US Politics Thread 2016-2020 [Archive] - Page 9

Skybird

02-22-17, 05:18 PM

They need to print more because there are an abundance of skin bars requiring single dollar bills from the partrons to participate in the show.

The easier way to bring more notes of lesser value on the streets, is to forbid cash payment and ban notes and coins, and go all-digital and cash-free. Its also easier for the state and for the banks and credit companies to plunder those private savings of people that so far get hidden by their owners by not storing them on banking accounts, but in private safes. If all is digital in the money world, and people have no more altenratives and options to evade the plunderers,

- banks can dictate any fees and costs they want,

- credit card companies can dictate any fees and costs they want,

- central banks can go to negative interests and steal and plunder private values as they want,

- finance ministries can blackmail and cash even easier any protection money that they want,

- a person's consumer and behavior profile can be even easier completed and examined to detail that most people are not even now aware of.

Its like demanding the victim of a rape to thank its rapist afterwards for the pleasurable experience. Its a crime of the highest and most inhumane category. The negative consequences for states, societies, whole people and economic systems, cannot be overestmated, and they are here to last for long time to come. Few people are really aware of all this, and just think in terms of their most imminent comfortability, and not thinking of the consequences. Idiots.

I will never understand why peope use credit cards. I go to the bakery, and buy a bread. The woman gives me the bread, but when I want to hand her the money, a foreigner squeezes himself in and takes my money from my hand, and hands it over to her. She counts the chnage, and gives it not to me, but to him, and then he gives it to me. And for this "service" of his he demands me - or her, or us both - to pay him a fee...? He should be spanked and then brought to court, like credit card companies should be burned down from roof to basement. Parasites, nothing else they are. And great illusionists.

AndyJWest

02-22-17, 06:57 PM

People use credit cards because they find it more convenient than cash. They pay a small charge for the convenience. This is how the market works. You should know this, Skybird.

August

02-22-17, 07:36 PM

I will never understand why peope use credit cards. I go to the bakery, and buy a bread. The woman gives me the bread, but when I want to hand her the money, a foreigner squeezes himself in and takes my money from my hand, and hands it over to her. She counts the chnage, and gives it not to me, but to him, and then he gives it to me. And for this "service" of his he demands me - or her, or us both - to pay him a fee...? He should be spanked and then brought to court, like credit card companies should be burned down from roof to basement. Parasites, nothing else they are. And great illusionists.

You come up with some really wild ideas sometimes Skybird.

Why don't you understand that a credit card sells convenience? The convenience of not having to walk around with large amounts of cash. I'll never stand in front of that bakery woman and rummage though my pockets trying to dig up enough change to pay for the bread because I forgot to go to the bank earlier or had that second piece of strudel, nor will she have to worry (at least with me and other CC users) about keeping enough cash on hand to make change for the large denomination bill you and everyone else used to buy your bread. (FWIW a considerate person would have exact change for the poor bakery woman)

I will also never have to worry about stopping a thief from spending the large wad of cash that he found in the wallet that he just stole from me. A simple phone call deactivates the card and gets a replacement in the express mail on it's way to me wherever I may be, home or overseas. Same thing applies to the bakery woman's cc receipts.

Contrary to your claims I don't pay for this convenience at all. There is no annual fee and I pay the bill off every month so no interest fees. In fact using the card pays me. I got about $300 worth of free merchandise from Cabelas the other day because I use their card.

So while I don't support eliminating cash i'm certainly not going to advocate beating up credit card company owners and torching their businesses even if I didn't want to use their service. Far from being the useless parasites you claim they are, CC companies provide a popular and profitable service to millions of people who are satisfied enough to continue to use them. Who are you to say the rest of the world should be forced to conduct their financial business like you do?

Platapus

02-22-17, 08:21 PM

The best part about using a credit card is that I am using their money. Something goes wrong with transaction, I hope the credit card company can solve THEIR problem.

Three times in my life I have had my credit card number stolen and used fraudulently. In all three times, the credit card company worked very hard to solve their problem.. because it was their problem. Not mine. Costs me a little time and some minor postage. Since I also pay off my balance every month and there are no annual fees, it literally costs me nothing.

What I can't understand are people who get credit cards with annual fees. If there is an annual fee, there better be a very very low interest rate.

But then, I worked for almost 40 years to get and maintain good credit.

Credit is a tool that can be used wisely or unwisely. In itself, there is nothing good nor bad about credit. It is all in how you use it.

Skybird

02-22-17, 08:24 PM

Instead of replying to your last posts, guys, just imagine I repeat the one I just made above, for I mean and stick to every single word of it. In parts, the evils described there are already reality, and if you cannot see that, nothing and nobody can help you. You can lead the horse to water but you cant make it drink.

Its unjust and wrong however, that people like me get pulled down and into the abyss alongside with you. When I realised this some time ago, that was the day when I completely cancelled and deleted any remaining sense of solidarity I still may have had back then. When you guys burn from all this, you got what you asked for, and that is fair. When the few people like me burn, we must so only because you wanted it. And that is a crime against us few.

AndyJWest

02-22-17, 08:32 PM

Skybird

02-22-17, 08:33 PM

Credit is a tool that can be used wisely or unwisely. In itself, there is nothing good nor bad about credit. It is all in how you use it.
That is only true if you differ between credit that is basing on consuming that did not take place, so it is the savings by somebody else that you lease, and credit that just creates the money you lease from empoty air, and thus increases (=inflates) the money tzhere is, but must not create material securities for the sum of money created.

The first is like you said. The altter is the inevitable destruction of every economic market order and money system yiou can imagine. But in a world where the vast majoirty of people think money is harvbested from epoty vacuum in space and then rains down from the sky, most people just cannot understand this.

I recommend, as one possible book amongst several others, by Alfred Hayek: The Pure Theory of Capital, which is available as a free, legal and complete pdf download from this link. No, I have not read the whole book.

But most of it. ;)

LINK download (https://mises.org/system/tdf/Pure%20Theory%20of%20Capital_4.pdf?file=1&type=document)

Skybird

02-22-17, 08:38 PM

http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/TEIN_zpsx6whybqq.png
How... clever. I must fall silent in the face of such overwhelming display of intellectual superiority. I admit: yes, I have demons inside me, and they most be exorcised.

Heil Lemming! :Kaleun_Salute: May the collective always be with you.

AndyJWest

02-22-17, 08:39 PM

Not only have you not read the whole book, you appear not to know who the author is: Try Friedrich Hayek...

Buddahaid

02-22-17, 08:40 PM

Reece

02-22-17, 11:49 PM

Kaptlt.Endrass

02-23-17, 12:04 AM

I prefer cash, my wife prefers credit cards. One thing for sure you can get by without a credit card but you can't get by without cash. Most places( stores) over here in Australia won't accept a credit card for goods less than $10, some even higher, so if I want some lunch I'd best have some cash!!!:yep:

I much prefer cash. For me, I feel it's more secure, and it means I can avoid those chip readers the US has everywhere now.

That said, credit/debit cards have their advantages.

Dowly

02-23-17, 05:59 AM

Heil Lemming! :Kaleun_Salute: May the collective always be with you.Ah, the good old "Wake up sheeple!" line. :haha:

What's next? Those who disagree with your view are misinformation agents paid by the banks? :O:

Skybird

02-23-17, 07:29 AM

I'm sorry Skybird, but I just don't see how making convenience purchases with CC's is going to cause my downfall. I don't carry any debt save for small purchases from time to time, and only for the billing cycle.

.

It increases pulic acceptance for having cash money banned, which is to be resisted to, for the reasons I just gave above. Its a real sick economy world if people have to pay a bank for alowing them to work with and earn profits with it, instead of getting interests that represents their share of the profits. The term "negative interests", is misleading, such a thing does not exist, it is like a "soft hardness", or a "cold warmth", or driving a one-way-street in the wrong direction. Would you pay me money if you lend your car to me?

Its a massive redistribution here in Europe, from German savings of the ordinary people to the ECB that plunders them to pay its state financing for the South. Ordinary people loose several billions per year this way currently. Not to mention the losses of insurrance companies, pensions fonds - all of which means that in the future these institutions will not be able to serve their obligations, since they cannot make sufficient profits. The losses now are real - but the real bills will be presented in the future. Social dynamite.

BTW, cashless payment takes longer time at least over here, than cash payment. You have to stand longer in line that way. A good cashier beats the card terminal easily and every time. I did such a job for some years, I know it, and I still see it every day I walk into a show and buy stuff. Comfort?

Personally, I hold no part of my private little treasury on a bank account anymore, and I never pay per credit card, nor do I own one anymore. Homeland Security would feel alarmed about me if I ever would enter the US. "No credit cards" or "no cellphones" are internal alarm markers, it is suspicious to not hold creditcards or cellphones. :ping:

Everybody is a terrorist these days - as long as his innocence is not proven. Using the war on terror to enforce stricter and stricter surveillance of the people and the public sphere is working as well as it works as a strawman alibi for propagating the banning of cash money. The excuses are bogus claims, but repeat them often enough and yell loud enough, and the mass will believe them.

So when you use your credit card, you help to raise acceptance for bannign cahs money, whether you want that or not. If you belong to those innocent peopel who bepeive in the good and wellmeaning of states, governments and central banks, than of course you will see no harm in this. I recommend to checkl history a little bit, in this case. There is no reason to trust states and governments and central banks. None at all.

And in the end I find it hilarious if people rate such relatively small and unimportant "comforts" like they are being claimed here, as more important than their freedom, basic rights and their privacy. I cannot take that priority serious.

Skybird

02-23-17, 07:41 AM

Ah, the good old "Wake up sheeple!" line. :haha:

What's next? Those who disagree with your view are misinformation agents paid by the banks? :O:
That was my reply to somebody's post whose "quality" deserved this and no other kind of return.

AVGWarhawk

02-23-17, 08:44 AM

The easier way to bring more notes of lesser value on the streets, is to forbid cash payment and ban notes and coins, and go all-digital and cash-free. Its also easier for the state and for the banks and credit companies to plunder those private savings of people that so far get hidden by their owners by not storing them on banking accounts, but in private safes. If all is digital in the money world, and people have no more altenratives and options to evade the plunderers,

- banks can dictate any fees and costs they want,

- credit card companies can dictate any fees and costs they want,

- central banks can go to negative interests and steal and plunder private values as they want,

- finance ministries can blackmail and cash even easier any protection money that they want,

- a person's consumer and behavior profile can be even easier completed and examined to detail that most people are not even now aware of.

Its like demanding the victim of a rape to thank its rapist afterwards for the pleasurable experience. Its a crime of the highest and most inhumane category. The negative consequences for states, societies, whole people and economic systems, cannot be overestmated, and they are here to last for long time to come. Few people are really aware of all this, and just think in terms of their most imminent comfortability, and not thinking of the consequences. Idiots.

I will never understand why peope use credit cards. I go to the bakery, and buy a bread. The woman gives me the bread, but when I want to hand her the money, a foreigner squeezes himself in and takes my money from my hand, and hands it over to her. She counts the chnage, and gives it not to me, but to him, and then he gives it to me. And for this "service" of his he demands me - or her, or us both - to pay him a fee...? He should be spanked and then brought to court, like credit card companies should be burned down from roof to basement. Parasites, nothing else they are. And great illusionists.

Gosh...I only wanted to go to the skin bar with a fist full of dollars. :oops:

Platapus

02-23-17, 02:27 PM

Gosh...I only wanted to go to the skin bar with a fist full of dollars. :oops:

Shouldn't be a problem with the new chipped cards. Just be sure you keep the card fully inserted, in the slot, until after the transaction is completed.

eww

AVGWarhawk

02-23-17, 03:24 PM

Shouldn't be a problem with the new chipped cards. Just be sure you keep the card fully inserted, in the slot, until after the transaction is completed.

eww

Oh my.......:o

Oberon

02-23-17, 09:03 PM

Well, at least there'll be less tourists at the skin bar:

http://www.frommers.com/tips/miscellaneous/the-travel-press-is-reporting-the-trump-slump-a-devastating-drop-in-tourism-to-the-united-states

Catfish

02-24-17, 02:48 AM

The thing is not necessarily about convenience (which exists, using a cc) or about banks making money with those credit cards (some do, some not).

I feel more insecure by giving away the exact date, time and price i paid, and where. Along with which products i bought. It is easy to identify certain traits and preferences, giving away information about you that you probably do not want others to know, or exploit.
Advertising using this data is relatively harmless, but there is of course other information which can be used against you, from criminals to the police, and the latter is not always as well-meaning as "in the west". I would not use that e.g. in Turkey..

It is like with smartphones, be aware of what they can reveal about you, and act accordingly. A complete ban of cash money is of course something that would get me started..

Catfish

02-24-17, 05:40 AM

Wow. Bannon is really serious about fighting the media :o

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/23/steve-bannons-not-so-subtle-threat-to-the-media/?utm_term=.68a6e7ec9633

August

02-24-17, 07:54 AM

Wow. Bannon is really serious about fighting the media :o

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/23/steve-bannons-not-so-subtle-threat-to-the-media/?utm_term=.68a6e7ec9633

Of course he is.

That's what happens when the media drops all pretense of objectivity and supports one party over the other. Advance notice of debate questions, the promise of positive coverage, they even gave the Democrats editorial control over the stories they were writing. How can the Republicans see the media as anything but their enemy?

Catfish

02-24-17, 08:28 AM

^ Well their is Breitbart (Bannon's paper), Fox News, American Thinker and lots of others openly taking side for, and supporting Trump. But i agree, the main part of the US media would be indeed "left", for most Americans.
Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC i saw being described as "left", however from a european view at last WP appears more neutral. :hmmm:

But does this swoosh in the media forest not happen after every US election?
Trump is of course not "mainstream", from whatever point of view, and he polarizes.

AVGWarhawk

02-24-17, 08:50 AM

Platapus

02-24-17, 10:36 AM

MaDef

02-24-17, 10:54 AM

Of course he is.

That's what happens when the media drops all pretense of objectivity and supports one party over the other. Advance notice of debate questions, the promise of positive coverage, they even gave the Democrats editorial control over the stories they were writing. How can the Republicans see the media as anything but their enemy?That idea really isn't anything new, News Media has always had an adversarial and sometimes contentious relationship with Government. The problem here is that stories can be confirmed/refuted almost instantaneously via the internet so any bias is readily apparent.

Many seem forget all of this happened. Glad it is not getting carpet swept. Quite a few(McCain) stating controlling/suppressing the media is the beginning of a dictatorship. Well, it would appeared the controlling/suppressing started within the media itself.
As for McCain's worry, that can't happen without the approval of Congress.
Trump if he desires can evict the press corp from the west wing, there is no law requiring him or any president to give them that space (it's only tradition). The fallout on the other hand would be way over the top.

