stand to be more adversely affected than most by the Trump implosion:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-impeachment-staff-quit-20170518-story.html




<O>

Ouch!
Almost made me feel sorry for the people that work for him. Almost.
The comments are brilliant, though, they remind you about the intellectual level of your regular trumpkin, blubbering about "fake news" mixed with some conspiracy theories, obviously without reading a single word besides the headlines.

Good thing we still have reliable sources like Breitbart and Alex Jones that bravely fight these damn libruls and their hostile media trying to destroy America!

[Rockstar]

Speaking of hostile media. This study just reinforces my belief media outlets tailor their content for a select audience. In otherwords in order to gain viewers they just tell them what they want to hear so they tuned in.

And in the case of foreign media such as ARD which seemingly has no desire whatsoever to report news but rather attempt to divert the attention of home viewers from their own miserable internal state of affairs.

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/

[Nippelspanner]

Speaking of hostile media. This study just reinforces my belief media outlets tailor their content for a select audience. In otherwords in order to gain viewers they just tell them what they want to hear so they tuned in.

And in the case of foreign media such as ARD which seemingly has no desire whatsoever to report news but rather attempt to divert the attention of home viewers from their own miserable internal state of affairs.

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/

Haha, so much for bias and desires, Rockstar.
Did you care to read the study at all?

"Have the mainstream media covered Trump in a fair and balanced way? That question cannot be answered definitively in the absence of an agreed-upon version of “reality” against which to compare Trump’s coverage. Any such assessment would also have to weigh the news media’s preference for the negative, a tendency in place long before Trump became president. Given that tendency, the fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever."

Weird, sounds very different from your "analysis". And please, provide an example for the following:
"And in the case of foreign media such as ARD which seemingly has no desire whatsoever to report news but rather attempt to divert the attention of home viewers from their own miserable internal state of affairs."
I am most curious to see some proof for that accusation. And how much ARD do you watch, I wonder?

[August]

Interesting article: This is what Republican self criticism looks like:

A Never Trump movement, I think it is fair to say, had absolutely no influence on the 2016 election. In theory, elites may have convinced a few key Republican voters in swing states to stay home or to vote for Hillary Clinton; but in reality they were far outnumbered by huge numbers of new Republican voters who saw in Trump hope that they did not in far more experienced and sober men of character.

Like it or not, a Rubio or Cruz nominee likely would have not won these swing voters and thus likely would have lost the election, and with it ensured at least 12 and likely 16 years of a hard progressive government.


Finally, there was something deeply wrong in the Republican Party that at some point required a Trump to excise it. The Republican Party and conservative movement had created a hierarchy that mirror-imaged its liberal antithesis, and suggested to middle class voters between the coasts that the commonalities in income, professional trajectories, and cultural values of elites trumped their own political differences. How a billionaire real estate developer appeared, saw that paradox, and became more empathetic to the plight of middle-class Americans than the array of Republican political pundits is one of the most alarming stories of our age.


Trump was not so much a reflection of red-state Americans’ political ignorance, as their weariness with those of both parties who ridicule, ignore, or patronize them—and now seek to overturn the verdict of the election.


http://amgreatness.com/2017/05/17/nightmares-realities-never-trump/

[Rockstar]

Haha, so much for bias and desires, Nipplespanner.
Did you care to read what I wrote at all?

What I wrote is called an opinion. This thread is riddled with them so why are you singling me out to provide proof for an opinion? Im no different than you or anyone else here I find a link to an article I agree with and paste it. So I'll start providing proof when you do. OK? Until then take your demands and pack sand.

As for your question yes I read it. I understand and agree completely, "there is no agreed upon reality which to compare". In fact that very thought ran through my mind before I even got to that portion of the article.

But regardless wether one thinks one media outlet is more fair and balanced than the other in its reporting. The numbers clearly show some media outlets when they report on Presidential matters really havent had a good thing to say about him. Except of course when he let loose a barage of cruise missles then everyone likes him.

Take it whatever way you want I wont demand proof of your opinion I just dont care about it.

[Skybird]

Something on something that will prevail as harsh reality fact to deal with, no matter what chimp currently is marauding in the White House:

The American way of war is a budget breaker - never has a society spend more for less. - LINK - (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176278/tomgram%3A_william_hartung%2C_ignoring_the_costs_o f_war)

[Skybird]

The simple fact is that your entire argument is based on anonymous sources promoted by a hostile media and you're just mad that your opinions aren't being respected. You can play semantics games if you want but that's what you are doing.
"Why do we have no witnesses giving their reports on the crime and perpetrator?"
"They are all dead."
"You mean the suspected crime did not happen?"

[August]

"Why do we have no witnesses giving their reports on the crime and perpetrator?"
"They are all dead."
"You mean the suspected crime did not happen?"

Really it's very simple Skybird.

You have an article written by a biased and hostile media organization that claims to quote unnamed sources who were not even in the room when the statements in question were supposed to be made.

This is versus several people with completely honorable reputations that were actually in the room at the time and all have come forward and publicly said that nothing of the sort happened.

You want me or anyone else to take you seriously? Provide some actual evidence instead of trying to make us believe the veracity of a political hit piece.

[Platapus]

Are you a lawyer/into law in any way?
Sure sounds like it.:Kaleun_Applaud:

No just a policy analyst by education and employment. Lots of law in policy though.

I have wondered about how hard it would be to get another doctorate in law but I am still paying off my current student loans. :o:o:o

[Nippelspanner]

Did you care to read what I wrote at all?
I did, hence my reply.


What I wrote is called an opinion. This thread is riddled with them so why are you singling me out to provide proof for an opinion? Im no different than you or anyone else here I find a link to an article I agree with and paste it. So I'll start providing proof when you do. OK? Until then take your demands and pack sand.
First of all, I did not single you out at all, that's a ridiculous thing to say. You are just the one posting this and I responded to the content and your claims - not your person.
That can happen on a forum, you know. :timeout:

So, the study came to the conclusion that Trump mostly gets "negative news coverage"? Well, so?
Maybe, just maybe, the news, including outlets that are usually pro-Trump, report mostly negative about Trump... because there's basically nothing positive to report about, as the study itself implied as well?
What positive things do you want to report about Trump?
His Golf handicap?
What do you expect them to do?
To smile frantically while reporting about his latest failures?
Now don't get me wrong, I sure share your despise when some article/paper/whatever is loaded beyond measure and clearly lost every sense for objectivity - but in case of Trump this doesn't come out of thin air, does it?
While many articles/journalists sure go too far, due tom their own frustration, there is a true core, and a solid reason why they do so in the first place - and it sure isn't "we lost the elections, let's be dicks about it!".
Or do you believe that? Just asking.

It's hardly the "biased medias" fault if this buffoon of a president screws up things on a daily basis, and when he is criticized because the whole God damn world worries about him being in this office, he goes on twitter and whines to his 'kins about how evil the meanies from the press are, abusing their stupidity and naivety to incite more hate.
Yes, he really is in any position to complain, isn't he?

Maybe he should just grab some more Women by the pussy, mock more disabled people, insult American POWs and spice it up with the usual edgy racial slurs.
After that, Ivanka can bring him a lollipop made of gold, because he's really really rich, and things are better already?
She probably can help out with other things mentioned above as well, after all he said:
“Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father ...“ - Trump.

But remember people, it's them darn Mexicans that 'send' their worst... :doh:
Seriously, if someone complains again that anyone calls Trumpkins deplorable, drop a red pill, or cyanide for all I care. :shifty:

Further, I asked for something to back up your claims regarding the German ARD group - nothing else.
And in the case of foreign media such as ARD which seemingly has no desire whatsoever to report news but rather attempt to divert the attention of home viewers from their own miserable internal state of affairs.Maybe you are right, and the ARD is doing what you claimed? That would be horrible, right?
I'd really like to know especially as I am German, as you know.

What's the problem? :hmmm:

[Nippelspanner]

No just a policy analyst by education and employment. Lots of law in policy though.

I have wondered about how hard it would be to get another doctorate in law but I am still paying off my current student loans. :o:o:o
"Just"
and
"Another doctorate"

Are you done showing-off? :O:

[mapuc]

Another thought or question from a person outside USA

Is it not in the Americans interest, whether they are supporting Trump, not supporting Trump or are neutral:

Once and for all getting to the bottom of this Trump-Russia allegation ?

I also would say that those who are set to examine this relationship must have peace to do their work.

Markus

[Rockstar]

Looks like you didnt read the whole post and must have missed this part.

"...your opinion I just dont care about it."

