mercenar1e
Member
you mean Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi and Maj Muhammad Harith, the major factors for the war in Iraq.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Federal Judge tells off Mueller in Manafort court case; suspects Mueller of just wanting to impeach Trump
- Thread starter infinitys_7th
- Start date
you mean Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi and Maj Muhammad Harith, the major factors for the war in Iraq.
W
Whataborman
Unconfirmed Member
It's not.
It's a talking point that opponents of President Trump and the media can latch on to. It's a distraction that allows to them to continue to trash the President while he continues to clean up the mess created by the last administration.
Ridcully
Member
The Trump Whitehouse is dysfunctional. It hasn't achieved half of what it could, given the Republican control of Congress.
By contrast, Pence could get things done. He's much more in line with the existing establishment, and this wouldn't be his first time at bat (however different the scale). He's a politician, and would be able to make the deals and get the votes for whatever he wants to do.
If you don't agree with Conservative policies, Trump staying in over Pence is absolutely desirable, because it stops things you don't want happening from taking place. Given the nonsense "incrementalism" that drives Democratic policy, limiting damage under a Republican president also makes sense from a practical perspective - your party isn't going to try very hard to reverse damaging policies, so you want to avoid them being implemented.
Of course, that's not how the bourgeoisie American Left sees it. They have already conceived a fantasy scenario where a Trump impeachment leads to a Clinton presidency, and care more about stopping his mean Tweets than what damage displacing him would do to the constituency they are meant to represent.
Last edited:
infinitys_7th
Member
Mueller is not the shining hero media is portraying him as now - his tenure as a bureaucrat was beset with conflicts of interest and abuses of power:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...obert-mueller-and_us_5936a148e4b033940169cdc8
Mueller displayed general incompetence before 9/11:
Mueller, through the "justice system", aided the FBI's controversial dealings with Whitey Bulger, including abetting the false imprisonment of four men:
Mueller is no novice when it comes to fishing expeditions and manipulating the surveillance state to slander an innocent man for appearances sake:
Just like Trump, Mueller is A-OK with torture:
As a conclusion from former FBI agent Coleen Rowley:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...obert-mueller-and_us_5936a148e4b033940169cdc8
Mueller displayed general incompetence before 9/11:
Mueller, through the "justice system", aided the FBI's controversial dealings with Whitey Bulger, including abetting the false imprisonment of four men:
Mueller is no novice when it comes to fishing expeditions and manipulating the surveillance state to slander an innocent man for appearances sake:
Just like Trump, Mueller is A-OK with torture:
As a conclusion from former FBI agent Coleen Rowley:
Last edited:
hammysaurusrex
Member
Shrug. Just like with Clinton - no one actually cared he got a blowjob, they cared that he lied about it. I highly doubt anyone gives a shit about Trump sleeping with whatever. He's a 70-yo out-of-shape guy with a mail-order bride; I'd be shocked if he wasn't having sleazy affairs all over the place that involve financial reimbursement. However, if he used campaign funding for his pay-offs and/or he lied about those pay-offs, that is wrong.
Re: Mueller. My opinion hasn't changed. I understand the word impeachment gets people on both the left (hope springs eternal) and right incredibly emotional, but I'm just too much of a 'law and order' guy to say the investigation should be dropped. Obstruction of justice is illegal in our country. The president of any democratic country should not be above the law. I am 100% unapologetic for having this view and there's no amount of partisan apologia on any side that can convince me otherwise.
Re: Mueller. My opinion hasn't changed. I understand the word impeachment gets people on both the left (hope springs eternal) and right incredibly emotional, but I'm just too much of a 'law and order' guy to say the investigation should be dropped. Obstruction of justice is illegal in our country. The president of any democratic country should not be above the law. I am 100% unapologetic for having this view and there's no amount of partisan apologia on any side that can convince me otherwise.
Spheyr
Banned
Yuuuuuup
Air Zombie Meat
Member
He took part in pushing that narrative, yes:
Now we have people claiming he has a high level of integrity because Trump.
infinitys_7th
Member
I think lying about nailing a porn star is a little different than lying about WMDs to line Rumsfeld's, Cheney's, Bush's, and your own pockets.