MaDef

02-24-17, 11:05 AM

Trump does seem to be acting like a bully.

He has no problem dishing it out, but when someone stands up to him, all of a sudden people are being mean to him and he needs a safe area.

He really needs to understand that this is not like being the CEO of a family owned business where everyone pretends to like you.

Perhaps Trump has spent his live having his ego stroked. Well, welcome to politics kid. This ain't your family.

I think some old dead guy once said something about the temperature of kitchens.

This guy has some serious growing up to do and not a lot of time to do it. I think he's playing you and the media, everyone is focused on his feud with the media. Almost all the stories about Trump focus on this feud yet there is very little in the "mainstream" media about the 5 EO's he's implemented in the last 3 weeks.

1. Presidential Executive Order on Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking

2. Presidential Executive Order on Preventing Violence Against Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement Officers

3.Presidential Executive Order on a Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety

4. Presidential Executive Order on Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System

5. Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

Oberon

02-24-17, 11:26 AM

He's also saved the American arms industry by vowing for a nuclear arms race with Russia. :yep:

August

02-24-17, 12:35 PM

That idea really isn't anything new, News Media has always had an adversarial and sometimes contentious relationship with Government.

Well as my post pointed out they are entirely too chummy with the Democrats. They only seem to have an adversarial relationship with the Republicans.

August

02-24-17, 12:38 PM

He's also saved the American arms industry by vowing for a nuclear arms race with Russia. :yep:

Right because a single off hand quip is enough to save an entire industry sector from bankruptcy. :roll:

MaDef

02-24-17, 02:47 PM

Well as my post pointed out they are entirely too chummy with the Democrats. They only seem to have an adversarial relationship with the Republicans. Blame Nixon for that :salute:

Oberon

02-24-17, 03:02 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-house-blocks-news-outlets-from-media-briefing-a7598641.html

http://i.imgur.com/WKFvwN3.jpg

Schroeder

02-24-17, 03:34 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-house-blocks-news-outlets-from-media-briefing-a7598641.html

http://i.imgur.com/WKFvwN3.jpg
These guys are getting more pathetic by the minute.:timeout:
I wonder where this will end.:nope:
I bet Putin and Erdoghan are ecstatic about that.

eddie

02-24-17, 03:36 PM

MaDef

02-24-17, 03:41 PM

beat me to it oberon, Trump needs to step carefully here, If he plays it right, he can get the press to be a bit less critical, and might even get some positive press down the road.

AVGWarhawk

02-24-17, 04:11 PM

Just saw this reported over here too Oberon! And Trump is just adding fuel to the fire with his war with the media doing this childish tantrum! But what else would you expect from this spoiled brat in the White House!:haha:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-hand-picks-select-media-outlets-for-briefing/ar-AAnkbqh?li=BBnb7Kz

beat me to it oberon, Trump needs to step carefully here, If he plays it right, he can get the press to be a bit less critical, and might even get some positive press down the road.

Personally I think it is great. Keep having tantrums. The media has been stepping way out of bounds for decades. Report the news. Real news That's it.

Trump could cure cancer today and tomorrow the news would tell the world he does not care for kittens. Constantly critical of all he does. Constantly critical of Obama(but not as much).

eddie

02-24-17, 05:18 PM

He will keep having tantrums,lol If you don't kiss his butt on everything like they do in his business dealings, he will have a tantrum.

eddie

02-24-17, 05:43 PM

Here is a line from Trumps speech to CPAC,lol

"If it means I get bad press, if it means people speak badly of me, it's OK, doesn't bother me."

He was speaking about a massive military build up, BTW. Still...........:haha:

Oberon

02-24-17, 05:43 PM

And the more tantrums he throws, the more ammunition the media will have to use against him. So indeed...keep having tantrums. :03:

August

02-24-17, 07:09 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-house-blocks-news-outlets-from-media-briefing-a7598641.html

A prime example of the fake news koolaid you continue to drink. Trump hasn't silenced anyone yet you gleefully pretend that he has. Just because I don't want to talk to you doesn't mean I'm preventing you from speaking and neither is he.

These organizations promote and engage in over the top hysterics and biased reporting then whine just because he doesn't want to talk to them. Well good. Maybe if they ever regain their objectivity he'll be more willing to deal with the poisonous snakes.

When you can point to a news paper office getting raided or a TV network being shut down then you might have a point. Until then you're just drinking the democrats koolaid.

Oberon

02-24-17, 07:12 PM

A prime example of the fake news koolaid you continue to drink. Trump hasn't silenced anyone yet you gleefully pretend that he has. Just because I don't want to talk to you doesn't mean I'm preventing you from speaking and neither is he.

These organizations promote and engage in over the top hysterics and biased reporting then whine just because he doesn't want to talk to them. Well good. Maybe if they ever regain their objectivity he'll be more willing to deal with the poisonous snakes.

When you can point to a news paper office getting raided or a TV network being shut down then you might have a point. Until then you're just drinking the democrats koolaid.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif

Fake Post!

August

02-24-17, 07:20 PM

A whole lotta disappointment coming your way. Oh well. :haha:

Oberon

02-24-17, 07:21 PM

A whole lotta disappointment coming your way. Oh well. :haha:

Nah, I'm immune to it now. All that's left is the sheer thrill of the game. :salute:

Oberon

02-24-17, 11:11 PM

I'm absolutely sure that this won't be abused to crack down on protests:

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/plan-a-protest-lose-your-house-arizona-senate-passes-sb-1142-charging-provocateurs-with-racketeering-9109154

https://m.popkey.co/61642c/WxA4D.gif

Rockstar

02-25-17, 06:20 AM

No, they are not craking down on protests. What they are cracking down on is RIOT which according to the State Bill means: Riot; classification
A. A person commits riot if, with two or more other persons acting together, such person recklessly uses force or violence or threatens to use force or violence, if such threat is accompanied by immediate power of execution, which EITHER disturbs the public peace OR RESULTS IN DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER PERSON.
B. Riot is a class 5 felony.

Of course if you think the destruction of others hard work and property or causeing bodily injury to another is your god given right then I see why you would be upset over such a bill.

Oberon

02-25-17, 06:34 AM

Of course if you think the destruction of others hard work and property or causeing bodily injury to another is your god given right then I see why you would be upset over such a bill.

Alright, let's flip it around. Let's say that this bill got introduced early into Obamas term. Let's then say that you wanted to organise a peaceful protest against Obamacare, something like the Taxpayer March of 2009.
The protest is going well, lots of people show up, but later in the afternoon a group of people rock up, no-one knows where they came from, but they could well be dem darn libruls looking to start trouble...and sure enough, they break some windows and burn some cars, and a house gets burned down.
The next morning the police arrive at your door and you are charged with organising a protest that turned violent and racketeering, since an 'overt act is not required as proof of riot offense'. The owner of the property that burned down lobbies the court to get your house confiscated and wins.
Or, to quote Rick Romley, former Republican attorney:

"Imagine a town hall meeting with a member of Congress, and one person gets mad.The person hits the wall with his hand, damages sheet rock — and [organizers] are potentially liable for bringing everybody there? That's just wrong. It's insane."

Fortunately, according to Romley, the courts will probably chuck it out as unconstitutional, but the fact that such a thing is getting so far in the legislative process to begin with, shows a mentality which is concerning.

Rockstar

02-25-17, 07:20 AM

Its concerning only to those who see violence as a means to an end.

Oberon

02-25-17, 07:49 AM

Its concerning only to those who see violence as a means to an end.

Is that so? So being charged because of someone elses actions doesn't bother you at all? :hmmm:

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/174/723/CoolStoryBrah.png

Oberon

02-25-17, 07:51 AM

Of course if you think the destruction of others hard work and property or causeing bodily injury to another is your god given right then I see why you would be upset over such a bill.

Its concerning only to those who see violence as a means to an end.

http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/11/American-Revolution-Hero-H.jpeg

Liberal terrorists 1776. :yeah:

Rockstar

02-25-17, 08:22 AM

Is that so? So being charged because of someone elses actions doesn't bother you at all? :hmmm:

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/174/723/CoolStoryBrah.png

Yes that does bother me, to be charged with a crime that someone else committed is absolutley wrong. But thats not what the bill allows for. If a person guilty of conspiracy, knows or has reason to know that a person with whom such person conspires to commit an offense has conspired with another person or persons to commit the same offense, such person is guilty of conspiring to commit the offense with such other person or persons, whether or not such person knows their identity.

If you are guilty of conspiracy. Good luck proving that.

btw conspiracy defined by

Section 1. Section 13-1003, Arizona Revised Statutes
13-1003. Conspiracy; classification
A. A person commits conspiracy if, with the intent to promote or aid the commission of an offense, such person agrees with one or more persons that at least one of them or another person will engage in conduct constituting the offense and one of the parties commits an overt act in furtherance of the offense, except that an overt act shall not be required if the object of the conspiracy was to commit any felony upon ON the person of another, or to commit an offense under section 13‑1508, or 13‑1704 OR 13‑2903.

Rockstar

02-25-17, 08:33 AM

http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/11/American-Revolution-Hero

Liberal terrorists 1776. :yeah:

We rebelled for good reason.

http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/pics/british-imperial-.JPG

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e5/50/2c/e5502c1e703339f97c7d04f3aefa8570.jpg

Oberon

02-25-17, 08:34 AM

Yes that does bother me, to be charged with a crime that someone else committed is absolutley wrong. But thats not what the bill allows for.

The bill allows for the organisers of the protest which turned violent to be charged with organising a protest which turned violent, even if they had nothing to do with the violence.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/legislature/2017/02/23/5-things-know-arizona-bill-arrest-protesters-riot/98302932/

SB 1142 would expand the definition to allow charges if the force or violence results in property damage. Because it defines rioting as "two or more people acting together," it could allow protest organizers to be prosecuted if someone else is involved in the rioting — even if that someone isn't part of the organizing group. It could also allow organizers to be prosecuted just for planning an event that prosecutors believe could result in rioting.

Oberon

02-25-17, 08:48 AM

We rebelled for good reason.

Not according to the king, nor many of the colonial governors at the start of the revolution, with the exception of Trumbull.

Dowly

02-25-17, 08:52 AM

Fake Sweden expert on Fox News (http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/fake-sweden-expert-on-fox-news-has-criminal-convictions-in-us-no-connection-to-swedish-security/)

Fox News continues to focus on the debate about how immigration is breaking Sweden. One guest last night, described as a ”Swedish defense and national security advisor”, spoke about the problems caused by criminality in Swedish cities and suburbs. But neither the Swedish Defense Ministry nor Foreign Office have heard of the expert.

GG Fox :up:

Rockstar

02-25-17, 08:56 AM

The bill allows for the organisers of the protest which turned violent to be charged with organising a protest which turned violent, even if they had nothing to do with the violence.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/legislature/2017/02/23/5-things-know-arizona-bill-arrest-protesters-riot/98302932/

Sure they can be charged but its only gonna stick if 'conspiracy' as defined in the bill can be proven, read the bill.

ValoWay

02-25-17, 08:58 AM

Discourage people from organizing a protest in order to protect someone's property from theoretical damage?

Oberon

02-25-17, 09:30 AM

Sure they can be charged but its only gonna stick if 'conspiracy' as defined in the bill can be proven, read the bill.

Who then proves or disproves if the conspiracy has been undertaken? Furthermore, that arrest record is going to remain on the persons file, which will have knock-on effects for them down the line, especially since US arrest records are public.

Rockstar

02-25-17, 09:45 AM

Conspiracy is nothing new to our legal system or yours so I reckon it would be the same people who have been proving and disproving conspiracy and racketeering charges for several decades now.

As far as arrest records are concerned I would suggest one give great consideration as to what they choose to do in life and realize there are consequences good and bad.

Oberon

02-25-17, 09:57 AM

As far as arrest records are concerned I would suggest one give great consideration as to what they choose to do in life.

So in other words, keep your mouth shut and don't protest...just in case you might get arrested for conspiracy? :hmmm:

Rockstar

02-25-17, 10:05 AM

No, You dont have to keep your mouth shut there is a constitutional guarantee for the of freedom of speech. But their are boundaries in civiliezed society and no constitutional gauarantee is offered to protect you or anyone even a protestor from committing violence, destruction of property or conspiracy to commit violence or destruction of property.

Ghandi kicked out on of the most tyranical oppressive and racist regimes in history with peaceful protest. Martin Luther King brought about great change with peaceful protest. Not many to list but it can be done.

Oberon

02-25-17, 10:11 AM

No, You dont have to keep your mouth shut there is a constitutional guarantee for the of freedom of speech. But their are boundaries in civiliezed society and no constitutional gauarantee is offered to protect you or anyone from committing violence, destruction of property or conspiracy to commit violence or destruction of property.

Well, that kind of bjorks part of the Second Amendment then, I thought part of that was exactly to undertake violence and destruction of property against a 'tyrannical' government? :hmmm: Or would those militias just sit outside and offer out pamphlets?

ikalugin

02-25-17, 10:14 AM

Platapus

02-25-17, 10:42 AM

You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered. -- Sammy Johnson's kid Lyndon

August

02-25-17, 10:51 AM

Fake Sweden expert on Fox News (http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/fake-sweden-expert-on-fox-news-has-criminal-convictions-in-us-no-connection-to-swedish-security/)

GG Fox :up:

I wonder if it's the same guy that claimed to be a former British agent. You know, the one with the fake Trump dossier that CNN, NYT and the rest of the Dem media tried to pass off as real.

Dowly

02-25-17, 11:08 AM

I wonder if it's the same guy that claimed to be a former British agent.Christopher Steele? He is a former British agent.

Bilge_Rat

02-25-17, 11:23 AM

confirmed: NYTimes was lying when it claimed "multiple suspicious" contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence

sources inside the FBI and the CIA have confirmed that their investigation revealed only sporadic routine contacts:

[CIA]

The officials broadly dismissed Trump associates’ contacts with Russia as infrequent and inconsequential. But the officials would not answer substantive questions about the issue, and their comments were not published by The Post and do not appear to have been reported elsewhere.

(...)

[FBI]

In a brief interview on the night of Feb. 15, the senior intelligence official said that the suggestion that there was frequent contact between Russians and Trump associates was false, describing any conversations as sporadic, limited and based on Russia’s interest in building a relationship with the future Trump administration rather than shaping the 2016 presidential race.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-sought-to-enlist-intelligence-officials-key-lawmakers-to-counter-russia-stories/2017/02/24/c8487552-fa99-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html?utm_term=.d917d1a65c1c

Rockstar

02-25-17, 11:25 AM

MaDef

02-25-17, 11:43 AM

Well, that kind of bjorks part of the Second Amendment then, I thought part of that was exactly to undertake violence and destruction of property against a 'tyrannical' government? :hmmm: Or would those militias just sit outside and offer out pamphlets?
There's a difference between protesting and insurgency.
I don't think it will have as chilling effect on protests as some would have you believe. It may however make protesters think twice before crossing state lines to protest. (which is where the idea of professional protesters comes from). It may also be an oblique way to bring George Soros to heel.:03:

I to have concerns that SB1142 (or similar bills) could be abused, but not for first amendment issues but for the fourth amendment . My concern is that the Governments (these are state and local laws) will see the seizure of assets as a revenue stream and start confiscating assets before due process is complete or mis-applying the law resulting in questionable seizures. This type of abuse is prevalent in the civil judicial forfeiture laws used in combating the drug trade.