[Nippelspanner]

Looks like you didnt read the whole post and must have missed this part.

"...your opinion I just dont care about it."
Ah yes, I expected as much from you. :up:

However, you might have missed the fact that I don't just post when you feel like it, I will post when I feel your posts need to be addressed. :03:

[Skybird]

Really it's very simple Skybird.

You have an article written by a biased and hostile media organization that claims to quote unnamed sources who were not even in the room when the statements in question were supposed to be made.

This is versus several people with completely honorable reputations that were actually in the room at the time and all have come forward and publicly said that nothing of the sort happened.

You want me or anyone else to take you seriously? Provide some actual evidence instead of trying to make us believe the veracity of a political hit piece.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_sources

Dont pretend to be more blinkered than you are. Its easy, and plain reason, and self-explanatory. And I am absolutely certain you know the above.

Its just that this is your way to continue dancing around the Big Donald. Big Donald wants people like you to fall for his show, and you do. Well, that is no compliment for you.

[August]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_sources

Dont pretend to be more blinkered than you are. Its easy, and plain reason, and self-explanatory. And I am absolutely certain you know the above.

Its just that this is your way to continue dancing around the Big Donald. Big Donald wants people like you to fall for his show, and you do. Well, that is no compliment for you.

Please stop with the silly insinuations and insults.

Thank God you never entered the legal field because you have some really odd ideas about how things should work. FWIW "Innocent until proven guilty" is a basic tenent of our legal system. You seem to operate on a principle of "guilty until proven innocent".

Show me some evidence Skybird, some real evidence of your claims, instead of fake quotes by fictitious anonymous figures, and then we can talk about who is falling for who's show. Until then all you have is bias, slander and pure hatred, oops i mean "utmost contempt" backing you up which just shows me that you are as disinterested in the truth of the matter as the Democratic party.

[Von Due]

fake quotes by fictitious anonymous figures

Where is the evidence of these being fake quotes by fictitious [...] figures?

Point is, your claims of this being all fake and the figures being non-real demands the same sort of evidence. Where is that evidence?

[August]

Another thought or question from a person outside USA

Is it not in the Americans interest, whether they are supporting Trump, not supporting Trump or are neutral:

Once and for all getting to the bottom of this Trump-Russia allegation ?

I also would say that those who are set to examine this relationship must have peace to do their work.

Markus

Markus you are 100% correct. And I think that this new investigation might finally get to the bottom of who did what and when. I also think that unlike the Trump indictment they hope for, the Democrats, specifically Clinton and Obama, may just find themselves under the microscope too and we know that Clinton has a lot of baggage in that area. Russian uraniaum deals, pay for access, mishandling of classified documents etc.

The shadiest deal that the Clintons hatched with Russia is called Uranium One. This outrage should mushroom into Hillary and Bill’s radioactive Whitewater scandal.

Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining mogul and major Clinton Foundation donor, led a group of investors in an enterprise called Uranium One. On June 8, 2010, Rosatom, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation, announced plans to purchase a 51.4 percent stake in the Canadian company, whose international assets included some 20 percent of America’s uranium capacity. Because this active ingredient in atomic reactors and nuclear weapons is a strategic commodity, this $1.3 billion deal required the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

Secretary of State Clinton was one of nine federal department and agency heads on that secretive panel. On June 29, 2010, three weeks after Rosatom proposed to Uranium One, Bill Clinton keynoted a seminar staged by Renaissance Capital in Moscow, a reputedly Kremlin-controlled investment bank that promoted this transaction. Renaissance Capital paid Clinton $500,000 for his one-hour speech.

While CFIUS evaluated Rosatom’s offer, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer observed, “a spontaneous outbreak of philanthropy among eight shareholders in Uranium One” began. “These Canadian mining magnates decide now would be a great time to donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.” These included Uranium One’s then-chairman, Ian Telfer, whose donations to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI) totaled $3.1 million. Giustra himself gave $131.3 million to the Clinton Foundation. Before, during, and after CFIUS’s review, Schweizer calculates, “shareholders involved in this transaction had transferred approximately $145 million to the Clinton Foundation or its initiatives.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446526/clinton-russia-ties-bill-hillary-sold-out-us-interests-putin-regime

[August]

Where is the evidence of these being fake quotes by fictitious [...] figures?

Point is, your claims of this being all fake and the figures being non-real demands the same sort of evidence. Where is that evidence?

Well I have the public testimony of several people who were actually there to hear what was said. Do you really want to stack that against the deliberately unverifiable claims of an obviously biased newspaper? If Skybird and other Trump haters here can use this story to prove his unsuitability for the job of president then I am quite justified in claiming them as fake. Prove me wrong.

[Nippelspanner]

If Skybird and other Trump haters here can use this story to prove his unsuitability for the job of president then I am quite justified in claiming them as fake. Prove me wrong.
> implying it needs this story to be true to make clear how unfit Trump is.

Gotta love it. :haha:

[August]

Another interesting article. Republicans are at a crossroads.


Gingrich: Surrender or fight - our country is at stake

http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/person/g/newt-gingrich/_jcr_content/image.img.jpg/48/48/1492303409512.jpg (http://www.foxnews.com/person/g/newt-gingrich.html)
By Newt Gingrich (http://www.foxnews.com/person/g/newt-gingrich.html) Published May 18, 2017 Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/)


Republicans, in particular the Trump administration, are approaching a historic decision that will shape America for generations to come.


The endless hostility of the Left, exemplified by violent fascists on college campuses, thugs in the streets, determined disrupters at town hall meetings, and the dishonest elite media are all part of their efforts to defeat the reforms and changes that President Trump was elected to implement.
The constant, anonymous leaks from disgruntled federal bureaucrats aim to provide ammunition for the propaganda news media to press the attack.
The Left’s dance of destruction is stunningly choreographed.
I have been overseas for the last three days, and it has been sickening to see so many foreigners terrified because they unknowingly believe the news media’s false reports and vicious attacks. The only version of President Trump they know is the one portrayed in the 24-hour cesspool of CNN and the daily acrimony of the New York Times. Sadly, our own nation’s news media is doing more to undermine America's image than Al Jazeera or Pravda combined.
As the media continues to serve as a megaphone for the nameless federal employees who have axes to grind, remember that 95 percent of 2016 campaign donations from federal employees went to Hillary Clinton. At the State Department, 99 percent of employees who gave supported Clinton, and that figure is 97 percent at the Department of Justice.
Congressional Republicans are rapidly approaching a crossroads. Some have already surrendered by giving up on town hall meetings. Others have accepted the news media's false narrative as the truth. Republicans must decide if they are going to fight for what they believe in or retreat to the tenuous safety of the beltway bubble.
The Trump White House faces an even greater challenge. Trying to reason with, placate, or even respond to the Washington news media is a losing game. Each day, the opposition media is fiercely committed to either magnifying a supposed problem or inventing a new one.
We are today in a one-sided cultural civil war. The Left has picked the battlefield and defined the terms of engagement. If conservatives respond to this aggressive, sometimes violent hostility from the Left with confusion, uncertainty, and appeasement, we are guaranteed to lose the struggle to drain the swamp and reform Washington.
Further, surrendering will destroy America as we know it. Far from making America great again, we will have yielded our country to left-wing thugs, liars, and intimidators.
Those of us who truly want to make America great again have one choice: Fight. Our situation is similar to President Lincoln’s in 1861. He had to make the choice between fighting until he won or giving up on the idea of the United States. Once again, our country is at stake.





http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/18/gingrich-surrender-or-fight-our-country-is-at-stake.html

[Von Due]

[...]given that nobody knows what information was allegedly shared?

Well I have the public testimony of several people who were actually there to hear what was said.

How does this add up?

[August]

How does this add up?

Nobody who wasn't there could possibly know what was shared. Several people who actually were there and in a position to know what is sensitive and what is not have publicly stated that nothing was shared which wasn't already public information. That's how.

[August]

Another illuminating article:



Special Counsel Means Congress Must Start Legislating


https://static.pjmedia.com/static-content/images/author-photos/rogersimon-1083163516.sized-50x50xf.jpg By Roger L Simon (https://pjmedia.com/columnist/roger-l-simon/) May 17, 2017


It's not earth-shattering news that Congress has been, on balance, the least respected branch of government for the last several decades. Reason: They don't do their job. They bloviate, they posture, they investigate, they hold hearings, they appear on cable news, they raise funds from wealthy constituents and go on junkets, they threaten to turn out the lights if they don't get their way, but only rarely do they pass laws for the betterment of our country. No wonder the people are fed up.
But now Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has done them a huge favor and given them the opportunity to recover their reputations. He has appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel (https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2017/05/17/former-fbi-director-mueller-appointed-special-counsel-in-russia-investigation/) in the matter of putative Russian meddling with our election.