Not to mention, AFAIK, lying about nailing a porn star has never resulted in civilian deaths and the creation of ISIS.
I think this sums up Mueller's illustrious carrier as an IC critter:
Last edited:
hammysaurusrex
Member
Once again, shrug.
Ken Starr was the special council that lead the moral crusade against Clinton for having a consensual (but undeniably inappropriate) sexual affair with an office intern. Ken Star would go on to be the president of Baylor University, where he provided cover while their football team indiscriminately gang-raped female students with impunity for years.
And yet, no matter how horrible Ken Starr is, it doesn't change that Clinton lied under oath. Whataboutism makes for good political fodder, but not great legal fodder.
As for the facebook-esque meme. Thanks, I'll foward it to my grandmother's nursing home where it will be appreciated. Re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: lol!
This thread and others has made me realise that I’m just going to try and ignore threads about American politics..
The amount of fangirling both sides do, is rather obnoxious.. good luck with your discussions guys.. I’ll just watch the train wreck from my side of the pond.. and hope we don’t get hit by The flying debris, when your two party system collapses on it self..
because you hold your president higher than god, where he can’t do anything wrong, or if you are on the other side, worse than the devil where every thing coming from him, is the biggest mistake ever and will lead to the end of the world..
tribalism is doing great, keep it up!
SerIously this.
America's worship of the President (and military), at the expense of everything else is kind of amazing to watch. They're just becoming more and more divided, which allows more extreme fringes to gain traction.
If you would have told me 15 years ago that American political parties would be embracing neo-nazi, and white supremacists I'd laugh in your face so hard. Now I'm like okay I know what it looks like but I'm sure there's a good reason.
At the very least, definitely proves that a two party system is an absolutely fucking terrible idea lmao
Vicetrailia
Banned
If you've heard abut Trump and watched his documentaries you'd know that he's a sexaholic and serial cheater. Hopefully he avoided using campaign funds, but otherwise only the moralists would be concerned.
Last edited by a moderator:
W
Whataborman
Unconfirmed Member
You realize that those "documentaries" are likely biased, right?
Even so, who cares if he's a sexaholic and serial cheater. He could sleep with a different woman every day and I wouldn't care as long as he's doing a good job and continues down the road toward enacting the policies I care about.
CampbellzSoup
Member
Douche McBaggins The 3rd
Junior Member
He needs sex to fuel his sexohol! If he stops having sex he turns into Mike Pence or a Japanese herb man!
Last edited:
You have/had both Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon in your current administration man.
Jeff Sessions, the guy that was judged to be too racist in the what 60s? 70s in the administration. 15 years ago none of those people would be anywhere near the White House
I’be got to say it’s awfully refreshing to hear people admit that no matter how morally bankrupt and shitty a human being Trump is, that you will all just support him no matter what as long as you get your way.
It’s nice to see that the façade of pretending that he is anything but a sleazy ConMan is finally over.
RokkanStoned
Member
Hmmm, on what basis is Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon neo-nazis or white supremacists? There are things you could accuse them of that would be far more valid and better grounds for debate, but those two seem quite dubious. Can you expand on it?
That Jeff Sessions was judged as something in the 60s/70s, which affected his nominations for the Reagan administration, doesn't necessarily reflect on him today. Many previously far more bigoted people like Robert Byrd, have reformed.
So this just seems hyperbolic, as some ad maleficus argument mixed with hyperbole, to somehow extract from that a moral judgement on the state of America.
Cato
Banned
Yes, that is a problem. But it goes both ways and I think a lot of the people in the US have lost their way.
A lot conservatives are fine with Trumps adultery, because he is "their" guy. Which is funny since family values are traditional conservative items.
At the same time a lot of liberals are perfectly fine with how the clinton's handle extra-martial sexual affairs (and assault) because he is "their" guy too.
You realize that if you condemn Trump but still think the Clintons are upstanding citizens, or vice versa, you complain about the Clintons but ingore Trumps transgressions then you are basically
part of the problem. You are probably so partisan that you can not even fathom that your guy did something wrong, or if you do then you have perfectly valid reasons why / what your guy did was
so much less bad.