Oberon

02-25-17, 11:59 AM

There's a difference between protesting and insurgency.
I don't think it will have as chilling effect on protests as some would have you believe. It may however make protesters think twice before crossing state lines to protest. (which is where the idea of professional protesters comes from). It may also be an oblique way to bring George Soros to heel.:03:

I to have concerns that SB1142 (or similar bills) could be abused, but not for first amendment issues but for the fourth amendment . My concern is that the Governments (these are state and local laws) will see the seizure of assets as a revenue stream and start confiscating assets before due process is complete or mis-applying the law resulting in questionable seizures. This type of abuse is prevalent in the civil judicial forfeiture laws used in combating the drug trade.

It's a pretty vaguely worded bill, there's a lot of wiggle way in it for people to abuse it, and that IMHO makes for a bad bill.

Yes the second amendment does in part afford protections against as Hamilton put it "when representatives of the people betray their constituents". But I do not share yours or their perception that my governement is a tyrannical government.

Indeed, and I dare say that Frederick North did not consider his government to be tyrannical either...but others disagreed.

August

02-25-17, 12:48 PM

-- Sammy Johnson's kid Lyndon

That's the guy who escalated our commitment in the Vietnam conflict from an advisory and tactical leadership role (which was working albeit slowly) to conducting a full scale conventional war that did not have the support of the American people who were now being asked to fight it.

Guess he didn't see that one coming...

August

02-25-17, 12:55 PM

Christopher Steele? He is a former British agent.

Yep you're right, my bad. It's only the information which he presented that was false. Kinda the opposite of the Sweden story guy.

MaDef

02-25-17, 02:04 PM

It's a pretty vaguely worded bill, there's a lot of wiggle way in it for people to abuse it, and that IMHO makes for a bad bill. As apposed to a specifically worded one that is hard to adjudicate except in very narrow circumstances? Sometimes a broadly worded bill is needed, then allowing the courts to narrow the scope.

Oberon

02-25-17, 04:37 PM

As apposed to a specifically worded one that is hard to adjudicate except in very narrow circumstances? Sometimes a broadly worded bill is needed, then allowing the courts to narrow the scope.

I guess then it will depend on how neutral the courts are. :hmmm:

MaDef

02-25-17, 05:18 PM

I guess then it will depend on how neutral the courts are. :hmmm:Arizona is in the 9th circuit court district, and they're pretty liberal (75-80% of their rulings are overturned by the Supreme Court).

Oberon

02-25-17, 05:18 PM

"We have a respect for the press when it comes to the government, that is something that you can't ban an entity from, um, you know, conservative, liberal or otherwise, I think that's what makes a democracy a democracy vs a dictatorship." - Sean Spicer. (https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/835219520541364225)

Oberon

02-25-17, 05:21 PM

Arizona is in the 9th circuit court district, and they're pretty liberal (75-80% of their rulings are overturned by the Supreme Court).

Oh, those were the guys who overturned the Travel ban weren't they?

Catfish

02-25-17, 06:19 PM

Rockstar

02-25-17, 07:17 PM

There's a difference between protesting and insurgency.
I don't think it will have as chilling effect on protests as some would have you believe. It may however make protesters think twice before crossing state lines to protest. (which is where the idea of professional protesters comes from). It may also be an oblique way to bring George Soros to heel.:03:

I to have concerns that SB1142 (or similar bills) could be abused, but not for first amendment issues but for the fourth amendment . My concern is that the Governments (these are state and local laws) will see the seizure of assets as a revenue stream and start confiscating assets before due process is complete or mis-applying the law resulting in questionable seizures. This type of abuse is prevalent in the civil judicial forfeiture laws used in combating the drug trade.

Lol we been down that road already. I remember in the late eighties Miami. We would track smugglers as they brought in drugs, allowed them to land the goods, transport and distrubute it. Then seized everything and anything the drugs had come in contact with. Homes, real estate, boats, cars, trucks, warehouses, bank accounts, you name it we seized it before they even got a chance to go to court. Ahh those were the happy times life was easy. That didn't last long before those mean old constitutional lawyers got involved and put a stop to that.

u crank

02-25-17, 07:29 PM

Schroeder

02-26-17, 04:36 AM

The media outlets that Trump white house banned are still allowed to publish anything they want. Comparing that to 'Pravda' style propaganda is quite a stretch wouldn't you say?
True, but it's a first step in the direction. Erdoghan didn't proclaim himself dictator of Turkey for life overnight either and now he de facto is.
The problem here is that a lot of actions done by Trump and his guys have the same handwriting as the deeds some people did who then became dictators.

The question is how many steps can he take before it's too late to stop it?

Bilge_Rat

02-26-17, 05:39 AM

True, but it's a first step in the direction. Erdoghan didn't proclaim himself dictator of Turkey for life overnight either and now he de facto is.
The problem here is that a lot of actions done by Trump and his guys have the same handwriting as the deeds some people did who then became dictators.

The question is how many steps can he take before it's too late to stop it?

well no, that is a silly argument, that is a bit like me saying freedom of expression is a lot more restrictive in Germany, as you saw with the Bohmermann affair, so how long before the Death camps spring back up?

The First Amendment is carved in stone in the U.S. Constitution and the Courts are there to protect it.

The Obama WH did a lot worse. The Obama admin declared war on Fox news and cut off their access. The Obama admin sent more people to jail for leaking info to journalists than any previous admin. The Obama admin bugged journalist's phones, etc.

Where was the outrage back then?

u crank

02-26-17, 05:47 AM

True, but it's a first step in the direction. Erdoghan didn't proclaim himself dictator of Turkey for life overnight either and now he de facto is.
The problem here is that a lot of actions done by Trump and his guys have the same handwriting as the deeds some people did who then became dictators.

The question is how many steps can he take before it's too late to stop it?

To me it seems like you (and others) are making a very big assumption here. You are assuming that Trump wants to be a dictatorial leader of The United States of America. 'They' said the same thing about Obama. For me I would like to see some solid evidence that this is a possibility or that Trump even wants to do it. Being the dictator of Turkey and being the dictator of the USA would be two completely different things. I don't think that needs explaining but I would say that the people who voted for Trump would probable be the most vigorously apposed to such a thing.

ikalugin

02-26-17, 06:33 AM

From Oberon's link, by Spicer:
"Trump WH won't ban specific media outlets. "That's what makes a democracy a democracy vs a dictatorship"

That is what makes Russia a flawless democracy, with their Pravda.
I guess Breitbart, Fox News, Daily Caller and American Thinker will be generously allowed to report what is regarded as "News", by Trump :03:
Ironically in Russia the state (through state owned companies) owns some of the opposition media that bashes the state. An example would be Echo of Moscow radio station, which belongs to Gasprom Media. In addition to that a lot of our media is published in a partnership with foreighn media, for example Vedomosti newspaper works with FT and WSJ, in fact that specific newspaper used to be foreighn owned.

Only comparatively recently we introduced copy pasted US laws regarding foreighn agents and introduced restrictions on the media ownership by foreighn companies and citisens. Those measures seek to restrict the ability of foreighn agents, such as USG (via sponsored "NGOs"), to manipulate internal political situation in Russia.

Oberon

02-26-17, 06:37 AM

I don't think he wants to be a dictator, but he does want the press to stop criticising him and he wants a freer hand to implement his and his advisors ideas, and since he's not been in politics before he doesn't understand that this is not how things tend to work.

Schroeder

02-26-17, 06:51 AM

To me it seems like you (and others) are making a very big assumption here. You are assuming that Trump wants to be a dictatorial leader of The United States of America.
I don't think he actually wants that (yet). I just say that he behaves like Putin, Erdoghan and co. and that is worrying enough. We'll have to see where this is going but I don't like the general direction at all.

u crank

02-26-17, 07:04 AM

but he does want the press to stop criticising him and he wants a freer hand to implement his and his advisors ideas,

I think it goes without saying that every politician wants this to some degree.

And this conflict between the President and media types that he doesn't like is nothing new.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html

From Michael Clemente, senior vice president for news and editorial programming at Fox..

Mr. Clemente suggested that the fight was part of a larger White House strategy to marginalize critics. He cited a report in Politico about a strategy session in August at which officials discussed plans to move more aggressively against opponents.

Sound familiar?:hmmm:

Rockstar

02-26-17, 09:09 AM

MaDef

02-26-17, 09:11 AM

Oberon

02-26-17, 09:21 AM

I think it goes without saying that every politician wants this to some degree.

And this conflict between the President and media types that he doesn't like is nothing new.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html

From Michael Clemente, senior vice president for news and editorial programming at Fox..

Sound familiar?:hmmm:

Absolutely, the role of government does tend to be to create more government. As the old saying goes 'The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy'.
But, it's been a long time since the White House has actively shunned select media from White House briefing or gaggle though, hasn't it? I mean, even the chief political anchor at Fox thought this was a step too far:

https://twitter.com/BretBaier/status/835206562549493760

u crank

02-26-17, 10:15 AM

But, it's been a long time since the White House has actively shunned select media from White House briefing or gaggle though, hasn't it?

In a perfect world the role of the media would be to simply report the news and separate their opinion pieces from that news. I think it is safe to say that those days are gone for good and a new reality is with us. In the case of President Trump and the 'left leaning' media it's hard to say who is the enabler.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/opinion/sunday/trump-vs-press-crazy-stupid-love.html

And while many in the press may disdain the way Trump uses them to rile up crowds and deflect from transgressions, they know they have a rare story and a tantalizing, antagonizing protagonist.

As the New York Times White House reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted in January: “Trump has frequently complained about my reporting,” yet, “He remains the most accessible politician I’ve ever covered.”

Who needs who the most here? Hard to say but I have a feeling that Trump is much more valuable to these people than Clinton would have ever been. For me to believe that these media outlets are criticizing Trump on principle alone would take a lot of alcohol and a briefcase full of money. :D

From the same article....

He is the biggest story on the planet, “King Lear meets Rodney Dangerfield,” as Lloyd Grove tweeted after Trump’s recent press conference. As our new president is well aware, he’s a rainmaker and a troublemaker for media.

August

02-26-17, 10:44 AM

The Obama WH did a lot worse. The Obama admin declared war on Fox news and cut off their access. The Obama admin sent more people to jail for leaking info to journalists than any previous admin. The Obama admin bugged journalist's phones, etc.

Where was the outrage back then?

Exactly.

ValoWay

02-26-17, 04:24 PM

nah, trump doesn't wanna be a dictator! He merely wants to make life easier for those who really really need it! :03:

Oberon

02-26-17, 04:40 PM

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder963/500x/60343963.jpg

Bilge_Rat

02-27-17, 06:28 AM

But, it's been a long time since the White House has actively shunned select media from White House briefing or gaggle though, hasn't it?

Nope, Obama did exactly the same.

Skybird

02-27-17, 07:41 AM

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/02/26/reichstag-fire-manipulating-terror-to-end-democracy/

The Reichstag fire shows how quickly a modern republic can be transformed into an authoritarian regime. There is nothing new, to be sure, in the politics of exception. The American Founding Fathers knew that the democracy they were creating was vulnerable to an aspiring tyrant who might seize upon some dramatic event as grounds for the suspension of our rights. As James Madison nicely put it, tyranny arises “on some favorable emergency.” What changed with the Reichstag fire was the use of terrorism as a catalyst for regime change. To this day, we do not know who set the Reichstag fire: the lone anarchist executed by the Nazis or, as new scholarship by Benjamin Hett suggests, the Nazis themselves. What we do know is that it created the occasion for a leader to eliminate all opposition.

Erdoghan. Putin. Trump (but also the years before, Patriot Act and all that). A clear pattern. The same pattern in all three cases.

STEED

02-27-17, 08:31 AM

SKY NEWS - Does the Oscars blunder have implications for the US election result? Are Russian hackers to blame? Social media is in meltdown.

White House spokesman said President Trump will be speaking to Mr Putin in due course about this matter. :03:

August

02-27-17, 10:18 AM

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/02/26/reichstag-fire-manipulating-terror-to-end-democracy/

Erdoghan. Putin. Trump (but also the years before, Patriot Act and all that). A clear pattern. The same pattern in all three cases.

The US is not Russia or Turkey That could never happen here.
And what does this rant have to do with book reviews?

AVGWarhawk

02-27-17, 10:40 AM

Nope, Obama did exactly the same.

FOX and Obama were not friends. :yep: The memory span of most Americans goes back to the last 10 minutes of their life. After that....it's all a bit fuzzy.

Skybird

02-27-17, 11:23 AM

Many US conservatives like Ayn Rand. Trump likes Ayn Rand. I like Atlas Shrugged. But I do not like Trump. Why Ayn Rand also would not have liked Trump, and would have found Trump treacherous, is very well - and objectively - explained by historian Jennifer Burns in this essay:

http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2017-02/ayn-rand-donald-trump-libertarianism-bestseller/komplettansicht

Dont worry, its in English.

Too many conservatives cheery-pick from Rand's conception of her so-called objectivistic philospophy, and ignore what does not suit their taste or opportunistic needs. But that is the problem, it is not so easily possible to just cherry-pick without betray the rest of Rand's conceptions as well. As Burns puts it in the end of her essay: "In the end, what Rand has imparted to American politics today is not so much an ideology, as an attitude: [...]"

Skybird

02-27-17, 11:35 AM

And here is Nate Silver with a hidden warning that Trump opponents and the Democrats maybe repeat the same mistake they already fell to during the election campaign: to mistake wishful thinking with reality.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-polls-differ-on-trumps-popularity/

In some ways, the pattern reflected the one before November’s election (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/), when reporters and pundits selectively interpreted the evidence and assumed that Hillary Clinton was a much heavier favorite than she really was (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-dont-ignore-the-polls-clinton-leads-but-its-a-close-race/) based on the polls. Trump is not very popular, but he’s also no more unpopular than Barack Obama was for much of his presidency (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html). If his numbers hold where they they are right now — especially among registered voters — Republicans would probably hold their own in 2018, and 2020 would be another highly competitive election.

Like it or not - Trump is more popular than those opposing him want to realise he is.

Me, I just scratch my head why this is so - but I take note of that it is so.

