|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Jared Kushner, President Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, plans to detail four meetings he had with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign and transition period — including one with a Russian lawyer set up by Donald Trump Jr. — but deny any improper contacts or collusion in testimony to Congress on Monday.
Kushner defends his interactions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and other Russian officials as typical contacts in his role as the Trump campaign’s liaison to foreign governments, according to an 11-page prepared statement he plans to submit for the record, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post.
Kushner is scheduled to testify in closed-door sessions, first before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Monday and then before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, as part of the congressional probes into Russian interference in the 2016 election and contacts between Russia and Trump campaign officials and associates.
U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian government orchestrated a far-reaching campaign to meddle with last year’s presidential campaign and influence the outcome in Trump’s favor.
In his testimony, which will be submitted to the congressional committees before he answers questions from lawmakers, Kushner says he has had only “limited contacts” with Russian representatives and denies any wrongdoing.
“I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government,” Kushner writes. “I had no improper contacts. I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector.”
Kushner portrays himself as a goal-oriented task master new to presidential politics who assumed increasingly important responsibilities on a fast-paced campaign in which decisions were made “on the fly,” including serving as the main point of contact for foreign government officials...
Kushner to detail four meetings with Russian officials in congressional testimony, but say ‘I did not collude’
|
On July 24 2017 07:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2017 07:32 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I've found that republicans believe in flat earth, while I haven't met one single democrat that believes in flat earth (maybe that rapper guy? who knows). While I do believe there is conspiracy theorist/crazies in both sides, I find way more far fetched ideas on the right than the left. Well, maybe its just the left tend to stay quiet about it? Who knows. With the exception of the anti-GMO and anti-vaxxer movements (which have advocates from all sides afaik), anything anti-science (flat earth, climate change denial, Creationist/ Intelligent Design, anti-evolution, anti- big bang, anything-where-science-contradicts-Christianity, etc.) is 99% on the right/ conservatives/ Republicans/ religious nutjobs.
With the exception of all these science areas that I'm going to arbitrarily except, the other side is 99% anti-science. Lol. Do you even read what you write? I saw a tweet by Panera Bread the other day (it was Jul 20), about if it's in fireworks it shouldn't be in your food, except you can make fireworks out of quite a few edibles, notoriously sugar (ooh chemistry, scary). Most of the food quackery comes from "the left". As for flat earth, if I'm not mistaken I doubt Kyrie Irving is a Republican. Which is to say, that idiocy isn't the purview of one part of the political spectrum or the other. Your post reeks so much of blind partisanship it's hilarious. I bet you also complain about Republican partisanry a lot too.
As a libertarian I sit here on the side and think to myself how fucking conceited and dissonant our "mainstream" polity is. God, it's mind-blowing.
|
Panera Bread is not "the Left," nor are Starbucks, Amazon, or other companies that ostensibly support progressive ideas. These are corporations that do their best to profit off of virtue signaling in and around what "the Left" means, and by casually lumping people beneath their banners, you do their work for them.
|
On July 24 2017 20:07 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2017 07:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 24 2017 07:32 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I've found that republicans believe in flat earth, while I haven't met one single democrat that believes in flat earth (maybe that rapper guy? who knows). While I do believe there is conspiracy theorist/crazies in both sides, I find way more far fetched ideas on the right than the left. Well, maybe its just the left tend to stay quiet about it? Who knows. With the exception of the anti-GMO and anti-vaxxer movements (which have advocates from all sides afaik), anything anti-science (flat earth, climate change denial, Creationist/ Intelligent Design, anti-evolution, anti- big bang, anything-where-science-contradicts-Christianity, etc.) is 99% on the right/ conservatives/ Republicans/ religious nutjobs. With the exception of all these science areas that I'm going to arbitrarily except, the other side is 99% anti-science. Lol. Do you even read what you write? I saw a tweet by Panera Bread the other day (it was Jul 20), about if it's in fireworks it shouldn't be in your food, except you can make fireworks out of quite a few edibles, notoriously sugar (ooh chemistry, scary). Most of the food quackery comes from "the left". As for flat earth, if I'm not mistaken I doubt Kyrie Irving is a Republican. Which is to say, that idiocy isn't the purview of one part of the political spectrum or the other. Your post reeks so much of blind partisanship it's hilarious. I bet you also complain about Republican partisanry a lot too. As a libertarian I sit here on the side and think to myself how fucking conceited and dissonant our "mainstream" polity is. God, it's mind-blowing.
