President Trump & the USA

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, Lionator said:

It's the America thread! The Maduro regime is also a disgrace. I think neither side are covering themselves in glory. The problem with America is that whenever they intervene, chaos ensues as they have hidden motives. If anything, if it wasn't for Trump, they'd probably already be in Caracas by now. Fortunately he doesn't seem to be as thirsty for war as his predecessors. 

Certainly agree on the last part - long overdue as well.

 

Had Clinton been elected they'd probably be in a proxy war with Russia right now in Syria.

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Look, I'm perfectly fine for people to criticize Trump for his condescending behaviour and attitude towards women. Yet... it takes two to tango. I would like a more open debate on what women can do in order not to get lost in these precarious situations any longer - but then again, my bet is some, if not many (but of course not all) women do this for a purpose in order to advance in life, seeking promotion, limelight, fame. They are far from being innocent or pure "victims" themselves.

 

Any woman that is being or has been harassed ought to step forward immediately, and not wait 15, 20 or even more years before breaking the silence. The longer you wait, the less likely it is anything can be proven in your favour.

 

In that regard, I'd claim that the media and many of these women were merely opportunists, and I also bet the Democratic party had its fair share of influence. Of course, it's all political.

Calling his behaviour a "masterclass in rape culture" (Grauniad) is way over the top.

 

As in most cases involving sexual misconduct, it's usually one word against the other, and as far as I know, none of the alleged incidents involving Trump has been proven or led to a trial, let alone an official verdict.

 

There is literally a recording of the man boasting about it.  To a degree you are correct about speaking up early but that's the sound advice we give to today's victims: There hasn't always been the infrastructure in place or the social will to take on such matters so it's unfair to hold victims in contempt now that the climate is more accommodating to them, if it's "all political" that's because there's more public will to hold your Savilles and Kellys to account these days. 

 

I'm guessing you don't think it's all political that people are grossed out by creepy uncle Joe.

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, MattP said:

Despite his creepinees, I'd be more likely to vote for Biden than any other Democrat candidate.

 

When you look at the policy program of Warren cancelling student debt or the even more crazy economics of the GND - the Democrats could be just one selection away from destroying the party for some time and gaining only the votes of minorities, students and radicals for the forseeable future. If Biden can wrestle the party back from the fiscal crazy types like AOC and the antisemites like Omar I think he could win. 

 

They might not say it, but I'll bet you the Trump team fear Biden more than any of the others names mentioned maybe aside from Harris.

Hmmm...I guess allegations of this type didn't end up doing Trump much harm on the campaign trail, did they?

 

Again though, it seems that primacy is being placed on economics here which is the one area where Trump might be able to make an argument that he's done things well (depending on your POV), so why would the Dems seek to take him on on that area and not others where he is much, much weaker? Is it really the hot button topic for so many people? If it really is and continues to be, then quite frankly I think we're all fvcked - consistently focusing on short term money gain, as nice as that is in the short term, is going to be disastrous for the future.

 

 

6 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Hahaha.

 

I'm by no means a fan of Donald Trump, I'm mostly baffled by the stupidity on the left in the US and their ongoing quarrels. The Democrats are destroying themselves, allowing Trump another four years, without him having to do anything amazing at all. He can just stand there and watch from the sidelines how the Democratic establishment fights with the radical wing within.

Few of the nominees fill me with confidence, and these courageous few will be the first to have to bite the bullet and quit.

I remember the mudslinging in the 2016 elections, and what you can say is that a majority of US citizens simply had enough of the status quo and being represented by technocrats.

They had enough of Clinton and were longing for something, somebody different.

 

Trump is a walking parody of a president, albeit an amusing, slightly naive and harmless one. But he loves it. He loves the attention, the adoration, the masses. As long as he gets the cheers, he won't do much harm.

The media and the Democrats are still getting their knickers in a twist and still cannot believe they have come to this. Maybe at the end of his presidency, they will finally come to their senses again.

The infighting is certainly a problem, and as you say Trump doesn't have to do much other than watch most often.

 

FWIW I hope that Harris makes it through, but quite frankly I'll take anyone who is able to give Trump a hard time on his science and environmental policy - that is where he has been sorely lacking all the way along, and where he most certainly is not harmless - he's getting in the way of necessary work that needs to be done to guarantee a sustainable future.

[Buce]

Mueller criticized attorney general's memo on Russia findings

In a letter to Barr, special counsel said attorney general ‘did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance’ of investigation.

 

The special counsel Robert Mueller wrote a letter to US attorney general William Barr expressing frustration with how the attorney general characterized the conclusions of Mueller’s investigation into potential ties between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia, according to multiple reports.

The Washington Post, the New York Times and NBC reported on Tuesday that Mueller penned the letter in late March, after Barr wrote a four-page summary of the special counsel’s work that largely cleared Trump on potential obstruction of justice.