Skybird

02-27-17, 11:38 AM

That could never happen here.
No?

Oberon

02-27-17, 01:12 PM

No?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can't_Happen_Here :haha:

Oberon

02-27-17, 01:18 PM

Few people are as critical about Bush than I am, but I have to acknowledge that Bush refrained from breaking this tradition.

http://www.today.com/news/george-w-bush-opens-trump-s-war-media-russia-travel-t108627?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

Bilge_Rat

02-27-17, 02:46 PM

http://www.today.com/news/george-w-bush-opens-trump-s-war-media-russia-travel-t108627?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

typical sleazy journalism.

Bush was appearing on a non-political topic, his work on behalf of wounded veterans, but the interviewer was asking him loaded questions on Trump. The media then takes snippets of those answers out of context to give the impression that Bush is criticizing Trump.

I watched the entire interview and Bush was careful to give non-committal answers to all topics, whether the role of the press or the travel ban that do not take a position on Trump's policies.

Bush was acting with class which is much too rare these days, the journalist was not.

Mr Quatro

02-27-17, 03:06 PM

Don't be fooled! The New York Times is no friend of Trump ... they have been making money off of his foolishness for a long time and their readership/subscribers have grown to large sizes.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/26/media/new-york-times-editor-dean-baquet-subscriptions/index.html

President Trump's attacks on the media are the "best thing" to happen to New York Times subscriptions, the newspaper's editor says.
Times executive editor Dean Baquet was asked by CNN's Brian Stelter on "Reliable Sources" on Sunday about how Trump has affected readership.
"Every time he tweets, it drives subscriptions wildly," Baquet said.

Below is old news, but proves they have an agenda against the POTUS and they are making money at the same time.

Barrage of Attack Ads Threatens to Undermine Donald Trump ...
https://www.nytimes.com/.../us/politics/donald-trump-negative-ads.html
Apr 12, 2016 · Credit Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times ... assailing Mr. Trump, according to a New York Times analysis of

Which Ad Portraying Donald Trump as a Misogynist Was More ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/us/politics/ads-against-trump.html
May 18, 2016 · Video embedded · ... titled “Speak,” that uses Donald J. Trump’s own statements against him to depict ...

Republican Group to Intensify Campaign Against Trump - The ...
www.nytimes.com/live/super-tuesday-2016-elections/group-formed-to
... is boosting its staff and planning a full-fledged campaign against Donald J. Trump

ikalugin

02-27-17, 03:10 PM

Immagine if Trump owned the media and media was very pro Trump/

Bilge_Rat

02-27-17, 03:18 PM

The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep David Nunes, said there are no links between Trump and Russia:

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes said Monday he has seen no evidence of improper communications between the Trump campaign and Russia — and made no apologies for helping the White House knock down allegations of regular contacts.

(...)

“We still have not seen any evidence of anyone from the Trump campaign or any other campaign, for that matter, that's communicated with the Russian government,” Nunes said at a news briefing. He explained that while his committee’s investigation was still in its early stages, intelligence agencies have briefed him on the “high points” of their own probes.

“As of right now, I don't have any evidence of any phone calls,” Nunes said. “That doesn't mean they don't exist, but I don't have that. And what I've been told by many folks is that there's nothing there.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-russia-connection-devin-nunes-response-235439

Catfish

02-27-17, 03:46 PM

We willl see how Trump tries to make America great again, from conservative fantasies to believing in Ayn Rand to whatever.
Neither Germany nor the EU, nor the UK for that matter, can rely on transatlantic ties any more. :hmmm:

Oberon

02-27-17, 03:50 PM

Neither Germany nor the EU, nor the UK for that matter, can rely on transatlantic ties any more. :hmmm:

Try telling that to the Brexiteers. :nope:

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/trump-farage.jpg

Look at him, it's like a kid being allowed to go up to the cockpit. :haha:

eddie

02-27-17, 04:26 PM

The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep David Nunes, said there are no links between Trump and Russia:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-russia-connection-devin-nunes-response-235439

"Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, disputed Nunes’ remarks and said it was too early to draw any conclusions about whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
“The fact is, we haven’t even begun to sit down with the FBI to talk about what have they looked at, who have they talked to, what leads have been pursued, what haven’t,” Schiff said in an interview on MSNBC following Nunes’ news briefing. “The reality is we don't know whether there were contacts with Trump campaign officials. That’s one of the core issues that we’re going to investigate. Having conversations with intelligence community leaders is not evidence.”

Oberon

02-27-17, 04:29 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39082013

Some more fake news for you all.

August

02-27-17, 06:36 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39082013

Some more fake news for you all.

So what's your point?

eddie

02-27-17, 07:30 PM

MaDef

02-27-17, 07:35 PM

August

02-27-17, 08:28 PM

Why is the US taxpayers paying for Secret Service Protection for Trumps son's when they go on business trips that will only benefit the family business? If they were on Govt business that would be different, but this is private family business, makes a big difference! I'm not saying they shouldn't have protection, but they can afford to pay it themselves, not us. Tight wad bastids is all they are, thinking we owe them everything.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/video/trump-kids-overseas-business-trips-costing-taxpayers/vi-AAnAcNf

So you're saying that the Presidents family should not have Secret Service protection unless they are not only employed by the government but on the clock. :hmmm:

I'm thinking that your new found frugality is motivated by your dislike of the political party of their parent.

eddie

02-27-17, 11:28 PM

Oberon

02-27-17, 11:36 PM

So what's your point?

That's the question isn't it? We'll find out as time goes on. It's not as if it's anything that will affect most of us here anyway.

Catfish

02-28-17, 03:03 AM

[...] It's not as if it's anything that will affect most of us here anyway.

Until we see the flashes, and the mushroom clouds.

"We have to start winning wars again":
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/27/1638271/-Trump-We-have-to-start-winning-wars-again

"How about a nice game of chess?" Anyone remembers?

ikalugin

02-28-17, 06:54 AM

Don't care what you think August, they are doing family business, use their own family security they had before for that stuff! I don't care what you think about my politics, cause I don't give a rats arse about yours. You act like no one else can have an opinion other then what you believe. You know what you can do with that idea too!
The rules apply to everyone equally.

Trump's son gets security not because he cannot afford his own and not because Trump ordered SS to do it, but because the rules say that the president's son has to be protected.

If you want to amend this rule, remember - it would apply to other leaders you may like. So should a son of such POTUS get murdered or otherwise harmed on his private trip (and let us be honest - they do it all the time because they are free individuals) you would have to accept the moral responsibility. Unlee ofcourse you want the rule ammended b/c it is Trump's son and would like the rule changed back when Trump is out of the office.

ikalugin

02-28-17, 06:56 AM

"How about a nice game of chess?" Anyone remembers?
We do, though we also remember the things of days long passed like the 4th crusade.

August

02-28-17, 07:40 AM

That's the question isn't it? We'll find out as time goes on. It's not as if it's anything that will affect most of us here anyway.

That's ridiculous. You must have some reason for posting news of an crime that both parties have strongly denounced. A crime that has been repeated both in my country and yours, not to mention numerous other places around the world for many decades. A crime that has absolutely nothing to do with US politics.

Rockstar

02-28-17, 09:31 AM

27% drop in illegal border crossings and people are lining up by the drove at U.S. Passport centers. Whats a passport go for these days $120.00? Great again. :D

Jimbuna

02-28-17, 09:56 AM

This is breaking out in the UK news...

US President Donald Trump has said he believes Barack Obama is behind the protests against Republican lawmakers, and national security leaks.
He told Fox News: "I think President Obama's behind it because his people are certainly behind it", but added: "I also think it's just politics".
Mr Trump offered no evidence for his claims; his predecessor in the White House has not commented

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39113446

STEED

02-28-17, 10:07 AM

^No hard evidence is nothing more than here say.

Rockstar

02-28-17, 10:09 AM

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7f1ivvn9K1r8rtom.gif

Sure it may be breaking and might even make a good headline to increase sales but it's certainly not important nor is it anything new to politics.

Bilge_Rat

02-28-17, 10:22 AM

Trump is referring to this, which not surprisingly is getting very little play in the mainstream press:

Obama-linked activists have a ‘training manual’ for protesting Trump

An Obama-tied activist group training tens of thousands of agitators to protest President Trump’s policies plans to hit Republican lawmakers supporting those policies even harder this week, when they return home for the congressional recess and hold town hall meetings and other functions.

Organizing for Action, a group founded by former President Barack Obama and featured prominently on his new post-presidency website, is distributing a training manual to anti-Trump activists that advises them to bully GOP lawmakers into backing off support for repealing ObamaCare, curbing immigration from high-risk Islamic nations and building a border wall.

In a new Facebook post, OFA calls on activists to mobilize against Republicans from now until Feb. 26, when “representatives are going to be in their home districts.”

(..)

The manual, published with OFA partner “Indivisible,” advises protesters to go into halls quietly so as not to raise alarms, and “grab seats at the front of the room but do not all sit together.” Rather, spread out in pairs to make it seem like the whole room opposes the Republican host’s positions. “This will help reinforce the impression of broad consensus.” It also urges them to ask “hostile” questions — while keeping “a firm hold on the mic” — and loudly boo the GOP politician if he isn’t “giving you real answers.”

http://nypost.com/2017/02/18/obama-linked-activists-have-a-training-manual-for-protesting-trump/

here is the link to Obama's website, the link to OFA is at the bottom of the page:

https://barackobama.com/

not hard to put two and two together.

STEED

02-28-17, 10:27 AM

Trump should get on with the job and stop being detracted over these little issues.

August

02-28-17, 11:23 AM

Trump should get on with the job and stop being detracted over these little issues.

I believe he's trying but a big problem is that these stupid little issues are broadcast over the huge megaphone of the Dem media which makes them seem to be far bigger problems than they really are and therefore it's difficult to ignore them. Look at certain members of this forum repeating every manufactured claim no matter how far fetched as if they were real.

Personally I can't wait for the GoP to grow a spine and begin to use the Dems own tactics against them. Let's see how they take to having bus loads of paid protesters start invade their events, disrupt their speeches and rallies. Turn about is fair play.

Oberon

02-28-17, 12:14 PM

That's ridiculous. You must have some reason for posting news of an crime that both parties have strongly denounced. A crime that has been repeated both in my country and yours, not to mention numerous other places around the world for many decades. A crime that has absolutely nothing to do with US politics.

We'll see, perhaps the organisation that Anne Franks father set up might have an opinion on it, but that's probably fake news or some kind of Democratic conspiracy too, isn't it? Perhaps those Jewish scholars across the US, over 250 of them, might have an opinion...but then they're just intellectuals and we know that they're all Democrat spies, aren't they?

I believe he's trying but a big problem is that these stupid little issues are broadcast over the huge megaphone of the Dem media which makes them seem to be far bigger problems than they really are and therefore it's difficult to ignore them. Look at certain members of this forum repeating every manufactured claim no matter how far fetched as if they were real.

Oh bless you, is it frustrating? Is it annoying that these things are constantly being used against your party? That people are just reciting what they see from random websites with little to no consideration on how accurate it might be?
Guess it's a good thing that no-one did that sort of thing over the last eight years then, isn't it?

Like you say, turnabout is fair play.

Personally I can't wait for the GoP to grow a spine and begin to use the Dems own tactics against them. Let's see how they take to having bus loads of paid protesters start invade their events, disrupt their speeches and rallies. Turn about is fair play.

Well, it'd be one way to get all those Trump supporters to actually turn up to places.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/27/louie-gohmert/protesters-are-paid-disrupt-town-hall-meetings-goh/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/25/blog-posting/pants-fire-george-soros-money-womens-march-protest/

http://www.snopes.com/paid-protesters-donald-trumps-inauguration/

August

02-28-17, 01:41 PM

We'll see, perhaps the organisation that Anne Franks father set up might have an opinion on it, but that's probably fake news or some kind of Democratic conspiracy too, isn't it? Perhaps those Jewish scholars across the US, over 250 of them, might have an opinion...but then they're just intellectuals and we know that they're all Democrat spies, aren't they?

Nice try to imply that everything bad that happens is somehow the fault of the president, or that anyone here is denying that the cemetery was desecrated, or that anyone here would condone such a crime. Won't work though. Like I said and you ignored this is nothing new in either of our countries. Trying to blame Trump for it is just ridiculous and mark my words it will backfire. It already has given that public confidence in the media is at a 20 year low.

Oh bless you, is it frustrating? Is it annoying that these things are constantly being used against your party? That people are just reciting what they see from random websites with little to no consideration on how accurate it might be?
Guess it's a good thing that no-one did that sort of thing over the last eight years then, isn't it?

Like you say, turnabout is fair play.

Show me where the Republicans paid people to protest and disrupt Democrat events. Show me where the Republicans bused in protestors. Yes it is a little irritating but it will only increase the resolve of his supporters while driving support away from the Democrats. They don't change their tune I predict the 2018 elections to be a Dem blood bath.

Well, it'd be one way to get all those Trump supporters to actually turn up to places.

Only place they needed to show up was the voting booth and they did. Too bad for you eh?

Oberon

02-28-17, 01:59 PM

Nice try to imply that everything bad that happens is somehow the fault of the president, or that anyone here is denying that the cemetery was desecrated, or that anyone here would condone such a crime. Won't work though. Like I said and you ignored this is nothing new in either of our countries. Trying to blame Trump for it is just ridiculous and mark my words it will backfire. It already has given that public confidence in the media is at a 20 year low.

I dare say it will, I think most people don't blame Trump though, they blame his team.

Show me where the Republicans paid people to protest and disrupt Democrat events. Show me where the Republicans bused in protestors. Yes it is a little irritating but it will only increase the resolve of his supporters while driving support away from the Democrats. They don't change their tune I predict the 2018 elections to be a Dem blood bath.

http://www.snopes.com/anti-trump-protesters-bused-into-austin/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-meetings-goh/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/27/louie-gohmert/protesters-are-paid-disrupt-town-hall-meetings-goh/)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...march-protest/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/25/blog-posting/pants-fire-george-soros-money-womens-march-protest/)

http://www.snopes.com/paid-protester...-inauguration/ (http://www.snopes.com/paid-protesters-donald-trumps-inauguration/)

We'll see, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump did two terms, it's going to take a while for the Dems to reorganise themselves.

Only place they needed to show up was the voting booth and they did. Too bad for you eh?

Not as many as turned up for the opposition though, but that's the system for you...and before that Trump line gets wheeled out again:

http://www.snopes.com/three-million-votes-in-presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/

Oberon

02-28-17, 02:13 PM

^No hard evidence is nothing more than here say.

http://www.snopes.com/obama-army-anti-trump-activists/

Bilge_Rat

02-28-17, 02:25 PM

http://www.snopes.com/obama-army-anti-trump-activists/

snopes and politifact are not credible sources.

why don't you try to post an actual news source for a change.