He doesn't arbitrarily except them, they are just the ones where the right is not the predominant driving force of the retardation (altough 99% is definitely stretching it).
As a whole the right is more anti-science, if only because they are the more religious bunch.
|
On July 24 2017 20:07 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2017 07:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 24 2017 07:32 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I've found that republicans believe in flat earth, while I haven't met one single democrat that believes in flat earth (maybe that rapper guy? who knows). While I do believe there is conspiracy theorist/crazies in both sides, I find way more far fetched ideas on the right than the left. Well, maybe its just the left tend to stay quiet about it? Who knows. With the exception of the anti-GMO and anti-vaxxer movements (which have advocates from all sides afaik), anything anti-science (flat earth, climate change denial, Creationist/ Intelligent Design, anti-evolution, anti- big bang, anything-where-science-contradicts-Christianity, etc.) is 99% on the right/ conservatives/ Republicans/ religious nutjobs. With the exception of all these science areas that I'm going to arbitrarily except, the other side is 99% anti-science. Lol. Do you even read what you write? I saw a tweet by Panera Bread the other day (it was Jul 20), about if it's in fireworks it shouldn't be in your food, except you can make fireworks out of quite a few edibles, notoriously sugar (ooh chemistry, scary). Most of the food quackery comes from "the left". As for flat earth, if I'm not mistaken I doubt Kyrie Irving is a Republican. Which is to say, that idiocy isn't the purview of one part of the political spectrum or the other. Your post reeks so much of blind partisanship it's hilarious. I bet you also complain about Republican partisanry a lot too. As a libertarian I sit here on the side and think to myself how fucking conceited and dissonant our "mainstream" polity is. God, it's mind-blowing.
Wegandi, there is no question the anti science camp is the right. It's the GOP which pushes for the "intelligent design" bs to be taught in schools, that denies climate science going as far as sabotaging the work of scientists. It's not Clinton but Trump who jumped in the anti vaccine bandwagon. Etc etc. That anti anti intellectualism is not strictly limited to the right, that there is also bs on the left and that there are right wingers who are not medieval obscurantists, for sure. But don't deny the obvious.
|
On July 24 2017 20:07 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2017 07:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 24 2017 07:32 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I've found that republicans believe in flat earth, while I haven't met one single democrat that believes in flat earth (maybe that rapper guy? who knows). While I do believe there is conspiracy theorist/crazies in both sides, I find way more far fetched ideas on the right than the left. Well, maybe its just the left tend to stay quiet about it? Who knows. With the exception of the anti-GMO and anti-vaxxer movements (which have advocates from all sides afaik), anything anti-science (flat earth, climate change denial, Creationist/ Intelligent Design, anti-evolution, anti- big bang, anything-where-science-contradicts-Christianity, etc.) is 99% on the right/ conservatives/ Republicans/ religious nutjobs. With the exception of all these science areas that I'm going to arbitrarily except, the other side is 99% anti-science. Lol. Do you even read what you write? I saw a tweet by Panera Bread the other day (it was Jul 20), about if it's in fireworks it shouldn't be in your food, except you can make fireworks out of quite a few edibles, notoriously sugar (ooh chemistry, scary). Most of the food quackery comes from "the left". As for flat earth, if I'm not mistaken I doubt Kyrie Irving is a Republican. Which is to say, that idiocy isn't the purview of one part of the political spectrum or the other. Your post reeks so much of blind partisanship it's hilarious. I bet you also complain about Republican partisanry a lot too. As a libertarian I sit here on the side and think to myself how fucking conceited and dissonant our "mainstream" polity is. God, it's mind-blowing.
Sermokala earlier had suggested 70% instead of 99%, which is fine with me. 99% is an exaggeration.
You've got Congressional Republicans and Republicans who ran for president arguing over whether climate change and evolution are real; you've got the same party trying to inject religion into public school science class and remove science; you've also got conservative journalists and citizens with much more anti-science belief and propaganda than liberals.
But sure, Panera Bread sounds like a perfect equivalent to Jim Inhofe, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, etc.
|
Eric Prince, former head of blackwater was arguing on NPR today that the US should have a viceroy in command of a private army take control of Afghanistan. He also wrote an oped in the WSJ and said Trump has expressed interest in the idea.
|
On July 24 2017 21:42 Nevuk wrote:
Eric Prince, former head of blackwater was arguing on NPR today that the US should have a viceroy in command of a private army take control of Afghanistan. He also wrote an oped in the WSJ and said Trump has expressed interest in the idea.