Bible quote that fits here "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
I like the US, I lived in the bay area for 5 years, but you are going completely insane. Most of you, and imho primarily on the extreme left but also everywhere else, still, for the average person you really need to dial down the partisanship
and the bullshit "my guys sins are all forgiven but your guys never".
Otherwise, well do you want your children to grow up in a society that is so badly damaged, divided and broken?
Last edited:
Going to have to correct you here. Majority of "the left" do not want Hillary anywhere near the political stand. Also, the left do care about managing the damage of Republican control.
You mistake the left's thoughts on this situation. We are not stupid, even if it was foolproof proven that Trump colluded with Russia and broke many laws in his campaign to presidency, no one believes Republicans would actually respond with impeachment and throwing him in prison. It doesn't matter if they did anyways if the Democrats take the House like it is projected they may, democrats will do to Pence/Trump what Republicans did to Obama.
Uncapping the House of Representatives member count would destroy any chance of Republicans regaining the House any time soon even if gerrymandering stays.
Not directed at you, just a general conclusion I came to after revisiting this site.
The forum had an outbreak of Republican/conservative asshole fever, rather unfortunate to see people so uninformed here and even questioning Meuller professionalism compared to the idiot's we have running the country.
12Goblins
Lil’ Gobbie
They're just not supposed to do that..
I doubt HuffPo fact checks anything and they have questionable standards in general and love controversy and clickbait. The author's tone gets vindictive and personal at times, as well, so not exactly an ideal author for a press story rather than an op/ed. A journalist should interview the author, fact check, get supplemental information, and write a neutral piece, not something like this direct from someone with personal history clearly slanted.
Skepticism and independent research is the way to go here. Certainly many questionable civil rights issues did play out in the post-9/11 window, and Mueller spearheaded the FBI's transformation into a counter-terror focus and would of course be accountable for any FBI initiatives that intentionally abused power etc. I'll read through the citations and check some other sources out, but Mueller is widely regarded to have performed that whole operation highly competently by almost all bipartisan accounts, so grain of salt encouraged on this one.
prag16
Banned
This. They're just bureaucrats. "Incredible people" give me a break. And I don't like Trump but that post is FULL of claims made with no evidence.
Also loving the unbiased reporting by CNN linked upthread. Classic CNN.
rokkerkory
Member
So is Mueller stopped yet?
Steve Bannon - https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/steve-bannon-five-things-to-know
Not even getting into his favorite book being Camp of Saints which he has quoted as an inspiration several times. The entire premise of the book is the idea of white genocide and literally killing all non white people as they "invade" white countries.
One of his friends tried to excuse all of that by saying “he’s using the alt-right — using them for power.” But for minorities is there truly a difference between someone who expounds this kind of rhetoric to grow a base but doesn't believe it versus someone who believes in this kind of stuff? Especially when that someone had the ear of your President?
Or to make frame it in a way you can relate to, would you differentiate between a brown or black person who expresses ISIS beliefs about killing white people only doing it to grow a base, versus a brown or black who truly believes it? Do you differentiate between people who say they should take all the land from white people and kill them from those just saying it to get people to vote in their favor?
Stephen Miller
Even if we argue they're not supremacists/nationalists and are just using those alt-right folks, are we going to argue that it's acceptable to have these kind of people willing to stir up that kind of stuff at the highest level of your government? What if Obama had ISIS supporters...errr sorry what if Obama had people who were only using ISIS rhetoric but didn't actually believe it in his cabinet? These men and their "use" of alt-right talking points or beliefs whether they believe them or are simply using them to increase the republican base is dangerous. I'm sure you guys saw how the tea party took over the republican party and conservatives even further right. Why would they repeat that again? They can't really control these groups, and even worse is that it makes the conservative party look bad to minorities and really hurts minority outreach. I'm pretty positive that not all 97% of voting black women are progressive/liberal, so you have to ask...is it worth alienating these minority groups to grow the base, when you can grow the base by attracting these minority groups? I'd argue that America's minority groups are way more important than white nationalist/supremacists in the short and long run.