Even though some -- with justification -- wonder what precise crime has been committed to merit this appointment, given the unremitting nature of the opposition and the inordinate amount of our national attention this controversy is taking, plus a media so over-heated it's causing global warming all by itself, we have no choice but to clear the air once and for all. Otherwise this may be with us into the next millennium.


https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/17/special-counsel-means-congress-must-start-legislating/

[Platapus]

From President Trump

No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly."

Mr. President, there is a Mr. Lincoln, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Garfield, and a Mr. Kennedy waiting to see you.

[mapuc]

Markus you are 100% correct. And I think that this new investigation might finally get to the bottom of who did what and when. I also think that unlike the Trump indictment they hope for, the Democrats, specifically Clinton and Obama, may just find themselves under the microscope too and we know that Clinton has a lot of baggage in that area. Russian uraniaum deals, pay for access, mishandling of classified documents etc.



Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446526/clinton-russia-ties-bill-hillary-sold-out-us-interests-putin-regime

Interesting read-I didn't read all of it of course a little here and a little there.

You comment made me wonder.

Lets start with Hillary Clinton and Obama-Aren't they out of the White House and aren't they out of American politics, meaning not having influence on what is going on in the White House ?

If the investigation finds anything on these two person that was against America law they shall of course be prosecuted and put to trail.

Now to Trump

Isn't he the leader of The US ? Your President and as in this position isn't it he who should be the first to come under this investigation ?

So he once and for all can be either cleared of this allegation or impeached(which I hope not will happen)

Was only wondering

Markus

[August]

So he once and for all can be either cleared of this allegation or impeached(which I hope not will happen)

Was only wondering

Markus

Yes, and maybe this will now happen one way or the other instead of it being dragged out forever.

[vienna]

Nobody who wasn't there could possibly know what was shared. Several people who actually were there and in a position to know what is sensitive and what is not have publicly stated that nothing was shared which wasn't already public information. That's how.

All the stories and allegations streaming out about what was said in the Trump-Russians meeting are glaringly lacking a very important factor: substantiated denial. All we hear from the Trump Oval Office is a lot of whining and carping about leaks; not once has the Trump White House given substantiated evidence to rebut what is being reported. Even today, when the reported content of Trump's meeting with the Russian's came out, the administration didn't even try to deny the reports and, instead just started crying about leaks. This certainly gives the appearance of a tacit acknowledgement of the veracity of the reports; they can't defend the content, so they go after the conduit. Trump and his cohorts couldn't have painted them selves in a worst light even if they walked around wearing signs saying "Guilty". To paraphrase the Chump-In-Chief:James Comey Donald Trump better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts carping about leaking to the press!
...I found this statement from one of your previous posts interesting:



You have an article written by a biased and hostile media organization that claims to quote unnamed sources who were not even in the room when the statements in question were supposed to be made.

This is versus several people with completely honorable reputations that were actually in the room at the time and all have come forward and publicly said that nothing of the sort happened.

You want me or anyone else to take you seriously? Provide some actual evidence instead of trying to make us believe the veracity of a political hit piece.


[Italics mine]

The ability to say this with a straight face is impressive. Given that Trump, himself, is a well known liar, who even lies about the lies he lies about, and
has a reputation as a charlatan, bombast, and conniving swindler (ask any of the multitude of people and businesses who have had to sue him to force him to honor contractual obligations) and whose financial dealings are so sullied no major US bank will do business with him, his credibility and personal honor, and reputation are beyond beneath "completely honorable". If your going to hold up someone as an idol of honesty, be sure your idol doesn't have crumbling feet of clay...

As far as the other "honorable" men in Trump's circle, well, lets just say they emulate and follow their master...

If I may paraphrase you:

You want me or anyone else to take you seriously? Provide some actual evidence instead of trying to make us believe the veracity of a political hit piece the ethically and morally bankrupt current occupant of the Oval Office...




<O>

[Rockstar]

Vienna seriously since when does anyone have to prove their innocnce? Something new to the Oaths of office we dont know about? Step back and look at this thread for a moment the only one complaining is you. If you are part of this investigation or privy to information the rest of dont have then present your evidence. Otherwise I recommend you quiet yourself for a moment , sit back and let the investigators do their job.

A lot of our civil liberties protections and rules of press ethics are designed to prevent this situation you seem to revell in. Something is very wrong when a citizen finds himself being accused for an extended period of time, held in contempt and public suspicion without being aware of the exact nature, or origin, of the accusations he faces. Then in addition to that he's expected by you to present some sort of evidence of his innocence?

Edit

[vienna]

Vienna seriously since when does anyone have to prove their innocnce? Something new to the Oaths of office we dont know about? Step back and look at this thread for a moment the only one complaining is you. If you are part of this investigation or privy to information the rest of dont have then present your evidence. Otherwise I recommend you quiet yourself for a moment , sit back and let the investigators do their job.

A lot of our civil liberties protections and rules of press ethics are designed to prevent this situation you seem to revell in. Something is very wrong when a citizen finds himself being accused for an extended period of time, held in contempt and public suspicion without being aware of the exact nature, or origin, of the accusations he faces. Then in addition to that he's expected by you to present some sort of evidence of his innocence?


Interesting. So, the fact Trump, et al, are spreading all manner of innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations against the press and individuals who have been either reporting about or involved in the whole Trump mess, without even a shred of fact to back up their claims is ethically and morally alright with you, but the press and individuals who have been either reporting about or involved in the whole Trump mess who you criticize should be required to ascribe to a code of conduct you won't even require of the Trump administration? Is this a case of "do as I say, not do as I do"? If you think Trump is in this mess because of a vociferous press, then consider all his miseries are self-visited because the idiot can't keep his mouth shut or his Twitter-happy thumbs off his mobile. He could have done what any rational individual would do and invoke his right to silence, let the investigations play out and deal with whatever may occur; instead, he grossly and inappropriately interferes with the investigations, spouts off, whining about how ill-used he is, taunts, badgers, cajoles, and demeans, at every turn, any who oppose him and makes wild accusations; and therein lies the problem: if you are going to require the press, or anyone or anything else to provide substantiation of their reportage, then the same standard should apply to Trump to provide substantiation of his accusations. There is no free pass just for being President; respect goes to the office, not necessarily to the office holder. He is no more above the need to prove his accusations than the press theirs. Until he or his minions can find the wherewithal to actually back up their claims, they are just as open to the need for proof as the press, et al...

Trump's ravings about leaks and the need to stop them and even criminally prosecute the perpetrators is curious; the latest, undenied, leak about the content of the Trump-Russians meeting could only have come from someone who was in the room at the time; since Trump went to extra effort to ensure no one other than the Russian contingent and selected White House staff were present (even to the exclusion of US or other press), it would be logical the leak came from either the Russians themselves (remember, Putin has offered a transcript of the meeting) or from one of those very select Trump staffers chosen by Trump himself. Given that neither Trump nor his staff have denied the content, merely decried the reporting of the content, perhaps Trump should clean up what appears to be his own leaky swamp of an office or be a bit more circumspect of his Russian 'friends' and their intentions...




<O>

[Skybird]

A simple Google search for "Trump quotes" can reveal immediately how often Trump has talked garbage, bull, lies, and contradicted himself. The count, btw, is no longer in the dozens, but hundreds.

An unscrupulous, lying pussy grabber he is, uneducated, intellectually defunct, all he knows about politics is what he has seen in old gangster movies and now he acts like a little boy copying the behaviour of godfathers and Al Capone and thinks that slamming his fist and stomping his feet and talking dirty makes him a big man.

And now on your knees, you worms! Its the pussy-grabbing president :haha: of the United States we are talking about, so pay respect! :har:






This king is naked, no matter some people's illusions.

[Onkel Neal]

From President Trump



Mr. President, there is a Mr. Lincoln, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Garfield, and a Mr. Kennedy waiting to see you.


True.

And for a "Leader", he sure whines a lot about fairness.

Interesting read-I didn't read all of it of course a little here and a little there.

You comment made me wonder.

Lets start with Hillary Clinton and Obama-Aren't they out of the White House and aren't they out of American politics, meaning not having influence on what is going on in the White House ?