Mueller wrote that Barr “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the special counsel’s findings, according to an excerpt of the letter published by the Post.

“There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation,” Mueller added. “This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment on the matter.

A justice department spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, said Barr called Mueller upon receiving his letter and that the two had had a “cordial and professional conversation”.

 

“The Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis,” Kupec said in a statement.

Kupec said Mueller and Barr then discussed “whether additional context from the report would be helpful and could be quickly released”, but that the attorney general decided it would be counterproductive to release the report in “piecemeal fashion”.

It was after their conversation, she noted, that Barr released a second letter to Congress saying his first assessment was not intended to be a summary of Mueller’s report.

Barr, who is set to begin two days of testimony before Congress on Wednesday, has vigorously defended his framing of Mueller’s conclusions amid intense scrutiny over his conduct.

Earlier on Tuesday, Senate Democrats called on the justice department’s watchdog to independently investigate Barr’s handling of the Mueller report and “whether he has demonstrated sufficient impartiality” to continue overseeing 14 criminal matters related to the special counsel’s investigation.

Mueller concluded the two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election last month and subsequently delivered a final report to Barr. It spanned more than 400 pages.

Barr initially released a letter on 24 March citing Mueller’s conclusion that there was no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Barr declared in the same letter that he did not believe there was sufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstruction of justice.

But a redacted version of Mueller’s report, which was made public on 18 April, revealed nearly a dozen instances in which the actions of the president and his campaign may have amounted to obstruction. The report also stated that the Trump campaign was “receptive” to assistance from Moscow during the 2016 election and expected to benefit from Russian interference.

 

Barr nonetheless delivered a press conference, prior to his public release of the redacted report, that essentially sought to absolve the president of wrongdoing. In his statement, Barr repeatedly echoed Trump’s claims of “no collusion” with the Russians and downplayed the president’s attempts to impede the special counsel investigation.

House Democrats have issued a subpoena for the full Mueller report and underlying evidence, setting the stage for what is expected to be a protracted legal battle with the justice department and the White House.

Top Democrats in Congress said reports around Mueller’s letter reinforced the need for the attorney general to testify on Capitol Hill.

“No one can place any reliance on what Barr says. We need to hear from Mueller himself,” Adam Schiff, the House intelligence committee chairman, said.

Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff)

Now it is confirmed Mueller objected to the “context, nature, and substance” of Barr’s misleading summary of the report.

And the false public narrative it allowed the White House to create.

No one can place any reliance on what Barr says. We need to hear from Mueller himself. https://t.co/ET7tQxnGQG

May 1, 2019

The House judiciary committee chairman Jerrold Nadler said he would press the justice department to schedule a hearing with Mueller “without delay”.

“The Special Counsel’s concerns reflect our own,” Nadler wrote in a statement. “The Attorney General should not have taken it upon himself to describe the Special Counsel’s findings in a light more favorable to the President.”

“It was only a matter of time before the facts caught up to him.”

 

 

[MC Prussian]

12 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

There is literally a recording of the man boasting about it.  To a degree you are correct about speaking up early but that's the sound advice we give to today's victims: There hasn't always been the infrastructure in place or the social will to take on such matters so it's unfair to hold victims in contempt now that the climate is more accommodating to them, if it's "all political" that's because there's more public will to hold your Savilles and Kellys to account these days. 

 

I'm guessing you don't think it's all political that people are grossed out by creepy uncle Joe.

There's at least two aspects to the complaints about Biden:

- The media's obsession with his creepy behaviour towards young girls and women is certainly based on political bias, this is the media trying to influence the elections.

- Biden's behaviour has been well-documented for years, if not decades. That he still counts as a favourite for the Democratic candidacy tells you a lot about how "tolerant" his own party is.

 

Imagine Biden winning against Trump, and then continuing his "touchy" approach with female head of states such as Angela Merkel, Theresa May, Jacinda Ardern, Erna Solberg (Norway), Kolinda Grabar (Croatia) or Dalia Grybauskaite (Lithuania). Or any future female head of states for that matter. What an embarrassment.  

 

He will have to tone it down and try and control his urges, otherwise, he'll be ruined soon. In terms of popularity on the Dems's side, he's nowhere near Sanders.

 

The main argument against Biden is his age - he will be 77 next year. He already has a real slur to his speech. Way too old for a first-timer.

Edited 1 May 2019 by MC Prussian

[Jattdogg]

I cant handle bernie sanders accent. For that alone he should never win

 

I think a younger candidate would be better for the next generation but having said that there is no chance one would beat donald. Its going to be Bernie vs trump.  A petting, stroking kisser vs a grabbing vagina creep.  America at its finest.