I for one support the creation of an American Middle East India Company. That sounds like it might be good for a few laughs before it helps propagate terrorism even more.
|
Afghanistan is an expensive disaster for America. The Pentagon has already consumed $828 billion on the war, and taxpayers will be liable for trillions more in veterans’ health-care costs for decades to come. More than 2,000 American soldiers have died there, with more than 20,000 wounded in action. For all that effort, Afghanistan is failing. The terrorist cohort consistently gains control of more territory, including key economic arteries. It’s time for President Trump to fix our approach to Afghanistan in five ways.
First, he should consolidate authority in Afghanistan with one person: an American viceroy who would lead all U.S. government and coalition efforts—including command, budget, policy, promotion and contracting—and report directly to the president. As it is, there are too many cooks in the kitchen—and the cooks change shift annually. The coalition has had 17 different military commanders in the past 15 years, which means none of them had time to develop or be held responsible for a coherent strategy.
A better approach would resemble Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s leadership of postwar Japan. Given clear multiyear authority, MacArthur made bold moves like repealing restrictive speech laws and granting property rights. Those directives moved Japan ahead by centuries. In Afghanistan, the viceroy approach would reduce rampant fraud by focusing spending on initiatives that further the central strategy, rather than handing cash to every outstretched hand from a U.S. system bereft of institutional memory.
Second, Mr. Trump should authorize his viceroy to set rules of engagement in collaboration with the elected Afghan government to make better decisions, faster. Troops fighting for their lives should not have to ask a lawyer sitting in air conditioning 500 miles away for permission to drop a bomb. Our plodding, hand wringing and overcaution have prolonged the war—and the suffering it bears upon the Afghan population. Give the leadership on the ground the authority and responsibility to finish the job.[...]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-macarthur-model-for-afghanistan-1496269058
Article continues further but I don't have a subscription
|
On July 24 2017 19:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +Jared Kushner, President Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, plans to detail four meetings he had with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign and transition period — including one with a Russian lawyer set up by Donald Trump Jr. — but deny any improper contacts or collusion in testimony to Congress on Monday.
Kushner defends his interactions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and other Russian officials as typical contacts in his role as the Trump campaign’s liaison to foreign governments, according to an 11-page prepared statement he plans to submit for the record, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post.
Kushner is scheduled to testify in closed-door sessions, first before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Monday and then before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, as part of the congressional probes into Russian interference in the 2016 election and contacts between Russia and Trump campaign officials and associates.
U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian government orchestrated a far-reaching campaign to meddle with last year’s presidential campaign and influence the outcome in Trump’s favor.
In his testimony, which will be submitted to the congressional committees before he answers questions from lawmakers, Kushner says he has had only “limited contacts” with Russian representatives and denies any wrongdoing.
“I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government,” Kushner writes. “I had no improper contacts. I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector.”
Kushner portrays himself as a goal-oriented task master new to presidential politics who assumed increasingly important responsibilities on a fast-paced campaign in which decisions were made “on the fly,” including serving as the main point of contact for foreign government officials... Kushner to detail four meetings with Russian officials in congressional testimony, but say ‘I did not collude’
this is nearing "caught in the bed with a dead hooker and a bag of cocaine but did nothing wrong just let me explain" territory.
|
On July 24 2017 22:41 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2017 19:46 farvacola wrote:Jared Kushner, President Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, plans to detail four meetings he had with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign and transition period — including one with a Russian lawyer set up by Donald Trump Jr. — but deny any improper contacts or collusion in testimony to Congress on Monday.
Kushner defends his interactions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and other Russian officials as typical contacts in his role as the Trump campaign’s liaison to foreign governments, according to an 11-page prepared statement he plans to submit for the record, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post.
Kushner is scheduled to testify in closed-door sessions, first before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Monday and then before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, as part of the congressional probes into Russian interference in the 2016 election and contacts between Russia and Trump campaign officials and associates.
U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian government orchestrated a far-reaching campaign to meddle with last year’s presidential campaign and influence the outcome in Trump’s favor.
In his testimony, which will be submitted to the congressional committees before he answers questions from lawmakers, Kushner says he has had only “limited contacts” with Russian representatives and denies any wrongdoing.