We would like to think so but no, Obama/Clinton and a large number of lifer politicians, aids, and bureaucrats are still very much present and active in Washington. It's their life, and they don't go quietly back to regular jobs just because the opposition is elected. They are working to undermine the present administration. This is where the media gets a lot of their inside information, from "aids" and "sources". I'm sure the same thing occurred under Obama, but the mainstream media is much less interested in smearing someone they look up to. Smearing Trump is easy, he makes it easy.

[mapuc]

^ Thank you for giving a little lesson in American politics-Guess you could say-once politicians always a politicians.

Before bedtime I listen to the news on Danish Radio and there they talked about the lawyers in the White House was preparing for a possible impeachment.

So here is my what-if Trump is impeached- question

What will happen to the Republican party ? - I know there are Republicans who are strongly supporting Trump and those who are not

What will happen to the relationship between Democrats and the Republican in the Senat and Congress

What will happen on the streets in USA ? Will there be some demonstration and will the be some kind of riots ?

If the investigation show that Russia clearly had helped Trump and a lot more in the American 2016 Election

What will happen to the Relationship between USA and Russia ?

Edit I could also make what if-they don't find anything on Trump-Russia I didn't cause I presume life goes on and Trump stay as your President until next election. Of course the debate on American forums and Facebook will go on.


Markus

[Onkel Neal]

I would be fine with impeaching Trump. But the whole vicious cycle would start over again and Pence would be the evil President who must be stopped.

[Nippelspanner]

I would be fine with impeaching Trump. But the whole vicious cycle would start over again and Pence would be the evil President who must be stopped.
Probably.

What baffles me most is how the whole USA cannot come up with anything better than Trump, Pence, Clinton and the others.
Isn't that weird?
That country has the most elite universities and leads in many ways, yet it can only come up with more or less human waste as presidential candidates?
It's absurd, but of course, observable in other western countries as well. The extend though, seems way more severe.

I wonder why that is.

[u crank]

Interesting. This guy, Alan Dershowitz is a Democrat who voted for Hillary. His take is a little different than most Dems.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/19/alan-dershowitz-questions-russia-special-counsel-says-theres-no-crime

Although many on the left have expressed their approval of Robert Mueller being appointed as special counsel to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Alan Dershowitz thinks Mueller could actually vindicate President Donald Trump, rather than bring about his downfall.

He explained that it would not be criminal, even if it happened, for the Trump campaign to have collaborated with the Russians in an effort to get their candidate elected.

"That's political wrongdoing, but it's just not a crime," Dershowitz said. "Nobody can point me to a statute that would be violated. And a prosecutor is only allowed to look for evidence of a federal crime."

Full segment is worth the watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aypl2aFlT8w

[u crank]

I wonder why that is.

Smart people stay out of politics. :yep:

[mapuc]

Do you believe or expect that there could be some political turmoil in the political landscape if Trump is being prosecuted? = Impeaching

Markus

[Buddahaid]

You mean more violent turmoil than the current turmoil we're having? Not really overall but I'm sure there would be some somewhere.

[Onkel Neal]

Probably.

What baffles me most is how the whole USA cannot come up with anything better than Trump, Pence, Clinton and the others.
Isn't that weird?
That country has the most elite universities and leads in many ways, yet it can only come up with more or less human waste as presidential candidates?
It's absurd, but of course, observable in other western countries as well. The extend though, seems way more severe.

I wonder why that is.

I can't say I have a clue...well, I have theories, but they're probably wrong.

[Nippelspanner]

I can't say I have a clue...well, I have theories, but they're probably wrong.
Same here. :)

[Skybird]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judges-list-binds-conservatives-to-trump/article/2622466


Until 2013, there were still active lower-court judges who had been appointed by Richard Nixon, and more than a dozen of his appointees continue to hear cases as senior judges to this day. There is still one appointee of President Lyndon Johnson's on active duty, in California. This shows that Trump's judicial legacy will endure long after his less-impressive ways have been long forgotten.


He has done well so far to appoint smart, serious, conservative, text-focused jurists. Whatever they think of his other policies, conservatives are unlikely to abandon Trump as long he keeps filling vacancies on the federal bench with disciplined originalists and textualists who understand that their job is to interpret the law, not make it up. So just as his judges list won Trump the presidency, so it is likely to keep it viable for him with political support he could easily squander otherwise.

[Rockstar]

Probably.

What baffles me most is how the whole USA cannot come up with anything better than Trump, Pence, Clinton and the others.
Isn't that weird?
That country has the most elite universities and leads in many ways, yet it can only come up with more or less human waste as presidential candidates?
It's absurd, but of course, observable in other western countries as well. The extend though, seems way more severe.

I wonder why that is.


I think George Carlin said best why that is. :03:

"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody:...."

[Nippelspanner]

He said it best indeed. God he sure is missed!

[Rockstar]

Jesus H C. Nipplespanner I think we found common ground.

[ikalugin]

What do you guys think about the current sale of arms to Saudi Arabia?

[Onkel Neal]

Don't like it, but then again, I never look favorably on arms sales to any country not named Britain or France.

[Nippelspanner]

What do you guys think about the current sale of arms to Saudi Arabia?
The usual hypocrisy, nothing special.

First, the guy bitches about Muslims, all of them, trying to stop them coming in from some countries - while not from others (pointless) - and then he flies to the Saudi's, THE number one terror financiers since for friggin ever and by the way the power-center of the Muslim world..... and gives them powerful weapons.
But his voters will just talk about jobs, jobs, jobs.

It takes a Trump, for such a stunt.

[Skybird]

Probably.

What baffles me most is how the whole USA cannot come up with anything better than Trump, Pence, Clinton and the others.
Isn't that weird?

Can we, in Germany?

The whole system is porked. Garbage goes in, so garbage goes out, and it is like that in any democratic state there is. Why do you think am I so angrily attacking democracy as a whole? ;) Because I am an evil dicatorship-lover? Hardly. What we have today necessarily brings the most unsuited, the most unscrupolous, the most shamelessly lying and cheating to power.

The only surprise is that we have not gotten somebody like Trump much earlier.

[Skybird]

What do you guys think about the current sale of arms to Saudi Arabia?
Shia Persians versus Sunni Arabs, the US thinks it must pick one side. This is about the Iranian-Saudi conflict more than anythign else.

And above all, money.

And then there is Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt.

I want back the cold war. It was better.

[Nippelspanner]

Can we, in Germany?
Easy answer, yes.

[Skybird]

Easy answer, yes.
Because the dress proclaims the man?

Not for me. Merkel or Schultz, Steinmeier or Söder, to me they are all as criminal and unscrupulous and destructive, as Trump is. Just that they hide that behind better manners, and that is the only difference for me. Wolves in shee's clothes.

Trump and them - I would lock them all away in one and the same pit.

[Nippelspanner]

You asked if they are better than Trump - not if they suffice in general, there my answer sure is no as well.

But, are you seriously putting Merkel on the same level as Trump?

[ikalugin]

I want back the cold war. It was better.
You are just old :)

[Skybird]

You asked if they are better than Trump - not if they suffice in general, there my answer sure is no as well.

But, are you seriously putting Merkel on the same level as Trump?

Honestly. Yes. And most pro politicians as well. In her way she has been as destructive. Just better manners, and being clever enough to not let every piece of stinking cheese falling out of her mouth. Trump swings his fist and stomp his feet and yells when he meets resistence. Merkels does not stomp her feet and yells. She silently kills by infantilization and reeducation, compare her to the embrace by an anaconda. The results of her agenda to prevail power and to deconstruct Germany for the sake of her wanted EU, are as destructive as Trump's broken promises and failures will show to be once he is done. The bills will be paid by the ordinary man, eroding their fianncial future and security more and more. Trump causes this on behalf of the rivch elites, Mekrel on behalf of "rescuing the euro, the ECB, the EU and the net receivers. And deeper and deeper she leads the Germans into the swamps.

You can take me by my word there. I indeed make and see no constructive differences between the Merkels and the Trumps of this world. Only a difference in manners, style, and cleverness to hide their underhanded policies.

[Skybird]

You are just old :)
Or too rational. :)

There were accidents, and close misses, yes. But this new scrambling nuclear arms race in the ME adds religious hysteria and death cult, racism and generations-old revenges, centuries-old open bills and ethnic hate. All that are elements of irrationality and hot boiling emoptions, which makes it all an extrneely dangeorus mixture.

Such attributes I never felt were valid terms to describe the rivalry between NATRO and the USSR.

I want back the cold war from the past. The new one scares the hell out of me.