I'm not American, but I really REALLY think the country needs to redo their entire political party/voting system so that multiple parties are viable. That way you can have your crazy white nationalists/supremacists in their own party where they can whine and complain about imaginary genocide, and stop poisoning the sane conservative party(s). Hell this way you can get an actual real conservative party who really is about "small government" and not "take away this relatively small amount of funding from X, while giving a hilariously huge amount of funding to new agencies and give even more to the military." This way you can attract super conservative minority groups IIRC, African Americans are actually very conservative yet a sane conservative party could easily get their vote. Hell even most Muslims are conservative!
Your country desperately needs it.
Last edited:
bucyou
Member
way to win an argument no one is making in here..
RokkanStoned
Member
I've already debunked this in a previous thread, the "Why did GAF have such militant sub-communities develop?" thread. Alt-right was a murky term during 2016, perhaps as a strategy by white nationalists, and it's fallacious to attempt to use it without further context to build a case of "neo-nazi" or "white supremacist".
That's more relevant to the current refugee crisis and the problem facing an outside invasion. It's not really helping build the argument around "neo-nazi" and "white supremacist", unless you want to believe that he liked it because of killing non-white people. That's why I said there's other terms I'd see as better to argue for, that's not as specific as "neo-nazi" and "white supremacist". Trying to use those two needs backing up, otherwise they're just buzzwords.
That his friend tried to excuse that, doesn't necessarily reflect on what Bannon then meant by "alt-right" or that he actually believe he was "using them for power". In regards to your example, it believes on your moral system, as a lot of people do believe in the "end justifies the means". I'd say a majority of people I've met online believe in that principle. However, the perspective of minorities and all of this possible association, doesn't show how he'd fit the specific terms "neo-nazi" and "white supremacist". It doesn't mean that he isn't, but it's not clear at all and the evidence is flimsy. That's why I said we have more broader terms, that's possible to use. Like "xenophobic", "racist" (though that's a term that's been used so broadly it has lost its bite in recent times), "extremely prejudiced" or other terms.
The extreme examples weakens your point, because it could equally be used on softer things that'd encompass just about any political candidate. Unless you think there are serious political candidates for election that don't espouse views they don't personally hold or will attempt to act on to appeal to someone. I find it hard to view the "alt-right" as a significant voter force, meaning that it seems very dubious to think he'd appeal to a small voter base, but more likely to a broader voter base that cares about similar issues (immigration, culture, race issues) from a more conservative standpoint. One could use the same argumentation in regards to some subgroup of democrat voters. Still far away from the terms "neo-nazi" and "white supremacist".
1. This is far more ridiculous. "Guilt by association" and the fact that he hosted an immigration debate and helped Spencer get support for the debate. Then you have the weird thing about somehow accepting everything Richard Spencer says and somehow making Millers denial seem suspect with a seemingly sarcastic "of course".
Just one thing though, Stephen Miller is jewish.
2. Globalist is the opposite of nationalist. Whether or not global agendas and control structures or the national state is the highest order. One of the weakest thing I see is people trying to use terms as association fallacies. PS! Stephen Miller is jewish.
3. What the hell.
Does anyone take this seriously? Here's a hint. Cosmopolitan can also mean: "Cosmopolitanism is the ideology that all human beings belong to a single community, based on a shared morality."
Why does everything have to be attributed to weird signals? Is the need to attribute to malice so great? PS! Stephen Miller is jewish.
4. What is this circular argumentation? More so, using political opponents' characterizations of him. PS! Stephen Miller is jewish.
For someone who seems to care about prejudice, there's a lot of prejudice floating in here. While a multiple party system could be interesting, that's irrelevant to the actual state of the US. More so, "white nationalists"/"supremacists" would be seemingly given republican voters, meaning there's hardly any need to appeal to them. Unless you think a large portion of Americans are white nationalist/supremacists.