August

02-28-17, 02:40 PM

Not as many as turned up for the opposition though, but that's the system for you...and before that Trump line gets wheeled out again:

Well the only vote that counted in November, that will EVER count in November, is the Electoral vote and they lost that decisively.

They'll loose again in 2018 and loose more ground in Congress too.

Oberon

02-28-17, 02:51 PM

snopes and politifact are not credible sources.

why don't you try to post an actual news source for a change.

Because no-one seems to know what one of those is.

Well the only vote that counted in November, that will EVER count in November, is the Electoral vote and they lost that decisively.

They'll loose again in 2018 and loose more ground in Congress too.

We'll see. Perhaps if they behave like Tea Party Republicans they'll get the vote, who knows? :haha:

Bilge_Rat

02-28-17, 03:02 PM

here is how you get from the town hall protests to Obama using actual news sources:

1. a group called "Indivisible" put out the booklet on how to disrupt TownHalls:

https://www.indivisibleguide.com/web#header-chapter-four

2. "Indivisible" was founded by former democratic aides specifically to disrupt Trump:

Dubbed “Indivisible,” the group launched as a way for Padilla and a handful of fellow ex-Democratic aides to channel their post-election heartbreak into a manual for quashing President Donald Trump’s agenda. They drafted a 26-page protest guide for activists, full of pointers on how to bird dog their members of Congress in the language of Capitol insiders.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/protest-movement-republicans-234863

3. Indivisible partnered with "Organising for Action":

Obama-Aligned Organizing for Action Relaunches for Trump Era

(...)

And the group has teamed up with Indivisible, a buzzy newcomer to the progressive movement, to offer organizing training that began Thursday night with a video conference. A combined 25,000 people have registered to participate in those trainings, OFA said.

(...)

The goal is to further hinder the already stalling momentum around repeal the Affordable Care Act.

For instance, OFA helped get Obamacare supporters to flood townhalls for Florida Republican Rep. Gus Bilirakis, Illinois GOP Rep. Peter Roskam, and California Rep. Tom McClintock, which lead to national news coverage about anti-repeal backlash

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/obama-aligned-organizing-action-relaunches-trump-era-n719311

Personally, I have no issue with Obama being involved, this is just politics.

But it is laughable to argue these TownHalls are not being manipulated by Democratic activists when the evidence is so transparent.

Oberon

02-28-17, 03:17 PM

No, that's how you get to Democrats who worked under Obama, where's the actual link from them to Obama? Where's the memo from Obama telling them to go ahead and do it? As the third of those sources says:

What role Obama himself will play remains unclear.

Of course Town Halls are being gone at by Democrat activists, and I doubt very much they're being paid for it, most Liberals I know would do it voluntarily. The goal is to confront and challenge every single move that the new administration makes, and if that scares the GOP that much then perhaps they should avoid politics because it's a messy world. Look at what happened to Gabby Giffords, she got a bit more than a rowdy crowd, but her town halls kept going even if she couldn't attend because she was in hospital fighting for her life.
Should Liberal activists start fights? No. Should they defend themselves if attacked? Yes. Should they make verbal confrontations of Republican senators? Yes. Should they shoot Republican senators? No.
Freedom of speech. If the GOP wants to come and return the favour then by all means go for it, who knows, if both sides talk at each other enough something might actually stick and some kind of middle ground might be found...but I don't bet on it.
No, this is how it's going to be, the Liberals already consider themselves the 'Resistance', and there's numerically more of them who voted than conservative voters, so you can expect disruption to Republican plans wherever and whenever it can be done. To be fair, the boss probably won't help himself much either by freely giving out soundbites to be used against him, but some people just can't help themselves. :03:

Bilge_Rat

02-28-17, 03:37 PM

No, that's how you get to Democrats who worked under Obama, where's the actual link from them to Obama? Where's the memo from Obama telling them to go ahead and do it? As the third of those sources says:

Agreed there is no smoking gun, but he founded OFA. He has a link to OFA on the front page of his website and OFA is involved in disrupting the TownHalls.

It is not too hard to make the link that he is involved to some degree.

Oberon

02-28-17, 03:50 PM

Agreed there is no smoking gun, but he founded OFA. He has a link to OFA on the front page of his website and OFA is involved in disrupting the TownHalls.

It is not too hard to make the link that he is involved to some degree.

You can make the link, yes, but you can equally not make it. Should you make it, is perhaps the next best question, without that smoking gun. After all, without that bit of evidence, what is to stop it being labelled as 'fake news'?

August

02-28-17, 03:58 PM

You can make the link, yes, but you can equally not make it. Should you make it, is perhaps the next best question, without that smoking gun. After all, without that bit of evidence, what is to stop it being labelled as 'fake news'?

It's certainly a lot less fake sounding than the claptrap that you find and post here. Just sayin...

Bilge_Rat

02-28-17, 04:00 PM

You can make the link, yes, but you can equally not make it. Should you make it, is perhaps the next best question, without that smoking gun. After all, without that bit of evidence, what is to stop it being labelled as 'fake news'?

because of how Trump worded it:

He told Fox News: "I think President Obama's behind it because his people are certainly behind it", but added: "I also think it's just politics".

As you can see, his claim is 100% accurate, so it is not "fake news". :ping:

Oberon

02-28-17, 04:14 PM

It's certainly a lot less fake sounding than the claptrap that you find and post here. Just sayin...

Love you too. :O: :haha: Besides, one mans claptrap is another mans news, haven't you figured that out yet? :03: This is how it is now.

because of how Trump worded it:

As you can see, his claim is 100% accurate, so it is not "fake news". :ping:

That's fair enough.

August

02-28-17, 04:24 PM

That's fair enough.

At least until the next thing that gets you upset right?

Platapus

02-28-17, 04:49 PM

Why is the US taxpayers paying for Secret Service Protection for Trumps son's when they go on business trips that will only benefit the family business? If they were on Govt business that would be different, but this is private family business, makes a big difference! I'm not saying they shouldn't have protection, but they can afford to pay it themselves, not us. Tight wad bastids is all they are, thinking we owe them everything.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/video/trump-kids-overseas-business-trips-costing-taxpayers/vi-AAnAcNf

For the simple reason that

A. By law, the USSS is required to provide protection to the president's immediate family

B. There is no proviso in the law that allows the president to substitute their own private protection services

c. Whether the president's family can afford private protection services is not considered when assigning USSS protection.

D. There are no laws that state that presidential family members can't do private activities.

E. There are laws that restrict presidential family members from conducting official government business.

That's why.

Bilge_Rat

02-28-17, 04:50 PM

actually I like our little chats. Oberon is a tough opponent. :salute:

vienna

02-28-17, 04:55 PM

Only place they needed to show up was the voting booth and they did. Too bad for you eh?

Yeah, but not enough of them to give him the popular vote majority or to fill all those vast empty space at the Inauguration, a couple of things Trump still has a burr in his saddle about and about which he still whines like a little, spoiled brat. It's time for him to put on some big boy pants, grow a spine and do a lot more walking and a lot less talking. He still hasn't effectively broken through the 50% approval rating, just as he wasn't able to get more than 46% of the actual voters to choose him and his views. He is still a minority POTUS and if he wants to remedy that position he needs to stop looking for other people to blame and prove himself by actually accomplishing something beneficial to the US populace, not just to his cronies. So far, all he's done is make big promises and issue questionably enforceable orders; issuing orders is not progress or accomplishment: if you want an example of how an EO means nothing til its done, look no further than Obama and his order closing Gitmo. You can have all the elaborate EO signing ceremonies you want, but if it doesn't pass muster with Congress and/or, particularly, the Fed courts and SCOTUS, all you really have is a fancy looking piece of paper. You don't win a race by just starting: you actually have to cross the finish line...

There are more US citizens and actual voters who didn't want Trump in the White House and there are far more of them at rallies against Trump than at those for Trump. What that means for the Mid-Term Elections and for Trump's reelection, if he lasts that long, is not looking good for the GOP or Trump...

Too bad for him...and you, eh?...

<O>

Oberon

02-28-17, 08:39 PM

At least until the next thing that gets you upset right?

Got to keep you on your toes. :03:

actually I like our little chats. Oberon is a tough opponent. :salute:

Thank you, you're pretty good yourself. :salute:

Don't get me wrong, as liberals go I'm not the most lefty lefty that you'll find, you just need to look at how highly I view our current Labour party leader to work that out, so there's some areas that we'd probably find common ground on, but there are other areas where we definitely won't, and that's how it goes. There were plenty of upset conservatives over the last eight years, and there'll be plenty of upset liberals over the next eight. After that? Who can say.

Coming back to the present though, it seems that the Donald and the Republican Congress could well be about to butt heads over the cuts to the State Department and Foreign Aid. Will be interesting to see how he reacts to that on twitter if they decisively chuck it out. :hmmm:

August

02-28-17, 08:43 PM

https://i.imgur.com/uO3kLbm.jpg

Oberon

02-28-17, 08:58 PM

:haha::haha::haha::har::har::har:

Ok, that's brilliant. :up:

Onkel Neal

02-28-17, 10:47 PM

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2017/02/28/roberts-trump-open-legal-status-immigrants-waitwhat/98547708/

Just weeks after embarking upon a massive crackdown of immigrants here illegally, President Trump is now saying that he’s open to an immigration overhaul that would grant legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants who don't have serious criminal records.

If true, he's done. His signature position out the window, may as well join the Democrats, quit my job, and get signed up for some benefits. Where'd I leave my fishing pole?

Oberon

02-28-17, 11:08 PM

I thought you were in socialist hippy Europe at the moment anyway Neal. :O:

Still, kudos to Trump, he didn't manage to shoot himself during this speech, although I'm not sure the tribute to Ryan Owens will be enough to heal the clustertruck that has been the fallout from that op, but at least a tribute was made.

I'm still not convinced he's presidential material, but I have to give him kudos for not screwing this particular event up by spending ninety minutes rambling about himself and how huge his support is.

em2nought

02-28-17, 11:54 PM

Like it or not - Trump is more popular than those opposing him want to realise he is.

Me, I just scratch my head why this is so - but I take note of that it is so.

Conservatives have learned to lie on polls in order to discredit the media. Not that the media needed much help with that. :03:

It helps that if conservatives actually express their views the other side goes ape$hit, and starts throwing around all kinds of nasty unjustified words. I think all I'd have to do to avoid jury duty(crime is mostly a democrat thing anyway :D) is tell them I voted for Trump. :doh:

MaDef

03-01-17, 12:20 AM

Conservatives have learned to lie on polls in order to discredit the media. Not that the media needed much help with that. :03:

It helps that if conservatives actually express their views the other side goes ape$hit, and starts throwing around all kinds of nasty unjustified words. I think all I'd have to do to avoid jury duty(crime is mostly a democrat thing anyway :D) is tell them I voted for Trump. :doh:I know that was a tongue-in-cheek comment, but there may be some truth in that statement. I've seen a few studies/articles that intimate as much. here's a link to a 2014 article supporting that view.
jail-survey-7-in-10-felons-register-as-democrats (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jail-survey-7-in-10-felons-register-as-democrats/article/2541412)

Catfish

03-01-17, 05:06 AM

Well it seems this cannot be taken for granted:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/01/ted-cruz/are-overwhelming-majority-violent-criminals-democr/

Of course, if Ted Cruz was a democrat, he would probably announce that republican suppression (with the police on their side) criminalizes and incarcerates more democrats. :haha:

em2nought

03-01-17, 09:05 AM

Well it seems this cannot be taken for granted:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/01/ted-cruz/are-overwhelming-majority-violent-criminals-democr/

You moved the bar to include violence, but that still doesn't invalidate the original "most criminals are democrats". :up:

Platapus

03-01-17, 09:27 AM

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2017/02/28/roberts-trump-open-legal-status-immigrants-waitwhat/98547708/

If true, he's done. His signature position out the window, may as well join the Democrats, quit my job, and get signed up for some benefits. Where'd I leave my fishing pole?

Remember that Trump was a Democrat for many years. He only acted like a Republican in order to con the voters. Successfully it turned out.

He is worse than a RINO. He is a Republican Only When Convenient --ROWC

Let's face it. Trump is the ultimate salesman. He will be what ever he thinks will win someone over. People who voted for him really need to read his ghost written books. Nothing that Trump has done should be a surprise. In that way, he is probably the most straightforward politician we have had in a long time.

Rockstar

03-01-17, 12:55 PM

Would it then be safe to say, his politics really cant fit in any one box?

Bilge_Rat

03-01-17, 01:24 PM

looks like the speech was a success:

The early reaction to President Donald Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress could hardly have been more clear: the speech was a hit with viewers.

A CBS News/YouGov poll of people who watched the address found 76 percent of viewers approved of the speech and 82 percent found it “presidential.” Seventy-one percent of viewers — and even 36 percent of Democrats — found the speech “unifying,” according to the poll. A CNN/ORC poll of speech-watchers found about 70 percent made them feel more optimistic about the direction of the country and nearly two-thirds felt Trump had the right priorities.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/polls-trump-speech-congress-2017-235558

ValoWay

03-01-17, 02:08 PM

yea, just read trumpy's speech to congress..

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39124596

What I like is that he takes steps against lobbying and wants to repair all those F'ed up neighborhoods in cities like detroit or philly.

We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption by imposing a 5 year ban on lobbying by executive branch officials -- and a lifetime ban on becoming lobbyists for a foreign government.

We've financed and built one global project after another, but ignored the fates of our children in the inner cities of Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit -- and so many other places throughout our land.

That's about it, though.. The rest sounds to me like the usual BS politicians always come up with to please the uneducated everyman like everything will be made in america, no more unemployment and that sort of jazz..

He goes on and on about illegal immigrants and even uses them as a scapegoat just like the one with the stache once did in germany with the jews..

...At the same time, my Administration has answered the pleas of the American people for immigration enforcement and border security. By finally enforcing our immigration laws, we will raise wages, help the unemployed, save billions of dollars, and make our communities safer for everyone. We want all Americans to succeed..

No bueno, mr. trump :nope:

Oberon

03-01-17, 02:18 PM

To be fair, the bar was pretty low.

Bilge_Rat

03-01-17, 03:41 PM

To be fair, the bar was pretty low.

you mean he did not drool...:haha:

I thought the speech was fine. Interesting to see how quickly Trump is finally pivoting from his campaign style into a more Presidential style. The substance of the policy is about the same, but the rhetoric has been toned down.

Reading between the lines, I get the impression Bannon has lost some of his influence after all those misteps over the past month. Notice for example that the "new" Travel Ban keeps getting pushed back and rumours keep coming out that it is being watered down.

Oberon

03-01-17, 05:17 PM

you mean he did not drool...:haha:

I thought the speech was fine. Interesting to see how quickly Trump is finally pivoting from his campaign style into a more Presidential style. The substance of the policy is about the same, but the rhetoric has been toned down.