[Nippelspanner]

Rather reasonable, I agree mostly with your last two posts, but personally still make/see a difference between Trump and, pretty much the rest.
But you sure have a point, in the end the most are causing problems of similar severity. I am twisted in case of Merkel. While I too criticize her for quite a lot of things, mainly her being so damn passive about everything, never taking a risk and if - never admitting errors (or not 'really'). However, I cannot say I do not respect her as well and also support some of the things she did, stated or supported over the years.
It is out of question what over weighs, though.

Schulz for Kanzler! :Kaleun_Cheers:
(jk)

[em2nought]

You can't really judge Trump by what the USA mainstream media is putting out. Trump threatens the very way of life that all of the fat cat bureaucrats in this country have come to expect(they think he does anyway), and they are acting out against it like spoiled Kindergarteners feeding their more than willing and in some ways naive(due to blind rage) partners in the mainstream media every single little tidbit they can in order to obstruct Trump. The media is against him, Democrats are against him, Republicans are against him, lifetime government employees are against him. The only people for him are some 63 million average Joes and Janes with viewpoints that fall to the right of the middle dividing line, or right of Hillary Clinton at least.

The greatest fear of all those opposing Trump? A successful presidency with the USA feeling they are better off than they were during the last sixteen years of bureaucracy run rampant. IMO :hmmm:

[Platapus]

The greatest fear of all those opposing Trump? A successful presidency...


That is not the greatest fear I have of a Trump administration... not even close.

I am putting my faith that my country can survive Trump and that he can't do anything irreversible.

[August]

The greatest fear of all those opposing Trump?

That is not the greatest fear I have of a Trump administration... not even close.

Although I didn't vote for him, I don't oppose Trump. As long as he keeps pissing off all the right people and gets another pro-2A SC Judge seated before the establishment drives him from power i'll be satisfied. Well that and knowing that Hillary Clinton will never be President.

[Dowly]

BREAKING: Hundreds of leaked White House documents released:

http://www.theonion.com/trumpdocuments

[August]

BREAKING: Hundreds of leaked White House documents released:

http://www.theonion.com/trumpdocuments


Breaking what, the bounds of ridiculousness? I understand that the left doesn't really hold to accuracy in reporting the news but using a spoof website like the Onion is rather over the top.

[Dowly]

http://i.imgur.com/GDBbfl2.gif

[Nippelspanner]

Breaking what, the bounds of ridiculousness? I understand that the left doesn't really hold to accuracy in reporting the news but using a spoof website like the Onion is rather over the top.
http://i.imgur.com/kgVCDVW.jpg

[August]

stolen tv show clip

Well it had to be spelled out given the outrageous stuff some people here seem to believe.

[Nippelspanner]

Well it had to be spelled out given the outrageous stuff some people here seem to believe.
If irony would hurt, the screams would echo in eternity.

[Dowly]

@August
stolen tv show clip
Are you accusing me of stealing the image I posted, or are you just flinging mud?

[August]

@August

Are you accusing me of stealing the image I posted, or are you just flinging mud?

Do you have a receipt for that internet meme sir? :)

[Onkel Neal]

Back on topic, please.

[August]

Awesome article! :)

Donald Trump Has Done An Amazing Job At His Most Important Job

https://media.townhall.com/townhall/ColPics/kurt.jpg (https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter)
Kurt Schlichter (https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter)
|
Posted: May 22, 2017 12:01 AM

Looking at it objectively, as a guy who opposed Trump until he dispatched Ted Cruz, I have to consider all the facts and ponder the evidence carefully before awarding Donald Trump the grade of A+. He has done an incredible job of doing exactly what I had hoped he would do in the off chance he defeated that naggy harridan and her corps of gender indeterminate hipsters, coastal snobs, race hustlers, aspiring libfascists, media scum, and wussy pseudo-conservatives terrified that a Hillary loss would mean people might expect them to do more than wear bow ties and go on NPR to prattle about Burke in their high-pitched, nasal voices.

There can be no serious debate. Donald Trump has done a truly outstanding job of not being Hillary Clinton.

His not being Hillary Clinton was and remains my sole expectation of Donald Trump’s presidency. Nothing else matters in the end; it is enough that Trump foiled Felonia von Pantsuit’s creepy scheme to subjugate forever the deplorable mass of normal people she despises. The Obamacare repeal, tax reform, plus appointees of the quality of Gorsuch, Mattis and McMaster, and his lower court appointments – the inexplicable and damn-well-better-be-corrected-if-Trump-doesn’t-want-a conservative-rebellion omission of Justice Don Willett not withstanding – are merely icing on the red velvet cake of Trump’s not-being-Hillaryhood.

In fact, the only thing keeping me from giving him an A++ is that Trump has unforgivably failed to point toward his zipper and invite the liberal establishment and their panty-twisted Fredocon houseboyz to “Obstruct this!”Read the rest at:

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/05/22/donald-trump-has-done-an-amazing-job-at-his-most-important-job-n2330044

[Mr Quatro]

Back on topic, please.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeached-comey-fired-fbi-608708

IMPEACHMENT
President Donald Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey is “much more serious” than Watergate and could arguably be enough to see him impeached now, says the historian who predicted the Republican’s shock election win.

It's time to admit it Mr Trump's tie is caught in a kites tail. :o

[August]

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeached-comey-fired-fbi-608708



It's time to admit it Mr Trump's tie is caught in a kites tail. :o

There sure is an element of our society that wants us to believe that but so far their evidence is limited to smoke, mirrors and wishful thinking.

[Onkel Neal]

Trumpo's proposed budget is finally a small step in the right direction. Cut taxes, cut entitlement spending, cut more fat from the hundreds of bloated govt agencies, cut the deficit. If only it would cut defense spending, we could see another golden era of US economics.

[vienna]

There is a serious, real problem with the Trump Budget: faulty math on a "yuuuuge" scale:

https://qz.com/990790/how-to-find-the-egregious-double-counting-in-donald-trumps-budget/

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/trumps-budget-dynamic-scoring/527901/

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/trump-budget-director-denies-making-childish-math-error.html


This has been a consistent pattern of the Trump administration and, perhaps, its greatest problem. There appears to be a tendency in the Trump circle to try to tailor whatever the issue may be (budget, foreign policy, immigration, etc.) not to the facts in play, but, rather to the campaign rhetoric of Trump in 2016. There is no doubt many of the promises and declarations of Trump had no real basis in the reality of the various issues and conditions and, certainly, the campaign bombast was made from a state of very little actual knowledge by Trump and associates. The result is a very difficult attempt to meld the concerns of those who know better with those who know close to nothing and are operating from a position of ideology instead of practical reality. Because of this dichotomy, I don't really think the upset over the direction of the 'Trump Agenda' is warranted, at this point, since it is highly likely very little of it will see enactment in its current, original form. As a point of reference, the inability of the Trump camp to actually enact any of their proposals such as immigration, healthcare, etc., without opposition, not only from the 'usual suspects', but, also, from prominent members of his own party, indicates the rhetoric of Trump the candidate will probably not become the actual accomplishments of Trump the 'POTUS'...




<O>

[Dowly]

The r/TrumpCriticizesTrump (https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/) subreddit is starting to become more and more entertaining to read. :)

In a nutshell: For every Trump action there is a (past) Trump tweet criticizing that action

[Jimbuna]

I'm wondering if there is a problem with the Trump administration regarding intelligence and the leaking of said material.


Police investigating the Manchester Arena bomb attack have stopped sharing information with the US after leaks to the media, the BBC understands.
UK officials were outraged when photos appearing to show debris from the attack appeared in the New York Times.
It came after the name of bomber Salman Abedi was leaked to US media just hours after the attack, which killed 22 - including children - and injured 64.
Theresa May is to raise concerns with Donald Trump at a Nato meeting later.
Greater Manchester Police hopes to resume normal intelligence relationships - a two-way flow of information - soon but is currently "furious", the BBC understands.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40040210

[Rockstar]

IMO the New York Times would love to pin it on the Trump. But in this case the New York Times makes absolutley no mention of recieving any information from the White House or U.S. Officials. What the article does go on to say is the information the New York Times recieved was distributed by British Officials. My guess is New York Times knew someone in the UK intel department who had access to the file and emailed the already analyzed photographs.

Id find that disposal analyst Michael C. L. Johnson and see what he knows about it.