Edited 1 May 2019 by Jattdogg

[Carl the Llama]

3 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

I cant handle bernie sanders accent. For that alone he should never win

 

I think a younger candidate would be better for the next generation but having said that there is no chance one would beat donald. Its going to be Bernie vs trump.  A petting, stroking kisser vs a grabbing vagina creep.  America at its finest.

Bernie isn't the rapey one, that's Biden

[MC Prussian]

2 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

I cant handle bernie sanders accent. For that alone he should never win

 

I think a younger candidate would be better for the next generation but having said that there is no chance one would beat donald. Its going to be Bernie vs trump.  A petting, stroking kisser vs a grabbing vagina creep.  America at its finest.

To be fair, Canada isn't doing much better. You have Justin "Sensitive" Trudeau.

[Jattdogg]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

Bernie isn't the rapey one, that's Biden

I know but his accent dear god

 

Just now, MC Prussian said:

To be fair, Canada isn't doing much better. You have Justin "Sensitive" Trudeau.

Trudeau is a bell end of epic proportions (i admit that) but far from a creep.

[MC Prussian]

8 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

Trudeau is a bell end of epic proportions (i admit that) but far from a creep.

Hmm...

You may want to rephrase that:

https://www.citynews1130.com/2018/06/27/opinion-justin-trudeaus-reported-kokanee-grope-really-matters/

 

Sure, not a creep, but the power dynamics are certainly strong with this one also...

Makes it even funnier when you think of how he's changed his political stance over the past few years, becoming a male feminist prime minister.

 

It just shows that the same level of criticism can be applied to virtually anyone.

[Jattdogg]

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

Hmm...

You may want to rephrase that:

https://www.citynews1130.com/2018/06/27/opinion-justin-trudeaus-reported-kokanee-grope-really-matters/

 

Sure, not a creep, but the power dynamics are certainly strong with this one also...

Makes it even funnier when you think of how he's changed his political stance over the past few years, becoming a male feminist prime minister.

 

It just shows that the same level of criticism can be applied to virtually anyone.

 

Not even close to being as creepy as trump. But like i said a major bell end who won on his dads name lets be honest here. I know everyone has their skeletons from shit theyve done in the past. Its hard tonfind squeeky clean candidates.

 

I hope he doesnt win reelection but andrew scheer isnt exactly a great candidate for the conservatives. My fellow singh homie on the NDP stands 0 chance. Right now Canadian politics suffers from not having Great candidates. We just have mediocre people and i believe thats because we deal with the same old shit and scandals no matter who is in power.  Suppose you can say thats everywhere hence why america went rogue with trump. 

 

Sad times in north america politics wise.

 

 

[MC Prussian]

Today's US college culture in a nutshell:

Just the mere presence requires calling the police. Free speech? You're having a laugh.

[Guest MattP]

6 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Bernie isn't the rapey one, that's Biden

Bernie just fantasises about gang rape so he's the the one with the moral highground on this one.

 

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8682503/bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy

 

What a bunch of weirdos.

[Carl the Llama]

32 minutes ago, MattP said:

Bernie just fantasises about gang rape so he's the the one with the moral highground on this one.

 

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8682503/bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy

 

What a bunch of weirdos.

Tbf I'd take a guy who jerks off to the idea of being abusive over somebody who actually is if that's the choice on offer.

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Tbf I'd take a guy who jerks off to the idea of being abusive over somebody who actually is if that's the choice on offer.

Really hoping that won't end up being the choice though.

[leicsmac]

https://thehill.com/homenews/441431-bookstores-libraries-and-book-fairs-targeted-by-white-nationalist-protestors-report

 

Sparkling.

[MC Prussian]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/441431-bookstores-libraries-and-book-fairs-targeted-by-white-nationalist-protestors-report

 

Sparkling.

You mean just as sparkling as Antifa staging college protests, blocking people from entering or leaving or violently protesting against conservative speakers on campus?

 

Or an attempt by Antifa at an armed disruption at the Southern border?

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/border-baja-california/story/2019-04-28/feds-investigating-alleged-armed-disruption-attempt-at-u-s-mexico-border-in-december-report

 

Very sparkling indeed.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

You mean just as sparkling as Antifa staging college protests, blocking people from entering or leaving or violently protesting against conservative speakers on campus?

 

Or an attempt by Antifa at an armed disruption at the Southern border?

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/border-baja-california/story/2019-04-28/feds-investigating-alleged-armed-disruption-attempt-at-u-s-mexico-border-in-december-report

 

Very sparkling indeed.

Is whataboutery really the best that can be done here?

 

Still, I guess both ends of the authoritarian spectrum liked destroying books.

[MC Prussian]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Is whataboutery really the best that can be done here?

 

Still, I guess both ends of the authoritarian spectrum liked destroying books.

No, that would be common sense.

[MC Prussian]

This is very fascinating - George Papadopoulos on Trump's alleged ties to Russia, British and Australian diplomacy and politicians, their ties to the Clintons and the FBI and CIA, including Theresa May, Alexander Downer and David Cameron. Also touches on Brexit.