“I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government,” Kushner writes. “I had no improper contacts. I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector.”
Kushner portrays himself as a goal-oriented task master new to presidential politics who assumed increasingly important responsibilities on a fast-paced campaign in which decisions were made “on the fly,” including serving as the main point of contact for foreign government officials... Kushner to detail four meetings with Russian officials in congressional testimony, but say ‘I did not collude’ this is nearing "caught in the bed with a dead hooker and a bag of cocaine but did nothing wrong just let me explain" territory.
"She's my wife, that's baking soda, and she isn't dead, she's just dead inside."
|
Maybe she just tried to bite his tongue off or something.
|
|
|
On July 24 2017 20:34 farvacola wrote:
Panera Bread is not "the Left," nor are Starbucks, Amazon, or other companies that ostensibly support progressive ideas. These are corporations that do their best to profit off of virtue signaling in and around what "the Left" means, and by casually lumping people beneath their banners, you do their work for them.
But when we're talking about the promulgators of conspiracy theories on left and right, you have to accept the orgs donating tens of thousands (and up) to DNC/Dem candidates. It isn't a game of explicit strong ties on one side, and dither on the motivations of the other. Unless you want to push the point that corporations use the social policy agreements on the left to help their orgs, which is ancillary to the point under consideration. I'm sympathetic to that view.
I second ChristianS's SoCal view. I've heard from blue collar, social contacts, old coworkers, everything from Russia hacking the vote totals to George W Bush engineering the 9/11 attacks to Trump secretly working on legislation to round up the gays. You don't want to play the game of whose fringe is wackier.
|
"Trump often muses about possible personnel moves that he never makes, sometimes just to gauge the listener's reaction."
I feel like Trump never really does any research on a person, and will just occasionally throw out names to people and see if those names are met with agreement.
On a similar note, I want to hear Trump troll Christie again, perhaps in relation to the AG appointment.
|
On July 24 2017 19:36 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2017 11:25 mozoku wrote:On July 24 2017 06:26 KwarK wrote:
Is there anyone who argues that oil wasn't the reason for the US being involved in Iraq? That seems a very odd thing to call a conspiracy theory, to me it's like being told that the round earth theory is the conspiracy.
As far as I know, the conspiracy theory is that people wanted to get rich off of oil/war and so Bush blew up the WTC to get some kind of pretext. That's the theory, and one that I don't subscribe to obviously.
But regarding America's interests in Iraq, that's oil. And pretty much only oil. Not sand, not holiday properties, not historical relics for Hobby Lobby, oil. America is in Iraq for oil. There are plenty of great countries around the world with shitty regimes that the US would love to have better regimes. The reason the US doesn't regime change those countries, and does regime change Iraq, is because Iraq has oil and oil security is a critical geopolitical interest of the United States.
Whenever I hear someone going "open your eyes, we're in the Middle East for oil, the evidence is right there" etc I always get a little confused about what other explanation I'm meant to have subscribed to which they think they're disillusioning me of. This whole exchange reminds me somewhat of this. Only in this case you'd be on the other side, insisting that NASA isn't run by the government I think your confusion might be because you're assuming a more reasonable meaning to what the guy is saying than what he actually meant. The most prominent conspiracy theory I used to hear involving the Iraq War and oil was that the US was going to drill it themselves when they were done invading. You don't hear that one anymore because it didn't happen. But it was a popular one at the time. And I don't share your resoluteness in the belief that the US is only in Iraq for oil anyway. During the Cold War, I would have agreed and it made sense for national security purposes then. Nowadays, the US reasons for being in the Middle East (including Iraq) are primarily counterterrorism-related. Same with the MIC. The theory basically asks me to believe that there are a number of very rich people who make their money off of government defence contracts and therefore lobby the government to give them defence contracts and create a need for defence contracts by increasing military involvement or hardware aid packages aid. The inverse sounds far more unbelievable, that the people who make guns go to their shareholder meetings and say "unfortunately it looks like this latest tragedy will result in record dividends and growth this year, let's all join hands and pray for peace". Yeah, I think that's reasonable and I agree with you. Conspiracy theorists argue that the "MIC" (which as you've defined is the same old lobbying that every under industry does so idk why it gets own scary name) is bamboozling the US into starting wars by itself though. You have to be a pretty big buffoon to believe that imo. Lol? Really. Some of it is definitely intentional, but a lot is "unintentional" (we're talking about MIC here). Let's just take one example - the CIA armed and trained the Mujahadeen (basically the Taliban), to fight the Russians. This is a boon to the crony defense industry. Come few years later, we're now fighting them. This has been the MO in a number of regions of the world. The US arms and trains - then we fight the people we've armed and trained years later. The most notorious is probably Saddam Hussein.