EDIT: But this is really getting off-topic. Point is that the claim that America has embraced "neo-nazis" and "white supremacists" by tying Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon to those terms, is ridiculous without more definite proof. It bases itself on viewing everything through a specific political scope, attributing all language to secret signals and malice. Remember the "ok" hand sign? Trying to consider all language through what you want to believe the person "actually means", is something that's more likely to shine your own biases, than working as argumentation against someone you disagree with. It's an attempt to sideline the debate, by attributing malice towards everything from your opponent. Also, I'm not American either, I'm Norwegian.
Last edited:
Tumle
Member
I agree with almost all of what you said and was thinking I’m going to press like on your post.. but then you just had to throw up the partisan flag at the end..
Changing minds one post at a time I see..
Vicetrailia
Banned
I want to let you know that even the propaganda Trump docs always cover his sex life, affairs, and multiple wives. This is a well known fact about Trump.
W
Whataborman
Unconfirmed Member
He's been married multiple times and likes to have sex. Who cares?
The only people who seem to care are people who didn't like President Trump anyway. As I said in the post you quoted, I don't care about the President's personal life as long as he's doing a good job and continues down the road toward enacting the policies I care about.
Shiki_
Banned
What kind of policies, anyway?
For me, I see all Republican voters as uninformed at best. Exception of a few policies, Republicans are backwards in almost every way. Democrats are not perfect, but none of their policies are going to set U.S back in competing with other countries in various industries (except trade since Democrats tend to also be trade protectionists) for generations. Democrats are also terrible at dealing with housing as well, with too many Democrats being nimby. Democrats have plenty of faults, but none go as far as damaging U.S as Republicans do and the sooner Republicans are forced to move center (right now they are going extreme-right and many are center-right) or center-left, the better their party will be and I will stop calling their supporters ignorant.
Immigration
Tax reform
Climate control (and hell you can just say pollution as it causes a lot of health problems to U.S citizens)
Healthcare
Guns
Police accountability
Trade
Income/wealth inequality
Renewable resources
Voter rights
They are backwards on too many key policies.
Last edited:
bigedole
Member
I think Republicans are right on some things and wrong on others. I think Democrats have ideas that will damage the US for generations to come were they implemented. Look, opinions without facts! I can do this too.
rokkerkory
Member
Bar is so low at the moment, might be even below ground. Your kids will learn about a president who cares very little for his wives. Really a role model to look up to.
bucyou
Member
they sure will, its in the chapter of the 1992-2000 presidency
rokkerkory
Member
No doubt, this one just takes it to another level.
Cute, but history should already let you know how stupid a statement that is. Democrats aren't shining beacons, but they are far less dangerous than Republicans.
I mentioned some policies they were terrible on, that has lasting effects, peoplcan do their own research as to why as this is already offtopic.
pramod
Banned
I see you listed immigration, just wondering why is stopping illegal immigration "dangerous"? Doesn't every sovereign country have to right to control its borders and determine who can or cannot enter the country?
bigedole
Member
For everything you listed, I don't think the republican stance is dangerous at all, let alone capable of causing irreperable harm to our society. In many cases, I believe that the democratic platform would f-up the country far worse on those issues.
Like I said, opinions! They mean about as much as our buttholes. If you have something substantive you want to discuss, I'd love to partake.
No they do not. And the evidence clearly shows that they can not.
One planet one species. You can put up all the border fences you want. People will still g t past them.
The call for harshly stopping illegal immigration is a disguise for less immigration in general and has roots in racism. Then some of the worst arguments people against illegal immigration loves to use "they cutting the line" or "come back legally", ignores the facts of trying to become a U.S citizen legally. If you have to wait 10-20 years to become a citizen, then the system is terrible. Immigration is a GOOD thing regardless of anything, hell, even illegal immigration benefits this country more than it costs it. The "jobs" being stolen are being stolen by automation, not illegals immigrants.
The other argument is illegal immigration spike crime. Nothing backs this up especially since U.S generally do not keep the data needed to come to a correct conclusion. Because of this, it is a folly argument. Statistics are what the person who have gathered the information make of it. I can show you a study done by the Washington Post on their findings regarding this and you may show me one saying a completely different thing. Conservative policies generally play on emotion and fear of the worst that can happen, not facts.