[vienna]

I'm wondering if there is a problem with the Trump administration regarding intelligence and the leaking of said material.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40040210


That's a good question. I'm puzzled about the situation; I've gone back and looked at some of the photos that may be in question and I am not sure what exactly the security issues are; they appear to be not much more than what one sees in other such "crime scene" photos. At first, I thought perhaps the photos were of a more graphic nature, showing carnage at some level, but, from what I've seen, they don't rise to that level at all. Here, in the US, there is a sort of self-censorship in the mainstream print media on even printing overtly gory or sensationalist pictures and a high degree of care is taken not to step on investigative toes in these sorts of matters; the restrictions are even greater for televised media, where there are regulatory restraints on the content of news reportage; as an example, TV news reporting of the 9/11 tragedy in the US, by US TV media, was far less graphic than the coverage of foreign outlets; I recall watching the news feeds of the local Asian and Spanish language stations and seeing live coverage not shown on the US channels. So, I don't think the problem is necessarily the NY Times photos...

Since the embargo appears to be between the US-UK intelligence/law enforcement communities, the issue seems to be more in the realm of internal practice than public appearances. Given how Trump allegedly disclosed highly sensitive intelligence sources in his meeting with the Russians a little while back, could it be the UK, in addition to the previously reported Israeli contacts, was one of those sources compromised by Trump's disclosures? Otherwise, it seems odd for the UK PM to be so publicly and forcefully vocal about the issue... :hmmm:




<O>

[Mr Quatro]

Poor Trump has so many arrows in him ... what's one more.

[Rockstar]

... it seems odd for the UK PM to be so publicly and forcefully vocal about the issue... :hmmm:
<O>

Might be because the leak was on her side of the pond as the NYTs article seems to imply, first rule of politics block and divert blame. Could also be that the NYT ticked off the BBC by jumping the gun and published the photos first. Or just an attempt to embarass the Donald at the NATO flag raising picnic. Could be anything really, we only know what we're told.

[vienna]

The other possibility is the knock on the NY Times is a beard for the real intent: for the UK government to make its point without calling out the actual intended recipient. It is poor form, diplomatically, to publicly chastise a foreign government, particularly a strong ally, directly, so a sort of surrogate is found, in this case, the NYT. A private chastisement could have happened through normal diplomatic and intelligence channels, but the UK government may have wanted to make its extreme displeasure known more publicly. Classic diplomacy: express your displeasure without actually humiliating the actual target. Think of it this way, you really want to send a warning message to the carrier fleet chugging past, but, instead of firing across the carrier bow, you fire across the bow of an escort ship...




<O>

[Skybird]

There was no "leak" in Britain. British police shared confidential info with US counterparts, as was common habit, and in the US someobdy then shared this info with the media. This affects the efficiency of British investigation and costs the tactical element of surprise, maybe. And that is why this leaking is so irresponsible, its timing. It was too early for such information made poublic, for it revealed what the invetsigators already knew.

Its also a principle thing. You do not publish information during a running crime hunt if publishing what the police knows or assumes could help the suspects to get early-warned.

Possible that somebody wanted to mine the relation between May and the big Donald. Maybe a warning to May to be less enthusiastic about Donaldland, as she early this year showed to be, probbaly for pragmatic opportunism.

Meanwhile the big Donald congratulated Duterte and boasted about these two very beautiful, really great nuclear submarines, which are the best in the world, and that the US has now stationed offshore Northkorea. What a brain vacuum. He talks in clichees all the time, and he acts in clichees all the time. Currently one seems to be an idiot if voluntarily sharing confidential information with the US, and its big Donald.

[Rockstar]

Well case in point Media goes after The Donald when they perceive he has done something wrong.

In the case of the Manchester photos it was the NYTs who broke the story before anyone else and in their article they said the information was distributed by British Officials. There was absolutely not one mention about US Officials or the president as a source, just British officials.

Now we look at the media drooling over the comment he made about submarines operating near Best Korea. Accusations galore!

See what I mean?

Thing is he didn't pass along one iota of state secrets. If anyone bothered to read the news once in awhile what he stated is common freaking knowledge . Just an FYI for those of you living in a box or with the memory of a fish. The Navy published information for public consumption April 25 concerning the two submarines Michigan and the Cheyenne were to be operating in the area.

Looky there, I revealed more than the President did. I just handed you the names of the submarines and I don't even have a security clearance!

idgits

[Rockstar]

If I were that little wise arse Duterte I'd think twice about shoot'n my mouth off in front of someone boasting about superior firepower I cant see.

Of course snowflakes get their panties in a wad over it. But I like the fact The Donald hinted at the possibilties in front of that little turd stain. Donald dont play around if ya got it flaunt it. Or maybe when meeting for the first time he should bow before king Duterte?

[Catfish]

Trump breaks G7 summit. It seems dumbness knows no bounds.

[Dowly]

Please do post links/sources.

[Catfish]

Sry I did not want to post here anymore, saw an in depth analysis in the TV, also some German background research done about Russia and the Mafia. Not at home, will see if I find it and post a link then. Bad, bad, bad, with mobile. Feel free to delete the post.

[Rockstar]

So Trump told Italy to pack sand when it came to resettling your freeloading guests? All I see in other topics here is euros complaining about them. Now you want us to take care of your problems again? LOLLOLOLOLOL

See if Sweden will take'em

[Dowly]

Sorry, Rockstar, but do have a link?

[vienna]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21lhiKfc1p4




<O>

[Nippelspanner]

So Trump told Italy to pack sand when it came to resettling your freeloading guests? All I see in other topics here is euros complaining about them. Now you want us to take care of your problems again? LOLLOLOLOLOL

See if Sweden will take'em
http://i.imgur.com/F0smTJV.jpg

[Hawk66]

Is there any broader discussion in the US about Trump's foreign visit tour, especially how he treats the Saudis vs the 'old' Europe - but nevertheless still the allies of the US and sharing common values ?

I do not question some valid points, e.g. about defense spending in Europe. I question mainly his manners and respect for the European leaders, their people, their vision and acknowledging their constrains in which they have to govern in a challenging environment.

I know that Senator McCain has another opinion than Trump concerning foreign affairs but is he the lonely senior member in Republican Party concerning this matters nowadays ?

I have to say that I do not belong to do hysteric group of people in my country sharing the fear concerning Trump.
But it is visible now that the relations between US and Europe are in real danger (in contrast to the dispute of the Iraq invasion). Even chancellor Merkel, one of the strongest Pro-US leaders in Europe, has questioned the reliability of the US in a today's speech, which she has never done before - also not at the peak of the NSA/Snowden/'monitoring of her smartphone' affairs.

Putin, China and others will exploit this all and I guess nobody here is believing that this contributes to a better world.

If the majority wishes that the relations between the US and Europe should continue on the same foundation since the end of WWII, both parties have to change and adapt before it is too late. I guess there is not much time left...

[Rockstar]

Is there any broader discussion in the US about Trump's foreign visit tour, especially how he treats the Saudis vs the 'old' Europe - but nevertheless still the allies of the US and sharing common values ?

I do not question some valid points, e.g. about defense spending in Europe. I question mainly his manners and respect for the European leaders, their people, their vision and acknowledging their constrains in which they have to govern in a challenging environment.

I know that Senator McCain has another opinion than Trump concerning foreign affairs but is he the lonely senior member in Republican Party concerning this matters nowadays ?

I have to say that I do not belong to do hysteric group of people in my country sharing the fear concerning Trump.
But it is visible now that the relations between US and Europe are in real danger (in contrast to the dispute of the Iraq invasion). Even chancellor Merkel, one of the strongest Pro-US leaders in Europe, has questioned the reliability of the US in a today's speech, which she has never done before - also not at the peak of the NSA/Snowden/'monitoring of her smartphone' affairs.

Putin, China and others will exploit this all and I guess nobody here is believing that this contributes to a better world.

If the majority wishes that the relations between the US and Europe should continue on the same foundation since the end of WWII, both parties have to change and adapt before it is too late. I guess there is not much time left...

I heard aunty Merkel warned the U.S. AND Britain are no longer reliable partners.

"The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I've experienced that in the last few days,"

Those are her words which I don't think for moment are true. Too bad she has to say such things.

[Skybird]

^ I am no Merkel fan, by far not, but I think she got it right this time.

However:

Diplomatic parquet
https://www2.pic-upload.de/img/33253889/Unbenannt.jpg (https://www.pic-upload.de)

Meanwhile Macron-Man strikes Russia with fists of iron. Europe currently rules the scene. :D

[Skybird]

On Merkel'S notes:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/merkel-and-trump-a-trans-atlantic-turning-point-a-1149757.html

On the other hand:

http://www.dw.com/en/opinion-turning-point-in-a-beer-tent/a-39024500

Time will tell. Merkel is a mercilessly opportunistic and without allowing ethical guidelines hindering her, if she has one principle leading her than to never let principles get in her way. She will make use of the current situation for pushing for more so-called "EUI integration", and the current situation is not just Trump and Brexit, but also the flying Frenchman in Paris, Macron-Man, savior of hopes, carrier of stellar expectations and defender of collateral EU debt damage. The time is ripe for it, now that the socalled poltical lefdt and potlical right have collapsed and fallen together into one and the same undefined something that looks, smells and tastes like socialist continental superstate no matter whether served to the involuntary guests as hot or cooled down dish.

[Nippelspanner]

picture
Thing is, it doesn't matter. Those who voted him, voted him exactly for this sort of stupid behavior.

Let a .gif tell us more:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d5/1d/d1/d51dd109a59e12ec99da0d5fe911d074.gif

[Bilge_Rat]

Merkel and the rest of the Euro-crats are just a bunch of spoiled children. They want everyone to do what they say, but are unable to live up to their commitments.

good article on European hypocrisy:

Indeed, the Europeans talk a big game about the importance of commitments, and of how the alleged fight to save the earth “has to be a collective effort,” but they’ve shown no remorse about their own persistent failure to honor their NATO spending pledges. Translated, they expect the United States to weaken its economy based on an unproven, but rather expensive theory about the effects of climate change, but when it comes to living up to a longstanding agreement among NATO members to share the costs of a mutual defense shield, they’ll let the U.S. foot the bill.

More interesting here is that in their desperation to keep the U.S. in the Paris fold, Merkel and others are implicitly saying that any agreement made among leading western European countries without the U.S. isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. With good reason. Consider non-NATO treaties like Maastricht, in which EU nations agreed to limit their deficit spending so that their debt/GDP ratios would always stay below 60%. Woops. As of 2015, Germany (74.4%), France (89.6%), and Italy (122.3%) were all well above what the G-7 countries committed to when they signed the treaty that led to the euro. As for their commitment to requiring euro member states to individually handle their debts, it too went out the window given the fear among EU members about what debt default would do to certain large banks.

Back to NATO, the European leaders so eager to guilt Trump into a climate commitment not his own have once again shown no commensurate guilt about their own safety being a function of U.S. taxpayers and legislators regularly living up to commitments that they haven’t lived up to. This is particularly galling when we remember that NATO’s mutual defense shield arguably has very little to do with U.S. safety. Lest we forget, the U.S. already has the strongest military in the world, and it’s also quite far from the world’s trouble spots. In short, the U.S. has long stuck to an agreement that weakens it economically, and that has little to nothing to do with its ongoing existence. Would Americans feel any less secure absent this pricey post-WWII arrangement? At the same time, could NATO survive and would Europeans still feel secure sans American support that gives NATO global relevance?

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2017/05/30/the_paris_agreement_donald_trump_and_the_extraordi nary_nerve_of_the_g-7_102714.html

[Rockstar]

Meh, everything has a purpose aunty Merkels comments sound like she didnt get her way with Trump. Her comments are for the purpose of seeking to take advantage of the situation for her own political gain. She will save you and the E.U. now that America and Britain no longer pay all the bills, err... I mean are no longer completely reliable.

Btw Sky I like the cartoon on the other page. Typical of the European leaderships perception of themselves; an oblivious bunch of pretentious socialites. :D

[Bilge_Rat]

That is the problem with Europeans, they come cap in hand begging for help from the U.S. in public, while mocking the U.S. in private.

However, we on this side of the pond knows that is just a sign of their inferiority complex:

In representing everything Europeans hate about America, Trump simultaneously confirms everything they want to believe about themselves. After all, Europeans have always looked down on Americans in the manner of a learned uncle who cannot conceal his jealousy at the banker nephew with that hot babe on his arm. In other words, they suffer from what psychologists call an inferiority superiority complex.

On the one hand, Europeans are deeply convinced that the world would be a much better place if only ghastly countries such as Iran, Zimbabwe, and the United States could be a little more like Germany or Sweden. This snobbism expresses itself in the arena of world politics: For example, Europeans tend to think that the world would be much safer if every country spent as little on its military as Denmark—conveniently forgetting that it was U.S. military might that kept their own continent peaceful for the past 70 years. But it also expresses itself in the realm of culture and cuisine: When an unsuspecting American friend dared to eat popcorn at a garden party held by my mother in Italy one summer, for example, five different guests walked up to her in quick succession. “American way of life,” each of them sneered.

This deep belief in the continent’s superiority makes it all the more infuriating that even the most patriotic of Europeans has to admit to its inferiority on a number of counts. There is that pesky little matter of the two world wars, of course. But the envy and the embarrassment go deeper than that: America is richer and more powerful. It is the world’s center for fashion and for science, for pop culture and for technological progress. The past may belong to Europe. But the future, it seemed for most of the postwar era, would undoubtedly belong to America.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_good_fight/2017/05/european_leaders_feel_smug_and_superior_to_trump_t hey_shouldn_t.html

of course, the biggest difference is that while Europeans are obsessed with the U.S., most Americans barely give Europe another thought. :ping:

[Skybird]

America is Mars, Europe is Venus. Or so some think.

Genderists however claim them to be two alternative neuters alltogether. :D

[Nippelspanner]

That is the problem with Europeans.
Boy, the crapstorm that would ensue here if one of us europoors would dare to say "the problem with Americans". :k_confused::timeout:

I know you struggle with that, like interestingly many right-wing Americans on this board, but... "the left", "Europeans", "Liberals", ... these aren't collectives.
For the sake of more sensible debates, it would be helpful if a handful of regulars here would understand this, finally, and learn to differentiate.

[Rockstar]

NATO is a product of a different era, The first NATO Chief, said the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". In that regard I think the mission was successful. Instead of throwing money into an organization that's always reinventing itself to remain relevent in today's world. Maybe its time for everyone to move on.

We're always gonna be 'in' just not as 'in' as we used to be.

[Nippelspanner]

Maybe its time for everyone to move on.
Are you suggesting that dissolving NATO would be a good idea?

[Rockstar]

I doubt NATO is going away anytime soon. But as Aunty Merkel's comments seem to suggest it does appear to be a good time for the E.U. to start thinking of alternatives. :D

[Hawk66]

That is the problem with Europeans, they come cap in hand begging for help from the U.S. in public, while mocking the U.S. in private.



While there is some truth in that, I guess that is not currently the point. The point is not, as I've tried to explain, that some criticism of Trump is justified.

The point is how he delivers it, how his manners are and how he's respect for other leaders and their people and is ready to accept compromises (e.g. climate protocol). And how he made his 'smiling' show in contract in Saudi Arabia ('deal') and helped to ridiculous gear up its armed forces. I don't think I have to tell you how Saudia Arabia is contributing 'positively' to the world, especially in the area of terrorism.

Does Europe/Germany need to contribute more in security/defense spending? Yep, for sure.

On the other hand: Which nations supported the U.S. after 9/11, especially in Afghanistan and how many soldiers outside of European nations died and fought along your side?

You mentioned: "most Americans barely give Europe another thought". Yes, but is this good in a more and more connected world ?

In a nutshell, both sides don't seem to remember the world before the end of WWII. They have forgotten what a success story and win/win it was after that period. They think this is just normal. But look at history and you know it was anything but normal...

[Skybird]

NATO or an EU army. Okay. But not both. Either dismantle NATO and replac eit with a purely Eruopean army without the uS and Canada, or full funding of NATO committments, and pressing for/inviting (matter of perspective) the US' dominant role being cut back that way.

After all, it is Europe'S liberty and freedom and land and security and rights and economic wealth that sits close to the potential direct military threat. Not the US. A sovjet invasion of North America never really was on the agenda

In the cyberwar arena however things are different, but I doubt that the US can learn much from Europe in that regard.

[Nippelspanner]

I doubt NATO is going away anytime soon. But as Aunty Merkel's comments seem to suggest it does appear to be a good time for the E.U. to start thinking of alternatives. :D
Not what I asked.

[Jimbuna]

That is the problem with Europeans, they come cap in hand begging for help from the U.S. in public, while mocking the U.S. in private.

However, we on this side of the pond knows that is just a sign of their inferiority complex:



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_good_fight/2017/05/european_leaders_feel_smug_and_superior_to_trump_t hey_shouldn_t.html

of course, the biggest difference is that while Europeans are obsessed with the U.S., most Americans barely give Europe another thought. :ping:

I guess being the moderator around here makes it hard for me to respond in a fitting manner but suffice to say I'm a tad surprised at what you posted.