Reading between the lines, I get the impression Bannon has lost some of his influence after all those misteps over the past month. Notice for example that the "new" Travel Ban keeps getting pushed back and rumours keep coming out that it is being watered down.

Indeed, there definitely seems to be some sort of shift going on behind the scenes, with the new ban being pushed back so to keep a hold of the good vibes from the speech as long as possible, as well as the watering down rumours and the recent rumour that he'd be open to making some illegals legal.
We'll see, if he can get through the rest of this month without putting his foot in it then he might be able to sway his polls about a bit.

Platapus

03-01-17, 08:09 PM

Onkel Neal

03-01-17, 10:15 PM

I thought you were in socialist hippy Europe at the moment anyway Neal. :O:

What? Haven't you been keeping up with the Neal Newsletter?

Sheesh. I've been back for 5 months. How'd you miss that?:shucks:

Gargamel

03-02-17, 01:07 AM

Obama also had a good speech writers. Most presidents have skilled speech writers.

Having a good speech writer does not a good president make.

I really can't care less what a politician says. I am more interested in their actions and the results of those actions.

I've been wondering when he'd get a speech writer.

But you're absolutely right, actions speak louder than words.

But most of the job of a politician is convincing their constituents that what they are doing is good for the people. A group will be hesitant to follow a leader if their words do not inspire confidence. So when a poor orator tries to enact something, people are less lenient towards accepting it.

vienna

03-02-17, 01:56 AM

Trump's performance at the State of the Union?...

Zoloft?... :D

The hits just keep on coming for the Trump-Russian connection:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/house-intelligence-committee-trump-russia_us_58b779c8e4b023018c6cf744

<O>

Oberon

03-02-17, 04:52 AM

What? Haven't you been keeping up with the Neal Newsletter?

Sheesh. I've been back for 5 months. How'd you miss that?:shucks:

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/stargate/images/4/4b/Stargate_Window_of_Opportunity_Fruitloops.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080719152700

"I'm not getting all my memos."

ikalugin

03-02-17, 07:03 AM

Good old witch hunts. I wonder if they are conducted by an agent of Putin to undermine US political elites through infighting.

Oberon

03-02-17, 07:30 AM

Sergey Kislyak must be the most forgettable man in the world, no-one can ever remember talking with him. :03:

em2nought

03-02-17, 08:36 AM

I went to the beach the other day, there were many Russians there. I may have said excuse me as I slid past one at the buffet, I guess that's the second strike against my career in US politics. Those Russian's like their buffets. I guess it sure beats a bread line. :D

Bilge_Rat

03-02-17, 09:41 AM

seems Obama also met with Kislyak...:ping:

http://www.russianembassy.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/medium/photos/Obama.jpg

http://www.russianembassy.org/article/russian-delegation-took-part-in-glacier-conference-in-anchorage

Oberon

03-02-17, 10:39 AM

But could he remember doing so afterwards?

https://68.media.tumblr.com/9f90cb40ef2580146399b7588a33c966/tumblr_o0ose9Noon1rc0hxao1_400.gif

Bilge_Rat

03-02-17, 12:01 PM

the scandal spreads, a Democratic senator also met with the Russian ambassador twice, despise first claiming she had never met him:

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) on Thursday drew jeers from Republicans after claiming she had never met with the Russian ambassador while calling for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign — despite evidence of two prior encounters with the controversial envoy.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/claire-mccaskill-met-russia-envoy-twitter-235607

Kislyak is subverting everyone! :haha:

Oberon

03-02-17, 12:07 PM

:haha: This is when the US finds out that all of its senators have been flipped by Moscow.

ikalugin

03-02-17, 02:22 PM

The "Dove" Obama, in addition to starting new wars increased capabilities of the US nuclear arsenal instead of disarming:
http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578

Oberon

03-02-17, 02:40 PM

Super-fuze...

So this massive new threat is basically an increase in accuracy? I presume that Russia and China have been actively working to make their arsenals more inaccurate. :hmmm:
And if Russia, quote "does not have a functioning space-based infrared early warning system" then what the heck is the Oko system, not to mention its replacement the EKS?

Daft article, there's a reason that a first-strike decapitation option on Russia hasn't been on the cards in quite a while and that's Dead-Hand, so even if Mount Yamantau gets turned into a giant crater the retaliatory strike will still go ahead, and there's all the mobile Topol-M launchers and SSBNs that no amount of forward planning will be able to decapitate in one strike, and if you miss even one then game over.

In short -

https://media.tenor.co/images/068156d1cfebbbef0799c54fd6f8858e/tenor.gif

ikalugin

03-02-17, 03:55 PM

I mean I guess you did see through the narrative he went for.

While there are some factual inaccuracies (ie we do technically have partial coverage with the single EKS satelite we currently operate with Oko dead, more in the links below) in that article, the core message is sound.

That being - the capabilities US develops can be viewed as first strike capabilities. While Russia (and China - China is the big unknown) may be developing first strike capabilities we (as in - Russian expert comunity) do not know about them. The capabilities we are known to develop (road and now rail mobile light ICBMs, additional SLBMs, various unconventional systems such as the Status-6 mentioned in the article) are second strike in nature.
The only program that may be counter force in nature is the heavy Sarmat ICBM with it's hypersonic gliders but that is yet to fly, much less enter service. If it does it would represent a small proportion of the Russian RVs unlike the mentioned US program.

More on the EW systems - the (old) diagram here:
http://russianforces.org/podvig/WindowsLiveWriter/Reducingtheriskofanaccidentallaunch_A336/20061000sgsf1.jpg
Show how geographic factors limit warning time without global EW coverage due to the lack of the forward deployed radars (that US has).

More on the EKS:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/eks.html

Daft article, there's a reason that a first-strike decapitation option on Russia hasn't been on the cards in quite a while and that's Dead-Hand, so even if Mount Yamantau gets turned into a giant crater the retaliatory strike will still go ahead, and there's all the mobile Topol-M launchers and SSBNs that no amount of forward planning will be able to decapitate in one strike, and if you miss even one then game over.
If you read the article fully you would note the mention of the US ABM program and it's plausible capability to intercept the remains of the 2nd strike. That is - the upgrade to the offensive potential (new, better RVs on the forward deplyed SSBNs) is made more concerning with the development of an ABM system.

Furthermore the problem is not in if that strike is actually possible but in the perceptions such capabilities create.

Oberon

03-02-17, 04:39 PM

The thing is, the US has two types of ballistic missile, the Minuteman III and the Trident II, one land based and one submarine based and both are quite old launch systems. Launching a first strike from land based silos in the US gives them an approximate thirty minute flight time, and any land based launch would be detected by an IR satellite due to the distinctive flare, it would then be confirmed by recon satellite and a counter-offensive launched.
SLBMs are dual purpose, they can be used as first strike as well as a second strike. Looking at the chart you posted on detection times you can see that the shortest launch to detonation cycle comes from an SLBM off Norway. Actually, probably one of the hardest ones to detect would be a terrain hugging cruise missile, something like the Klub or Tomahawk, but those are only really launch-able from the coastline and have limited range.

Now, ABMs, this is a destablising factor admittedly, but it's something that both sides have played with, remember the V-1000? I believe the current system is the A-135 which uses a nuclear warhead to destroy the incoming warheads, a bit overkill but you're pretty much guaranteed a kill, where-as with the US ABMs it gets a bit trickier, with essentially the response being flying a missile into the warhead, or an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle to give it the proper name. Which is great...if the warhead doesn't move, but the new R-28s and Topol-Ms have MIRV warheads which randomly adjust their heading on re-entry which makes intercepting them a much more difficult task.
Ultimately the best way to kill an ICBM is in the boost phase, and as it stands the US SM-3 has a range of around 400 miles, and then of course there's the Laser based systems which are...getting there...
In short, the system is not 100%, missiles will get through. I think if Russia is smart it will also look to boosting its ABM capabilities, after all if both sides have the shield as well as the sword then it negates the other and returns to parity. As you correctly put it, the danger comes when one side decides it can win a nuclear exchange, which as things currently stands would require a President which is willing to accept the loss of a certain percentage of US cities in exchange for victory. I don't think even the Donald is that bad.

ikalugin

03-02-17, 05:13 PM

I won't go too deep into the ABM and strategic stability discussion (as it is a serious academic topic not to mention off topic), I would only note that the ABM system US developes works both on mid course and is easily scalable unlike the previous such systems (deployed by US and USSR during the cold war) however we did (and maybe do) have a counter measure to the new developments - the silo APS (as in the active protection system - much like the ones developed for tanks), you can see an impression of such system here:

http://savepic.ru/13050491.jpg
http://savepic.ru/13055611.jpg

As well as the theatre level systems (like the US THAAD) in development.

The land attack missiles acutally posses less threat now due to the low speed and our improved ability to detect a massive cruise missile attack with the beyound horizon radar (specifically - Container radar "Контейнер" in Russian).

Back on topic:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/24/fox-news-investigation-dod-funded-school-at-center-federal-probes-over-suspected-chinese-military-ties.html
gonna be good.

Oberon

03-02-17, 07:21 PM

In regards to an earlier post of mine, a little follow up:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39142831

August

03-02-17, 07:23 PM

In regards to an earlier post of mine, a little follow up:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39142831

What does this have to do with US Politics?

Oberon

03-02-17, 08:13 PM

What does this have to do with US Politics?

You don't have to read it. :hmmm:

August

03-02-17, 08:42 PM

You don't have to read it. :hmmm:

It doesn't belong in this thread.

vienna

03-02-17, 09:33 PM

A bit off-topic and, yet, a bit on mark; an interesting idea from Norway:

http://www.niemanlab.org/2017/03/this-site-is-taking-the-edge-off-rant-mode-by-making-readers-pass-a-quiz-before-commenting/

https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/02/news-site-requires-quiz-before-you-comment/

<O>

Oberon

03-02-17, 09:40 PM

It doesn't belong in this thread.

You think that politics has no bearing on it?

August

03-02-17, 09:49 PM

You think that politics has no bearing on it?

I do not. Antisemitism or one persons response to it has nothing to do with US politics.

Oberon

03-02-17, 10:44 PM

I do not. Antisemitism or one persons response to it has nothing to do with US politics.

So US politics does not affect Antisemitism in any way, is that what you're saying?

AndyJWest

03-02-17, 11:14 PM

I do not. Antisemitism or one persons response to it has nothing to do with US politics.

Both the President and the Vice President seem to think it does. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39082013

August

03-02-17, 11:18 PM

So US politics does not affect Antisemitism in any way, is that what you're saying?

Members of Congress probably drink the majority of the hard spirits in Washington and therefore have an effect on local liquor prices. That does not mean a discussion on the origins of Scotch Whisky is on topic in the US politics thread.

Anti-semitism pre exists the US Federal government. Neither party espouses or condones antisemitism. What is the connection to US politics that you have so far failed to make?

ikalugin

03-03-17, 05:18 AM

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drewhansen/2016/02/09/unless-it-changes-capitalism-will-starve-humanity-by-2050/#63eca6827ccc

Look what I have found.

Catfish

03-03-17, 05:21 AM

[...]
Anti-semitism pre exists the US Federal government. Neither party espouses or condones antisemitism. What is the connection to US politics that you have so far failed to make?

I agree that anti-semitism and also racism exist, but certainly not only in the "US Federal government". There are always some people with such views, unfortunately, but it is seldom the official policy of governments outside of the Middle East. Today.

I fail to see the connection to Trump, though. I do believe he has an axe to grind with Mexicans and Muslims, but this is not anti-semitism by definition.

Bilge_Rat

03-03-17, 05:41 AM

You think that politics has no bearing on it?

you think the democrats are behind it?

Oberon

03-03-17, 07:07 AM

you think the democrats are behind it?

There is probably an element within the Democrat community which associates Jewish people with the mega-rich corporations which they hate, and then there is of course the anti-zionist subsection which I would hesitate slightly to call antisemetic, because although it is targetted against Jewish people it also contains other Jews who are against the decisions of certain members of the Israeli government.

However, the language and the tone of the Alt-Right...well, it's a hard thing for me to be un-biased about because obviously I am left-wing. In my view, the 'under-belly' of the right, the 'Hitler did nothing wrong' sub-section as well as the 'KKK' group, have had their morale boosted by the victory of the candidate that they supported. August is right, the same thing is happening in Europe, right and far-right populist parties have gained power and this victory has emboldened the darker fringes of that movement.
Is it Trumps fault? No, not at all, although his language and the divisionary tone of his campaign, the whole 'Us vs them' is only fuel to the fire, but it was not directly antisemitic. Are there elements of Trumps political group that are antisemitic...that depends on who you speak to really. But are there reasons for Jewish people in America to be concerned about the victory of Trumps campaign? I would say so, and a paragraph in the Chicago Tribune from a Jewish writer made a fair and balanced tone in my opinion.

"Right-wing and nativist violence does not always begin with Jews. But by fixating on attacks against Jews, we are forgetting the cardinal rule of Jewish self-survival: It may not start with us, but it always ends with us."

Words have consequences, and when you run an anti-globalist campaign, some people will view this as being a campaign to target the traditional globalist headliners, and that is stereotypically Jewish people.
It is rather strange though, I will admit, to see the right take on the mantle of anti-globalism which has traditionally over the past decades been a left-wing movement. I mean, I can't see people like Yubba taking part in the 'Battle of Seattle', and traditionally up until the past decade or so the Anti-globalist movement has been a part of the Anti-capitalist movement.
It's one of those confusing moments of political history I think, when things are in a flux, and what has been tradition is changing rapidly.

ikalugin

03-03-17, 08:09 AM

I wonder if we call Far-Right parties Far-Right because the western society went Far-Left.

Oberon

03-03-17, 08:44 AM

I wonder if we call Far-Right parties Far-Right because the western society went Far-Left.

:hmmm: It's possible, I don't know if I'd say it went Far-left, after all capitalism is still a thing, but it certainly did go left so it could create the impression that what was once not far-right is now so because of the positioning of the centre ground. :hmmm: Of course, even between America and Europe what is left and right varies greatly, Europe has always been more left wing than America.

Bilge_Rat

03-03-17, 09:31 AM

one of the dirty little secret of american politics which liberals do not want to face is that much of the rise in anti-semitism is driven by the radical left of the democratic party and their anti-Israel policies.

It is not coincidence that figures like Keith Ellison and Linda Sarsour are gaining power in the DNC at the same time that anti-semitism is on the rise:

Perez, Ellison and the Meaning of Antisemitism By Caroline Glick

Was former Secretary of labor and assistant attorney-general Tom Perez’s victory over Congressman Keith Ellison over the weekend in the race to serve as the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee a victory of centrist Democrats over radical leftists in the party? That is how the mainstream media is portraying Perez’s victory.