He should write a book about it... wait, he already did.

[ozleicester]

11 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

This is very fascinating - George Papadopoulos on Trump's alleged ties to Russia, British and Australian diplomacy and politicians, their ties to the Clintons and the FBI and CIA, including Theresa May, Alexander Downer and David Cameron. Also touches on Brexit.

He should write a book about it... wait, he already did.

Alexarrrrnder Downer used to be my local rep. One of the few people who shouted louder than me, also a complete tosser.

[leicsmac]

36 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

No, that would be common sense.

Call it what you wish, of course.

 

But if we're going there and following it through to its conclusion, what about the actions of US right wingers through ignorance or flat out malice actively jeopardising the future of civilisation as we know it?

 

And yes, I go there often because there is *no* rebuttal to their environment policy right now.

[MC Prussian]

53 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Call it what you wish, of course.

 

But if we're going there and following it through to its conclusion, what about the actions of US right wingers through ignorance or flat out malice actively jeopardising the future of civilisation as we know it?

 

And yes, I go there often because there is *no* rebuttal to their environment policy right now.

Changing subject comes easy to you, eh?  Admit it, you're just as guilty when it comes to the concept of "whataboutism". Either it's a thing or we completely disregard it, because it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, but only perpetuates endless, pointless bickering.

 

You are being rather hysterical in the sense that whenever you post about climate change and its potential effects on the planet, you are arguing in a rather negative way, painting a doomsday scenario not so far away.

 

None of us knows what the future holds. And a lot of the talk surrounding the topic is also political and based on ideology. Not a big fan. We ought to approach this from an objective point of view, rather than argue with feelings.

 

With regards to your previous post about climate change and the Big Nations, we should approach climate change from two sides: First, initiate conversation and apply soft pressure to local and federal governments to change policy in favour of helping renewable energy sources break through the energy coefficient dilemma and boost technological advance.

Second, the smaller change ought to start with each individual, each citizen. Teach people about the advantages of saving energy, going for local produce, using the train instead of the car, cut down on flying, etc. Put together and with the initiative of more and more people changing their daily habit voluntarily, NOT based on groupthink or government policy, it all adds up and we can contribute to at least partially cure the ailment.

 

I'm a big fan of the bottom-up approach, not so much of government talking down to citizens. This is what democracy means to me.

Edited 2 May 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Changing subject comes easy to you, eh?  Admit it, you're just as guilty when it comes to the concept of "whataboutism". Either it's a thing or we completely disregard it, because it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, but only perpetuates endless, pointless bickering.

 

You are being rather hysterical in the sense that whenever you post about climate change and its potential effects on the planet, you are arguing in a rather negative way, painting a doomsday scenario not so far away.

 

None of us knows what the future holds. And a lot of the talk surrounding the topic is also political and based on ideology. Not a big fan. We ought to approach this from an objective point of view, rather than argue with feelings.

 

With regards to your previous post about climate change and the Big Nations, we should approach climate change from two sides: First, initiate conversation and apply soft pressure to local and federal governments to change policy in favour of helping renewable energy sources break through the energy coefficient dilemma and boost technological advance.

Second, the smaller change ought to start with each individual, each citizen. Teach people about the advantages of saving energy, going for local produce, using the train instead of the car, cut down on flying, etc. Put together and with the initiative of more and more people changing their daily habit voluntarily, NOT based on groupthink or government policy, it all adds up and we can contribute to at least partially cure the ailment.

 

I'm a big fan of the bottom-up approach, not so much of government talking down to citizens. This is what democracy means to me.

Oh yes, I know and use it well myself - but I didn't start this particular one, and I just wanted to be a little petty. Has got an interesting topic going though.

 

You're absolutely right in that I'm painting doomsday scenarios, because that is a possible if not probable outcome predicted in credible scientific studies. I'm not pulling negativity out of my arse for its own sake here, I'm no nihilist and if anything I might well be more interested in mankinds continued survival than a lot of people out there, which is why I take this matter so seriously. I'm not going to lie to people, however I do know and acknowledge that given the simply massive capacity of humans for denial right up to the point something becomes truly painfully obvious the response I will most likely get is simply more denial. So it goes.

 

The scientists at the IPCC, for instance, are approaching this as objectively as humans possibly can. Guess what? They're not being listened to be enough people or indeed enough important people.

 

WRT solutions, what you propose here could well work - it certainly sounds reasonable in principle - but sadly given evidence of the past I don't have much faith in enough humans willing to inconvenience themselves voluntarily when the threat isn't staring them directly in the face. I'm no fan of authoritarian solutions either but I honestly don't know how to get enough people around the world (not just in the UK) on board. Perhaps I'm overly cynical.

[leicsmac]

 

Oh dear.