[eddie]

I don't agree with what Bilge_rat posted, I have a lot of good friends in the UK and mainland Europe, and hope we stay friends. No matter where we live, once we elect our officials in government, we have no control over what they say or do most of the time, unless its something really illegal. To say we don't think of Europe at all or care what is going on over there, is just a bunch of crap! Whomever wrote that article has a crow bar stuck up their arse is all. Wrote that while they were hungover, or before they had their morning coffee I bet!

[STEED]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_good_fight/2017/05/european_leaders_feel_smug_and_superior_to_trump_t hey_shouldn_t.html



America is richer and more powerful.

That reminds me $19 plus Trillion and rising. Don't get me wrong we have debt and rising but when i come across some one making that comment i wonder why America can't get on top of it's debt.

[Rockstar]

Not what I asked.

NATO's original purpose was "to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual, liberty, and the rule of law". It was established as a collective defense against the threat of Soviet and Warsaw Pact invasion. But that threat has long since disappeared.

But should NATO be dissolved? No.

Should Europe take a more proactive role in NATO and its own collective security. Yes. But if it refuses to get off its collective hind end NATO may just become another toothless government bureaucracey like the UN.

Globalization, its here and its sometimes not a pretty place. The threats to our security you and I face now lie far outiside our borders, namely the Middle East and Asia. Yet Europe still has to rely on U.S., intel, comms, and logistics for any global event. On top of that Europe couldnt muster enough firepower to fight its way out of a wet paper bag. It really has nothing offer yet damed if they aren't there bitiching and complaining everytime time the U.S. has to step up to the plate to do the dirty work.

What we are most likely witnessing today in the attitude towards Europe and NATO was written about by a fella named David Gompert, he warned: " a division of labor in which Europe specializes in its internal affairs and enrichment while the United States protects Europe’s oil supplies and combats nuclear proliferation will collapse of its own unfairness and its ultimate rejection by the American people.”.

[em2nought]

What we are most likely witnessing today in the attitude towards Europe and NATO was written about by a fella named David Gompert, he warned: " a division of labor in which Europe specializes in its internal affairs and enrichment while the United States protects Europe’s oil supplies and combats nuclear proliferation will collapse of its own unfairness and its ultimate rejection by the American people.”.

Yep, time to grow up, get a job and move out of our basement. :03:

[Nippelspanner]

But should NATO be dissolved? No.
All I wanted to know.


Now, all the usual shortsighted Trump-style "we are the greatest" nonsense from some people aside, I am all for every country stepping up its efforts, fulfilling what was agreed on by contract.
It's a crappy move to join NATO and then not even have a single SSN ready for a period of time (UK, recently), or an Army that is in general so cut-down that it would be ridiculously ineffective in a possible war scenario (see the Bundeswehr, or what's left of it).

Politics stand in the way too much, with stupid decisions being made that eat up billions of moneyz to by crap like the Airbus A400, or the actually great Tiger attack helicopter - but leaving it without a gun for stupid reasons - but yay Kindergarten! ...and these are just some examples from a long list.

In my opinion, the threat from the east is abysmal - but only because of NATO. So dissolving it, would be a terrible idea, it would destroy the balance.
While I do not believe Russia would go gung-ho "just because they can" at some point, it is a risk you cannot take, considering what is at stake.
We do not know what might happen globally in ten years time. Maybe a new threat from the east arises - and suddenly there's no NATO anymore because politicians have been stupid again.
No thanks.

NATO is mandatory - but members need to get their crap sorted out and deliver, asap.

[Bilge_Rat]

Boy, the crapstorm that would ensue here if one of us europoors would dare to say "the problem with Americans". :k_confused::timeout:

I know you struggle with that, like interestingly many right-wing Americans on this board, but... "the left", "Europeans", "Liberals", ... these aren't collectives.
For the sake of more sensible debates, it would be helpful if a handful of regulars here would understand this, finally, and learn to differentiate.

Sigh.

stop trolling.

[Bilge_Rat]

That reminds me $19 plus Trillion and rising. Don't get me wrong we have debt and rising but when i come across some one making that comment i wonder why America can't get on top of it's debt.

Politicians.

Great at spending.

Poor at raising taxes.

[Cybermat47]

Sigh.

stop trolling.

He's not really trolling, though.

Yes, there are Europeans who hate America, but there are also Europeans who love America.

Simply because people share a culture does not necessarily mean they share opinions. The massive divide between Left and Right in the USA proves that.

[Nippelspanner]

He's not really trolling, though.
I can assure you I am not trolling at all.
And I do not appreciate such accusations at all.
(You didn't accuse me, I am aware. Just wanted to point it out.)

[MaDef]

All I wanted to know.


Now, all the usual shortsighted Trump-style "we are the greatest" nonsense from some people aside, I am all for every country stepping up its efforts, fulfilling what was agreed on by contract.
It's a crappy move to join NATO and then not even have a single SSN ready for a period of time (UK, recently), or an Army that is in general so cut-down that it would be ridiculously ineffective in a possible war scenario (see the Bundeswehr, or what's left of it).

Politics stand in the way too much, with stupid decisions being made that eat up billions of moneyz to by crap like the Airbus A400, or the actually great Tiger attack helicopter - but leaving it without a gun for stupid reasons - but yay Kindergarten! ...and these are just some examples from a long list.

In my opinion, the threat from the east is abysmal - but only because of NATO. So dissolving it, would be a terrible idea, it would destroy the balance.
While I do not believe Russia would go gung-ho "just because they can" at some point, it is a risk you cannot take, considering what is at stake.
We do not know what might happen globally in ten years time. Maybe a new threat from the east arises - and suddenly there's no NATO anymore because politicians have been stupid again.
No thanks.

NATO is mandatory - but members need to get their crap sorted out and deliver, asap. The original NATO's time is past, it was designed to protect Europe and counter a Russian threat while post war Europe rebuilt itself and got back on it's feet. It needs to be adjusted for future threats and the U.S. role in NATO needs to reflect that.

[Nippelspanner]

The original NATO's time is past, it was designed to protect Europe and counter a Russian threat while post war Europe rebuilt itself and got back on it's feet. It needs to be adjusted for future threats and the U.S. role in NATO needs to reflect that.
And with the rising threat of China (and possibly a Russian/Chinese/? coalition), what has really changed?
NATO needs to adjust 24/7, because the political situation changes, naturally, over time. That neithr makes NATO obsolete nor unfit as it is at the moment.
Can it be optimized? Definitely.

But we still need it, in my opinion.

[MaDef]

And with the rising threat of China (and possibly a Russian/Chinese/? coalition), what has really changed?
NATO needs to adjust 24/7, because the political situation changes, naturally, over time. That neithr makes NATO obsolete nor unfit as it is at the moment.
Can it be optimized? Definitely.

But we still need it, in my opinion.I didn't say dissolve NATO, keep NATO, but the U.S. needs to maybe take a less active roll. we currently have 99,500 active duty personnel stationed throughout Europe, most of them because of NATO, that's 3x as many troops as we have fighting wars in the Middle East. Maybe it's time for the EU to take on more responsibility for her own defense.

[em2nought]

I didn't say dissolve NATO, keep NATO, but the U.S. needs to maybe take a less active roll. we currently have 99,500 active duty personnel stationed throughout Europe, most of them because of NATO, that's 3x as many troops as we have fighting wars in the Middle East. Maybe it's time for the EU to take on more responsibility for her own defense.

"Not" going to Europe sure makes being in the US military less attractive considering the places they'll be going or already are going instead. Yuck! Plus that whole dying for nothing thing isn't so great either, unless you're lucky enough to at least die for your comrades. :hmmm:

[Catfish]

"Not" going to Europe sure makes being in the US military less attractive considering the places they'll be going or already are going instead. Yuck! Plus that whole dying for nothing thing isn't so great either, unless you're lucky enough to at least die for your comrades. :hmmm:

Astonished to read this from you :o "Treffer und versenkt!" :up:

[August]

As far as overseas duty stations go Germany was the best.

[em2nought]

Astonished to read this from you :o "Treffer und versenkt!" :up:

I think many of us misunderstand each other a great deal on this particular website. I loved every minute of the four years I spent in Europe, when I wasn't at work that is. :03: I even enjoyed some of the hours at work, heavy weather on the Firth of Clyde for example. :up:

[MaDef]

"Not" going to Europe sure makes being in the US military less attractive considering the places they'll be going or already are going instead. Yuck! Plus that whole dying for nothing thing isn't so great either, unless you're lucky enough to at least die for your comrades. :hmmm: You kind of missed/ignored my point.