Along these lines, Prof. Allen Dershowitz, a lifelong Democrat who promised to quit the party if Ellison was elected due to his documented history of antisemitism and hostility toward Israel, hailed Perez’s election. Speaking to Fox News, Dershowitz said that Perez’s election over Ellison “is a victory in the war against bigotry, antisemitism, the anti-Israel push of the hard Left within the Democratic Party.”

There are two problems with Dershowitz’s view. First, Perez barely won. Ellison received nearly half the votes in two rounds of voting.

Tipping his hat to Ellison’s massive popularity among the party’s leadership and grassroots, Perez appointed the former Nation of Islam spokesman to serve as deputy DNC chairman as soon as his own victory was announced.

(...)

Perez is ready to cooperate with Ellison because the two men have the same ideological worldview and the same vision for the Democratic Party. As Mother Jones explained, “There’s truly not much ideological distance between the two.”

Far from being a victory for the centrist forces in the party, Perez’s win marks the solidification of the far Left’s control over the party of Harry Truman. Only hard leftists participated in a meaningful way in the race for leadership of the second largest party in America – a party that less than a decade ago controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.

(...)

While America as a whole will suffer from the radicalization of the Democratic Party, perhaps no group will suffer more from the far Left’s takeover of the party than the American Jewish community. The vast majority of American Jews give their partisan allegiance to the Democratic Party and their ideological allegiance to the Left.

While Perez made a name for himself by fighting the enforcement of US immigration and naturalization laws against illegal immigrants, and Ellison rose to prominence for his activism in radical African American and Islamic circles, thanks to the so-called intersectionality of the far Left, that makes the cause of one faction the cause of all factions, today Perez is as much an apologist for Israel bashers as Ellison.

(...)

This sad state of affairs has been on prominent display in the wake of the recent spate of antisemitic attacks against Jewish cemeteries in the US. Muslim Americans with records of antisemitism have been quick to condemn the attacks.

On the face of it, statements by Ellison, Hamas supporter Linda Sarsour and others condemning the attacks on Jewish cemeteries are welcome. Sarsour’s support for Palestinian mass murderers of Jews and open calls for Israel’s destruction have been ongoing for more than a decade. It’s nice that she is suddenly raising money to repair broken Jewish graves in St. Louis.

The problem is if Sarsour and her Jew hating comrades are viewed as legitimate partners in fighting antisemitism, when they themselves are abetting and popularizing antisemitism, then the notion of fighting antisemitism is destroyed.

If Sarsour, who wrote in 2012 that “nothing is creepier than Zionism,” is a legitimate voice in the fight against anti-Jewish discrimination and violence, then the fight against anti-Jewish discrimination and violence is reduced to farce.

Sarsour, like Ellison, is no fringe figure on the Left. She has become a major mover and shaker in the second party in America. Sarsour was one of the organizers of the anti-Trump women’s protests the day after the president was inaugurated.

Sarsour’s rising prominence in progressive and Democratic circles despite her open support for Hamas shows why it is important today to draw a line in the sand and reject the notion that antisemites can suddenly become defenders of Jews.

With each passing day, the Left becomes more open in its embrace of anti-Jewish voices. If Sarsour’s leadership role last month in the anti-Trump women’s protests constituted a new low in progressive politics, a month later the bar has dropped even lower. At the next round of women’s protests, Ramsea Odeh is one of the announced organizers.

Whereas Sarsour simply supports the terrorist murder of Jews, Odeh is an actual terrorist murderer of Jews. Odeh participated in a PLO terrorist attack at a Jerusalem supermarket in 1970 in which two Jews were murdered.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/03/02/perez_ellison_and_the_meaning_of_antisemitism_1332 38.html

actual anti-semites are gaining control of the DNC and yet the left does nothing.

Trump has consistently disavowed himself from any right wing group.

When will liberals denounce the rise of anti-semitic figures in the Democratic party?

Bilge_Rat

03-03-17, 10:55 AM

when it rain, it pours.

comment from Natan Sharansky, the famous former Soviet dissident who now lives in Israel:

Jewish Agency for Israel Chairman Natan Sharansky on Thursday said that there is “no reason to suspect US President Donald Trump of arousing support for antisemitism,” the Hebrew news site nrg reported.

Sharansky made this comment at a conference marking two anniversaries: 120 years since the 1897 founding of the World Zionist Organization, and 50 since the reunification of Jerusalem in the 1967 Six-Day War. During the event, held at the Efrata College in the Israeli capital, Sharansky defended Trump against allegations of being responsible for the recent spike in anti-Jewish incidents in the US, such as the desecration of cemeteries and bomb threats issued against synagogues and day schools.

“One cannot tie such profound, long-term, historical, significant processes like the resurgence of antisemitism to some remark made by this or that politician,” Sharansky was quoted by nrg as saying. “There are many attempts in the world to demonize the Jews in the state of the Jews. What is happening today in the US proves that ultimately there is no difference between the antisemitism of the Right and the anti-Israelism of the Left.”

https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/03/02/jewish-agency-chairman-sharansky-trump-not-responsible-for-resurgence-of-profound-long-term-historical-process-like-antisemitism/

Bilge_Rat

03-03-17, 11:14 AM

while we are on the topic, you may also want to check out the documentary "Hate Spaces" which shows how anti-semitism is being installed as an ideology across College campuses in the USA:

https://49yzp92imhtx8radn224z7y1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/apartheid-week.jpg

Americans for Peace and Tolerance’s (APT) new documentary, Hate Spaces: The Politics of Intolerance on Campus, explores the roots of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement waged against Israel, and reveals the mob mentality that characterizes antisemitic student groups on college campuses across the US.

The 70-minute film strikes a nerve, and an emotional punch.

Authenticated cell-phone videos and recorded interviews transport viewers to hate-crime scenes where Jewish students are subjected to verbal and physical abuse, and are intimidated even by college professors and administrators.

This is not a propaganda film about the Middle East conflict, Avi Goldwasser, the documentary’s executive producer, tells JNS.org. It is strictly “a film about what’s happening on campus,” he says.

Indeed, recent events at schools like Northeastern University in Boston deserve scrutiny. On that campus, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) protesters have chanted, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, the state of Israel has got to go!” Statues of Jewish donors have been vandalized, while cruel sticker campaigns and “apartheid walls” are used to single out and shame individual Jewish students regardless of their opinions about Israel.

In April 2013, Northeastern University SJP activists stormed into a classroom and interrupted a Holocaust memorial service. “The lessons of the Holocaust were not learned, you are child murderers,” SJP members are caught shouting on camera. Going beyond Northeastern, Hate Spaces tours the country, revealing a long list of hotspots where the BDS movement is spiraling out of control.

(...)

Hate Spaces meticulously charts the flow of money from dictators in Muslim countries to American universities, suggesting that this transfer of capital buttresses support for Islamic causes among academics. Devoid of intellectual integrity, professors choose a path of least resistance when discussing Israel and the Palestinian territories, and are unfairly sympathetic to the BDS agenda. The result is a classroom where one side of the debate is permitted to demonize the other, and pro-Israel students are systematically denied a voice.

The problem “has metastasized,” APT President Dr. Charles Jacobs tells JNS.org. He helped produce the 2004 documentary Columbia Unbecoming, which ignited a fierce debate on academic freedom when it uncovered an institutional bias and outright antisemitism among professors at Columbia University.

According to Jacobs, what’s changed during the 12-year period between the two films is that “Muslim and Arab groups have determined to link their cause to the infrastructure of the ‘left’ on campuses.”

“Now you have so-called human rights groups — black groups, Latino groups, gay groups — all lining up with the Palestinians against the Jews, and that, of course, is very dangerous,” he says.

https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/12/26/a-new-documentary-shows-the-extent-and-nature-of-anti-zionist-hate-spaces-on-campus/

the anti-semitism which is being institutionalized on the left is a big problem, but not surprisingly gets next to no coverage in the mainstream press.

p.s. read again the above quote "statues of jewish donors have been vandalized". That is coming from left-wing extremists.

mapuc

03-03-17, 11:51 AM

Hear me, what I have to say
I'll tell you what I've seen
It was day before yesterday
It was on the TV-screen
It was about Trump and it wasn't fake
I'm telling you the truth, for goodness sake

Markus

Bilge_Rat

03-03-17, 12:56 PM

breaking news: FBI has arrested a mr. Juan Thompson and charged him with 8 bomb Threats against Jewish community centers.

according to his twitter feed, he voted for Bernie Sanders. His twitter feed also has many anti-semitic, racist, anti-Trump tweets.

wait, does'nt that mean he is on the left of the political spectrum. :ping:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-03/man-arrested-over-bomb-threats-jewish-groups-former-bernie-voter-and-intercept-repor

I blame Hillary. :ping:

Oberon

03-03-17, 01:13 PM

one of the dirty little secret of american politics which liberals do not want to face is that much of the rise in anti-semitism is driven by the radical left of the democratic party and their anti-Israel policies.

Not going to disagree, although I would probably quibble about the numbers, the point is that both sides of the spectrum have to admit that there's a problem and then tackle it, rather than pointing the finger at the other sides problems and using it to score political points. We've had a couple of reports indicating problems with anti-semitism in the British Labour Party, and one of our former mayors of London, a fairly respected Labour MP called Ken Livingstone put his foot in it when he said about Hitler wanting to move the Jews to Israel in 1932, and that was framed as him saying that Hitler was a Zionist or at the very least he advanced the goals of Zionism. This got him promptly booted from the party and there was quite the furore since he was quite close to the current Labour leader. There's been other comments and rumours too, most boiling down to anti-Israeli sentiment.

Of course, as I did say in my initial reply, one has to differentiate between anti-Semitism and anti-zionism because they are not necessarily the same thing. There are a large number of anti-Zionist Jews out there, who heavily disagree with the direction that Israel is taking, and worry that the country has been hijacked by Zionists. These Jews do not hate Judaism, nor do they consider the Jewish people to be in anyway inferior to any others.
Unfortunately there is a lot of crossing lines between Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism, which makes legitimate critique of Israeli policies a difficult endeavour. Trying to figure out whether a person is an anti-semitic disguising themselves as an anti-zionist or an anti-zionist who comes across as anti-semitic is difficult, and sometimes not really worth the effort. Of course, there is also the possibility that anti-zionism is basically anti-semitism-lite, which is another popular theory and I think in a lot of cases that is true. Certainly anti-zionism as it pertains to people thinking that the Jewish people do not deserve a land of their own is a definite gateway to anti-semitism, but if a person is critical of Israels expansion beyond the 1947 limits then are they anti-zionist? In one definition they could be argued as so since Israel considers the continued occupation of lands taken in the Six Day war as being necessary for its continued survival, therefore to retreat to the 1947 lines would result in the destruction of Israel and thus the goal of some anti-zionists.
The question arises, what do we call the man who killed Yitzhak Rabin?

But coming back, yes, the Democrats do have an anti-semitic problem, I'm not going to deny that, but equally I think that it would be dangerous to deny that some Republicans, particularly the new 'Alt-Right' (less so the old traditional Republicans who have always been staunchly pro-Israel, and until Trump, pro-globalism too) have an anti-semitic problem too.

The question is, what is to be done about it? :hmmm: How do you disconnect criticism of Israels domestic and foreign policy from anti-semitism? Because to take a nation, any nation, and make it socially unacceptable to criticise its actions is not a productive endeavour. Not an easy task, and I think if we can find a way to lower anti-semitism whilst not trampling on both free speech and legitimate critique then that would be a good start.

Yeah, I don't ask for much do I? :haha:

Oberon

03-03-17, 01:19 PM

I blame Hillary. :ping:

So does he! :haha:

Interesting psychological case there, not necessarily a Nazi, but not exactly a fine upstanding gentleman. Still, at least they got him, and that's one less idiot out there. Yeah, we've got them too, I'll admit, we have our crazies just as much as the right has theirs, and I'm glad that this time he's been caught and will be put away.

Platapus

03-03-17, 01:29 PM

True, what we need are politicians who not only speak well but do well.

Might as well ask for a pony for my birthday since I am fantasizing.

Oberon

03-03-17, 02:24 PM

True, what we need are politicians who not only speak well but do well.

Might as well ask for a pony for my birthday since I am fantasizing.

Aye, and peace on Earth...

Still, we have to try, as someone once said "Be the change you want to see in the world."

August

03-03-17, 04:25 PM

However, the language and the tone of the Alt-Right...

You know nobody ever heard of the term "alt-right" until the left dragged it from obscurity to create their anti-trump straw men. You're getting all worked up over a manufactured controversy.

Oberon

03-03-17, 05:38 PM

You know nobody ever heard of the term "alt-right" until the left dragged it from obscurity to create their anti-trump straw men. You're getting all worked up over a manufactured controversy.

Paul Gottfried is a liberal? Richard Spencer is a leftie?

Fair enough. :hmmm:

August

03-03-17, 07:55 PM

Paul Gottfried is a liberal? Richard Spencer is a leftie?

Fair enough. :hmmm:

No but neither are they mainstream. Fringe means just that. I doubt one in a thousand Americans has ever heard their names let alone what they write or say. I'll bet you didn't either until the Dem press sold you on molehill mountain.

The side effect of these divisive political games is that the fringe, on both sides, now gets far more publicity than they ever would have gotten on their own and we all distrust and dislike each other a little more.

Oberon

03-03-17, 09:18 PM

No but neither are they mainstream. Fringe means just that. I doubt one in a thousand Americans has ever heard their names let alone what they write or say. I'll bet you didn't either until the Dem press sold you on molehill mountain.

The side effect of these divisive political games is that the fringe, on both sides, now gets far more publicity than they ever would have gotten on their own and we all distrust and dislike each other a little more.

Actually, the types that are in the Alt-Right (although not their prominent figures, I'll admit, but the sort of people that boast proudly that they are 'Alt-Right') came onto my radar before Trump ran for President (Although the buzz-word back then was 'Anti-PC' rather than 'Alt-Right'), but that's because I hang in the sort of circles that they also inhabit, aka the internet. Perhaps it is a molehill, I hope it is, both sides have their molehills and I really hope that the Alt-Right will just disappear again into obscurity. Unfortunately though I think that there's a deeper problem which feeds these things, and the internet is definitely a major accelerant and in some cases cause of it. It's a clash of ideologies and it does seem to be snowballing, even into areas where you honestly wouldn't have expected it to, certainly ten-fifteen years ago you wouldn't expect the contraversies there have been in things like the video-game area, and I don't just mean the old 'Are video games too violent' one which has been going pretty much since video games became a thing, but I mean things like 'Gamergate'. I don't know, it just seems to have gotten very nasty and seems to be snowballing towards something, I don't know what.
But I fully agree on your last paragraph, it just deepens that divide. Don't get me wrong, I don't think for a moment that you're Alt-Right, August, I know you're a traditional GOP member ala the Reagan years, but just like the Liberals have their seedy underbelly, so now it seems does the GOP, only rather than it remaining in the underbelly it seems to have gone up the ranks into power, and that's what concerns us. I imagine that we would probably be having this conversation in reverse if Bernie had become President, if I'm honest, because he would likely have brought all the 'Bernie-bros' out of the woodwork as well as the anti-semites that we've already discussed. Hillary...not so much as she's pretty traditional Democrat, career politician type. Maybe some of the more radical feminists might have gotten carried away, but she's not as radical a politician as Sanders or Trump so I doubt that her victory would have emboldened as many factions.

Buddahaid

03-04-17, 12:09 AM

...The side effect of these divisive political games is that the fringe, on both sides, now gets far more publicity than they ever would have gotten on their own and we all distrust and dislike each other a little more.

Best thing I've read for a while. Quote of the year?

Sailor Steve

03-04-17, 08:32 AM

the point is that both sides of the spectrum have to admit that there's a problem and then tackle it, rather than pointing the finger at the other sides problems and using it to score political points.
But that's all that any "side" in politics ever does. This forum is an excellent example of that thinking.

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right."
-H.L. Mencken

Oberon

03-04-17, 09:55 AM

But that's all that any "side" in politics ever does. This forum is an excellent example of that thinking.

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right."
-H.L. Mencken

This is true, it's probably one of the biggest flaws in the democratic system. Still, I'd rather have it than any other that we've tried so far. :yep:

Rockstar

03-04-17, 04:35 PM

Sometimes we just need to turn off our mind relax and just gently float down stream. ;)

Oberon

03-04-17, 06:35 PM

Sometimes we just need to turn off our mind relax and just gently float down stream. ;)

I'm cool with that, just so long as that sound in the distance are trees in the wind and not a waterfall. :yep:

Platapus

03-04-17, 07:02 PM

You know, I told you people something a long time ago, and it's just as pertinent today as it was then. Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice - pull down your pants and slide on the ice.
:up:

STEED

03-04-17, 07:11 PM

You know, I told you people something a long time ago, and it's just as pertinent today as it was then. Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice - pull down your pants and slide on the ice.:up:

Sidney, poker? :)

Platapus

03-04-17, 07:14 PM

Sidney, poker? :)

I hardly even knew her.

Rockstar

03-04-17, 08:22 PM

I'm cool with that, just so long as that sound in the distance are trees in the wind and not a waterfall. :yep:

The stream I was thinking about is more along the line of the Beatles "tomorrow never knows" :D

https://youtu.be/uipsJ431C1Y

Jimbuna

03-05-17, 06:56 AM

The POTUS now accuses the ex-POTUS of tapping his phones during the election campaign :hmmm:

US President Donald Trump has been urged to provide evidence to back his allegation that his predecessor, Barack Obama, ordered his phones to be tapped during the election campaign.
The Republican president has supplied no details to back his claim.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39170985

Oberon

03-05-17, 07:34 AM

I was being kind and not bringing this one up, Jim. :03:

But since we're here...if this is true, and not just a Breitbart article, then it suggests that a FISA court had grounds to grant a warrant for wire-tapping in regards to the investigation to Trumps Russian ties. :hmmm:

Does make you feel sorry for White House staff though, doesn't it? Apparently this one caught them all off guard, and now they have to try and work out how to respond to it without dropping the Donald in the sewage.

Bilge_Rat

03-05-17, 09:34 AM

well no, there was not and still is not any credible evidence of illegal ties between Trump and Russia.

If the Obama admin was eavesdropping on a political opponent to obtain damaging information to help the Dems win the election, that is a major political scandal on the level of Watergate since this is exactly what Nixon did.

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/

August

03-05-17, 09:37 AM

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445504/obama-camp-disingenuous-denials-fisa-surveillance-trump

To summarize, reporting indicates that, prior to June 2016, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions. Preliminary poking around indicated that there was nothing criminal involved. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA allows the government, if it gets court permission, to conduct electronic surveillance (which could include wiretapping, monitoring of e-mail, and the like) against those it alleges are “agents of a foreign power.” FISA applications and the evidence garnered from them are classified – i.e., we would not know about any of this unless someone had leaked classified information to the media, a felony.

Of course, doing so is controversial, as President Bush learned after he directed the NSA to conduct warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists following the 9/11 attacks. Nevertheless, we should not allow the statements of Obama spokesmen to confuse us here. The Justice Department and FBI have two missions: (a) criminal law-enforcement and (b) national security. It would be scandalous (though probably not constitutional) for a president to interfere in the law-enforcement mission by ordering the Justice Department to prosecute someone outside its normal procedures. But it would not be inappropriate e–ven though civil libertarians would raise holy hell — for the president to direct warrantless surveillance against a target, even an American citizen, if the president truly believed that target was functioning as an agent of a foreign power threatening U.S. interests.

To be clear, there does not seem to be any evidence, at least that I know of, to suggest that any surveillance or requests to conduct surveillance against then-candidate Donald Trump was done outside the FISA process.

Nevertheless, whether done inside or outside the FISA process, it would be a scandal of Watergate dimension if a presidential administration sought to conduct, or did conduct, national-security surveillance against the presidential candidate of the opposition party. Unless there was some powerful evidence that the candidate was actually acting as an agent of a foreign power, such activity would amount to a pretextual use of national-security power for political purposes. That is the kind of abuse that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation in lieu of impeachment.

Moreover, it cannot be glossed over that, at the very time it appears the Obama Justice Department was seeking to surveil Trump and/or his associates on the pretext that they were Russian agents, the Obama Justice Department was also actively undermining and ultimately closing without charges the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton despite significant evidence of felony misconduct that threatened national security. This appears to be extraordinary, politically motivated abuse of presidential power.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445504/obama-camp-disingenuous-denials-fisa-surveillance-trump

Oberon

03-05-17, 10:56 AM

Unless there was some powerful evidence that the candidate was actually acting as an agent of a foreign power, such activity would amount to a pretextual use of national-security power for political purposes. That is the kind of abuse that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation in lieu of impeachment.

That is the $24m question, because honestly what would be the point of Obama launching such a thing when through-out most of the campaign the Trump party constantly suffered misfortunes and was factored by most to not have much of a chance of winning.
In short, if your enemy is making a mistake, why interrupt them? Why open yourself to that risk? Particularly in October where polls gave Clinton a sizable lead.
Just now, James Clapper flat out denied that Trump tower was bugged, but whether that is true or not is anyones best guess. It's not as if his memory hasn't been spotty before. Still, we'll see if Trump turns up any evidence for his claims, or whether this is just a chaff dispensing before tomorrows apparent Travel Ban Mk II launch.

Catfish

03-05-17, 11:46 AM

Please do not post too much Breitbart links here, and i promise not to link Pravda.

Bilge_Rat

03-05-17, 12:20 PM

Just now, James Clapper flat out denied that Trump tower was bugged

James Clapper?

The same James Clapper who lied under oath to Congress about whether the NSA was spying on U.S. citizens? There is a reliable source.

Interesting that they would send him on air.

Bilge_Rat

03-05-17, 12:24 PM

Please do not post too much Breitbart links here, and i promise not to link Pravda.

Nothing wrong with Breitbart, I visit the site regularly, just like I visit Real Clear Politics, Politico, NY Times, BBC, Guardian, Spiegel, etc.

90% of the stories on Politico and Breitbart are the same, except that Politico has a anti-Trump and Breitbart a pro-Trump slant.

Oberon

03-05-17, 12:29 PM

James Clapper?

The same James Clapper who lied under oath to Congress about whether the NSA was spying on U.S. citizens? There is a reliable source.

Interesting that they would send him on air.

Quite, Mr 'Memory Failure', but then again, everyone seems to be having a memory failure this week, especially when it comes to anything to do with Russia. :03:

Oh, and speaking of bias...maybe this should get linked to the front page?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

ikalugin

03-05-17, 01:10 PM

Oberon

03-05-17, 01:47 PM

Implying that FISA court does not just rubber stamp any request that comes it's way.

What, like they rubber stamped the first request in June? But yeah, generally speaking it doesn't say no, but it did the first time the FBI went to them.

Bilge_Rat

03-06-17, 08:28 AM

the plot thickens. Hard to figure out what is going on. The NY Times is now reporting there is no truth to allegations that the Obama admin was wiretapping the Trump campaign, but a jan. 19 article by the NY Times expressly said there was wiretapping:

Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides

WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

(..)

The counterintelligence investigation centers at least in part on the business dealings that some of the president-elect’s past and present advisers have had with Russia. Mr. Manafort has done business in Ukraine and Russia. Some of his contacts there were under surveillance by the National Security Agency for suspected links to Russia’s Federal Security Service, one of the officials said.

The FBI was leading the investigation and summaries of the wiretapping were provided to the Obama administration:

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=1

However, the NY Times is now claiming that that there was no wiretapping of the Trump campaign:

Comey Asks Justice Dept. to Reject Trump’s Wiretapping Claim

WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump’s assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr. Trump’s phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/us/politics/trump-seeks-inquiry-into-allegations-that-obama-tapped-his-phones.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

so, let me see if I understand this correctly, when the aim was to show that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, there was wiretapping going on, but now that said wiretapping might embarrass the Democrats, it turns out there was no wiretapping. :doh:

The only real question is was the NY Times lying then, is it lying now or does it lie all the time?

Oberon

03-06-17, 08:34 AM

It lies no more or less than all the others. :03:

STEED

03-06-17, 08:37 AM

The truth is out there buried under a ton of lies BS and twisted facts.

I advice Mr Trump if you have evidence and has been checked to the max then present that evidence. Too much here say from politicians and the media these days.

Von Due

03-06-17, 08:42 AM

The truth is out there buried under a ton of lies BS and twisted facts.

Sums up neatly why I have been quiet in this thread and why I will not have any politician anywhere near my place without CCTV installed in every room.

Dowly

03-06-17, 08:58 AM

so, let me see if I understand this correctly, when the aim was to show that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, there was wiretapping going on, but now that said wiretapping might embarrass the Democrats, it turns out there was no wiretapping. :doh:
Trump's associates/aides != Trump, so no, you don't understand it correctly. :O:

Bilge_Rat

03-06-17, 09:01 AM

As an interesting aside, it turns out that in 1968, much the same happened. The Nixon campaign, worried that a peace deal would cost them the election contacted the South Vietnamese government and convinced them to kill the ongoing negotiations.

LBJ, who had a suspicion of what was going on, ordered the wiretapping of Nixon associates:

Like many of Nixon’s actions, this particular transgression was born of paranoia. As the 1968 election approached, Nixon and his aides feared that Johnson would try to help the Democratic nominee—Vice President Hubert Humphrey—by staging an October surprise. When LBJ announced to the nation, just days before the balloting, that he was calling a halt in the bombing of North Vietnam to help fuel progress in ongoing peace talks, the Republicans thought their fears were realized.

Anna Chennault, a Republican activist with ties to the South Vietnamese government, sent word to Saigon that it would get better terms if Humphrey lost and Nixon took office, the FBI would discover. The South Vietnamese dragged their feet, infuriating LBJ who, in a taped conversation released by the Johnson presidential library several years ago, can be heard denouncing Nixon for “treason.”

LBJ ordered the FBI to put Chennault under surveillance and, according to documents at the Johnson library, tracked the machinations of the “Dragon Lady”(as Nixon called her) via intercepted communications at the South Vietnamese embassy. After Nixon won, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover told the new president that Johnson had ordered Nixon’s campaign planes bugged as well.

Once in office, Nixon ordered his staff to investigate the bombing halt and the allegation his campaign had been bugged. Huston, a dedicated and resourceful young conservative who had worked on the 1968 campaign before joining the White House as a presidential aide, was given the job. But his investigation, and the report he delivered to White House chief of staff H. R. Haldeman in 1970, found that both presidents had cause for embarrassment: LBJ for the surveillance of a presidential candidate from the other party, and Nixon for the role that his campaign played in derailing the peace talks.

Neither side wanted to push the issue. “I think there was an implicit understanding between two very politically sophisticated people, who had been in the arena for a very long time, to say ‘Hey, look, this thing is over, you know, neither one of us are going to gain anything by stirring up this pot,’” Huston says.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/yes-nixon-scuttled-the-vietnam-peace-talks-107623

the difference of course is that once the election was over, both LBJ and Nixon realized there was no advantage in going public and smearing the other side and indirectly, American Democracy.

so much for the good old days.

Oberon

03-06-17, 01:21 PM

https://thefirstoverall.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ufcali-sonoma-ufc651.jpg

Jimbuna

03-06-17, 02:35 PM

Trump signs new travel-ban directive.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39183153

Oberon

03-06-17, 02:38 PM

https://m.popkey.co/e5a5ae/LlAb6.gif

DicheBach

03-06-17, 02:47 PM

That has been raised many times over the years. Nothing new.

There is a way the WH could easily resolve this. Pull the EO. Issue a new more limited EO that leaves existing visas in place and make it much tougher to get new or renewed visas from those 7 countries. That would have the same effect in practice.

However I suspect the WH is happy with letting this thing drag out in court. It mobilises the Base against its favorite targets: liberal judges, washington insiders, do gooders, etc.

That will make it a lot easier for Trump to get his legislative agenda through Congress. GOP lawmakers will toe the party line as long as he has 90%+ approval rating among Republicans.

and if, god forbid, a terrorist event does occur on U.S. soil, the Democrats and Courts will get the blame.

All in all, it is a win/win situation for Trump.

It would not surprise me if, as usual, the Democrats and media are being played. :ping:

They still think they can win by conventional means . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzkBfTfiXS0

u crank

03-06-17, 06:42 PM

Interesting article in Wall Street Journal by Shelby Steele, The Exhaustion of American Liberalism.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-exhaustion-of-american-liberalism-1488751826?mod=e2two

Today’s liberalism is an anachronism. It has no understanding, really, of what poverty is and how it has to be overcome. It has no grip whatever on what American exceptionalism is and what it means at home and especially abroad. Instead it remains defined by an America of 1965—an America newly opening itself to its sins, an America of genuine goodwill, yet lacking in self-knowledge.

This liberalism came into being not as an ideology but as an identity. It offered Americans moral esteem against the specter of American shame. This made for a liberalism devoted to the idea of American shamefulness. Without an ugly America to loathe, there is no automatic esteem to receive. Thus liberalism’s unrelenting current of anti-Americanism.

Four thousand shootings in Chicago last year, and the mayor announces that his will be a sanctuary city. This is moral esteem over reality; the self-congratulation of idealism. Liberalism is exhausted because it has become a corruption.

I think he hits it out of the park.