The fact that the defense industry benefits from foreign policy is not the same as the defense lobby (might as well call it what it is) determining foreign policy. I'm not sure what your point is.
The Soviet-Afghan War was a major catalyst in the fall of the Soviet Union. The US only gave aid to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War after it was feared that Iran would overrun Iraq and cause more more problems than Saddam would. US involvement in these wars had legitimate rationale.
The Soviets gave more aid to Iraq than the US did anyway, and France also supplied military aid to Iraq. Was it the MIC driving policy in both of those countries too?
As for historically. You should give consideration to reading Marine Corps General and one of the most highly decorated military officers in our nations history - Smedley Butler. His book War is a Racket demonstrates as fact that there are concerted efforts in various industries to use the military as a spearhead. Eisenhower knew this - hence his speech. If you won't listen to history or generals like Eisenhower or Butler, what will it take?
There is also the fact that large standing armies are almost always used for offensive aggression. History is crystal clear on this. When this happens, the people lose their liberties at home. We've seen how much power the CIA, NSA, security State, etc. has eroded our rights in the name of "safety" and "terrorism". Our wars and meddling abroad has only caused numerous harms to our own people. Madison wrote elegantly about how going in search of foreign boogeyman will be disaster for own peoples liberties at home. It's the reason they had citizen militia's and wrote passionately and at great length about the dangers of a standing army. We've ignored all of this.
If you think that's some conspiracy, you fit in with the Perl's and Zbignew's of the world.
You forgot to mention that Smedley Butler served from 1898-1931. Or that his service was in the Banana Wars, the Boxer Rebellion, and the colonization of the Phillippines; all of which are fully acknowledged as essentially America's version of imperialism. The exception is WW1, where US involvement was driven by a number of factors (including, to be sure, the effect of German aggression on Trans-Atlantic trade).
What any of his experience has to do with post-WW2 American foreign policy (which is what this thread almost exclusively focuses on as far as foreign policy goes) is wholly beyond me.
Regardless of any of that though, I've already acknowledged that a defense lobby exists (just as there's a lobby for every industry). The conspiracy theorists argue that the MIC/defense lobby has been the primary driver of US foreign policy since WW2, or other crazy nonsense like that.
Your second paragraph is a bunch of personal opinions that most people would disagree with. I'm not in the mood to debate the relative merits of isolationism.
|
On July 25 2017 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:"Trump often muses about possible personnel moves that he never makes, sometimes just to gauge the listener's reaction." I feel like Trump never really does any research on a person, and will just occasionally throw out names to people and see if those names are met with agreement. On a similar note, I want to hear Trump troll Christie again, perhaps in relation to the AG appointment.
yeah, he goes with his gut (the best gut!) and then sees how people react. if it's a positive reaction, it's trump's killer instincts. if it's less positive, well hey sometimes the gut is wrong but rest assured trump's gut is still the best.
|
Statement from Charlie Gard's parents. Another good statement and microcosm of everything that was wrong with that case. For the more cynical around here, either accept responsibility to pay for your own healthcare or accept that a corrupt bureaucrat will one day decide if you live or die.
|
On July 25 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/889506321850085376Statement from Charlie Gard's parents. Another good statement and microcosm of everything that was wrong with that case. For the more cynical around here, either accept responsibility to pay for your own healthcare or accept that a corrupt bureaucrat will one day decide if you live or die.
Wow... what a great picture you paint there!
Where in this story was a corrupt bureaucrat? Who was making money off this? From what I have read the kid had no chance what so ever and the parents were waiting for a miracle that was never coming.
|
United States43748 Posts
On July 25 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/889506321850085376Statement from Charlie Gard's parents. Another good statement and microcosm of everything that was wrong with that case. For the more cynical around here, either accept responsibility to pay for your own healthcare or accept that a corrupt bureaucrat will one day decide if you live or die.
It's nothing to do with healthcare or corrupt bureaucrats. The parents were misusing their position as guardians of the child to act against its interests. A judge prevented them from doing that. That's literally it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