As developed countries start to stagnate on population, immigration aides in curbing the economic crunch of a slowed/decreasing population (look at Japan's crisis and soon to be Germany). We can control the borders, but a border wall (the thing conservatives seem to love so much) is the most inefficient method to stop immigration along a border the size of the Mexican-U.S border. I am not saying illegal immigration should be allowed, but cracking down on it while simultaneously having a terrible system in place to give them an avenue, makes no sense.
If one wants to curb illegal immigration, they must first make it where it is easier and doesn't take decades to become citizens legally. If they can read and write English and have no violent background, there is no reason they can't come here.
No, I just don't argue with people on the opposite side because there is really no point, it will be a battle of the sources and neither of us will change minds. A person that truly wants to educate themselves would do so on their own. When I was more conservative minded as a late teenager, I didn't have someone else convince me that my views were wrong in some argument online/in person, I read and learned it on my own after questioning it. There were only a few cases where I was informed online by someone else, but that was me holding no opinion on it at all due to ignorance, rather than believing a different thing.
I went from being anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, pro-guns, believing the cops were right most of the time, low taxes, strong military, and believing in many stereotypes to a complete 180 exception of the military part.
I asked myself, was it right to block people from living their life how they want to just because I didn't agree or was uncomfortable about it?
I asked myself, was it right to saddle a teenage girl/woman, with responsibility that was incredibly burdensome? How will this effect the child?
I asked myself, was allowing every Joe a gun at the cost of 30K lives a year? How does this effect police mentality?
I asked myself, was it right that a cop can get away will killing some unarmed person just because they say they thought they were in danger?
I read online and throughout my microeconomic and macroeconomic classes to get an understanding on taxes and realized low taxes all the time is not healthy for the country as people are usually bad at assessing and managing risks. Realizing what the state can do for the people.
I mean a lot of this, one usually realizes on their own if they are willing to learn and question the sources they read. A study I read awhile back (which I will find for you later) shown that conservatives/Republicans tend to not question or fact-check the sources for the "studies" they read, even holding stake in opinion pieces as much as actual fact-backed articles.
Last edited:
infinitys_7th
Member
Every Joe having a gun does not "cost" 30k lives a year. Violence in the US is heavily concentrated, with most lives taken being from suicides.
If it is a sociological study, there is plenty of doubt to be had in how the study was conducted.
Vicetrailia
Banned
So you're in strictly "what have you done for me lately" mode. Are you actually able to see clearly? You're such a fan but you don't know anything about him. Thats a little odd to me.
Dontero
Banned
As someone looking from outside:
- castrated Obamacare
- lowered taxes
- gave more money to military (idk why your army needs more but that was his promise)
- he removed US from TPP and is in heavy talks with Canada and Mexico about redesigning deal
- he already has gone to trade war with China
- tripled ICE funds and they hired a ton of people.
- looks like US is pulling out of Syria (stopped funding "rebels")
- looks like N.K. problem will be solved for a while and could lead to unification of both Koreas.
- increased veteran something (don't remember much)
And that is 1,5 year.
From his initial promises are left:
- the wall (already parts of it are redesigned as we speak and general design for wall is in process of creation), democrats already were willing to give him budget as part of Obamacare deal with him. And no around 7$BLN from US budget is nothing considering Iraq war cost $1TRL+
And that is it. I mean he isn't beauty and his style is controversial but whatever he does he achieves his goals and still has around 2,5 years to make wall possible, even without wall you can hardly say he doesn't do what he promises.
I am 100% sure he will win second therm.
MWS Natural
Member
W
Whataborman
Unconfirmed Member
"What have you done for me lately" is politics in a nutshell. Why would anyone vote for or support a candidate that wasn't actively working towards goals that they felt were important?
The only important thing about a candidate is how they will vote on the issues you care about. Everything else is filler.
Vicetrailia
Banned
If all you want is say lower taxes, you're paying a heavy price to get it.
Last edited by a moderator: