|
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. |
What the hell is wrong with American conservatives. In the majority of other countries a man like Manafort would ring alarm bells. But here you guys are literally defending Trump and shifting the blame on everyone else but Trump himself for walking into the rake that was Paul Manafort.
Manafort was literally, literally a man who, in the words of his own daughter's private email correspondence with her own family, was accepting "blood money" from the Russians to screw with Ukrainian political processes.
This goes back before Trump was even a serious political candidate so unless the Department of Justice are time travelers trying to rig an election of Hilldog, they're not wiretapping Trump Tower or Trump himself. They're wiretapping a man who is literally a Russian agent with a history of stirring up shit for the Russians for Russian money. This is documented to hell and back.
If Donald Trump can't vet his own campaign manager, someone everyone was calling a Russian goon, and say "hey it might be a bad idea to hire a man who was paid by the Russians to stir shit up in Ukraine", then its not the Department of Justice's fault. And it doesn't validate Donald Trump's claims that Obama was wiretapping him and his tower because the DoJ wasn't. Its clear that Trump is talking about Obama wiretapping himself personally to give Hillary Clinton an advantage in the election. Which is patently untrue.
He was wiretapping Manafort and if Trump and whoever don't care about his past history, its not the problem of law enforcement that you choose to associate yourself with said people. If I associate myself with a some drug kingpin knowingly, I don't think I have a right to complain if the FBI kept tabs on me.
On September 19 2017 15:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 15:07 Aquanim wrote: Does anybody here disagree with my assertion that the claim that the Obama administration wiretapped anybody related to the Trump campaign because he was a political opponent has no known basis in fact? Does it really matter why though? If Obama knew that Trumps campaign was being wiretapped indirectly thats a huge conflict of interest. That people in the media refuted, or were told to the effect that they refuted the fact of, that anyone was wiretapped is bad That it was done because he was a political opponent is subjective and opinion based. Its not Watergate where nixon specifically wanted to spy on the dems bad but its still pretty bad and would taint Obama's "practically scandal free" legacy.
Aren't Obama's fault if Trump decided to associate himself and actually hire a known Russian agent as his campaign manager. We knew who Manafort was before he became Trump's campaign manager. Its the reason why his stance on Ukraine was the complete opposite of a surprise.
|
Donald Trump is considering staging a US military parade in Washington on the Fourth of July Independence Day holiday, inspired by the parade he saw on Bastille Day in Paris.
Meeting France’s President Emmanuel Macron on the fringes of the UN general assembly, Trump said he had asked his White House chief of staff, retired Marine Corps general John Kelly, to look into the possibility of holding such a display of US military might.
Trump said he marvelled at the French parade that he saw with Macron on France’s 14 July national holiday.
In typical Trump fashion, the president said he wants the parade to be bigger and better than the one he saw in France.
“It was one of the greatest parades I have ever seen,” Trump said. “It was two hours on the button, and was military might, and I think a tremendous thing for France and the spirit of France.”
“And to a large extent, because of what I witnessed, we may do something like that on July 4th in Washington, down Pennsylvania Avenue,” Trump said. “We’re going to have to try and top it.”
He noted that France’s parade featured representatives from different wars and armed forces wearing different uniforms. “It was really so well done,” he said.
“So we’re actually thinking about 4th of July, Pennsylvania Avenue, having a really great parade to show our military strength,” Trump added.
Trump has often displayed an enthusiasm for military pageantry and had reportedly hoped for some kind of parade at his own inauguration.
Trump watched enthusiastically from a reviewing stand on 14 July as the French military showcased its tanks and fighter jets, including many US-made planes, along the famed Champs-Élysées. The occasion also marked the 100th anniversary of the US entrance into world war one.
Trump said he has discussed the parade idea with his chief of staff, John Kelly, a retired marine general.
The president, who has recruited three current and retired generals for his senior leadership team, also noted that the US spends $700bn on the military.
Washington already holds quite a few parades, including some with military participation that are held on Memorial Day and the Fourth of July. But those patriotic processions typically involve marching bands and uniformed elements, not the grand display of military hardware that Trump envisions.
Source
|
On September 19 2017 04:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2017 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2017 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote: In the chain you see that you had different requirements for what made something racist before you advanced this more recent argument. It looks to me like I'm using your definition of racism, not advancing one of my own. Regardless, I'm not seeing that I said then that is materially different from what I am saying now. If I have done anything, I have expanded my definition of racism, which you should be pleased with. In the chain you say that the "Websters" definition of racism is one you accept, until now. I do, but you asked why I would think otherwise, it's because you and others accepted/advocated a different definition of racism several months ago. But you changed the definition of racist so you could have a white person be racist without being a white supremacist, which is pretty ridiculous to anyone paying attention. You do understand that the definition of racism that I am advocating now is broader than the one that I advanced before and necessarily includes the previous definition, right? And why exactly are you objecting to the idea that someone can be a racist without being a racial supremacist? I really don't get what the hang up is. I got sniped. But oh well. To answer his hang up, it's that you changed the definition so that the two are exclusive of each other. It fits the narrative being ponied about. When we were discussing race issues, we had very clear and cut lines in the sand. Then you started shifting the line and blurring it, so that the definition was changed and that it was removed entirely. Now, we're discussing two separate issues instead of one; the supposition that white supremacists are racists. You can be prejudice and not think your race is superior. But you cannot be racist and not a racial supremacist. It doesn't make sense. I can, and I am.
I definitely don't believe my race is somehow superior. I do get called out on racist comments, leading me to believe I am at the very best, insensitive to racial issues and thus a bit racist myself.
E: oh, and just to be absolutely clear: to be a white supremacist, you obviously do have to be a racist, and Vox Day is very obviously both. Also, I believe xDaunts hilarious argument was that Vox Day, as pasty-faced a white dude as anybody has ever seen, cannot be a white supremacist, because he's not white (what is it, 1/16th Cherokee?).
|
|
Video game designer, sci-fi writer, nationalist, anti-vaxxer and alt-right activist.
|
On September 19 2017 17:43 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 04:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2017 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2017 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote: In the chain you see that you had different requirements for what made something racist before you advanced this more recent argument. It looks to me like I'm using your definition of racism, not advancing one of my own. Regardless, I'm not seeing that I said then that is materially different from what I am saying now. If I have done anything, I have expanded my definition of racism, which you should be pleased with. In the chain you say that the "Websters" definition of racism is one you accept, until now. I do, but you asked why I would think otherwise, it's because you and others accepted/advocated a different definition of racism several months ago. But you changed the definition of racist so you could have a white person be racist without being a white supremacist, which is pretty ridiculous to anyone paying attention. You do understand that the definition of racism that I am advocating now is broader than the one that I advanced before and necessarily includes the previous definition, right? And why exactly are you objecting to the idea that someone can be a racist without being a racial supremacist? I really don't get what the hang up is. I got sniped. But oh well. To answer his hang up, it's that you changed the definition so that the two are exclusive of each other. It fits the narrative being ponied about. When we were discussing race issues, we had very clear and cut lines in the sand. Then you started shifting the line and blurring it, so that the definition was changed and that it was removed entirely. Now, we're discussing two separate issues instead of one; the supposition that white supremacists are racists. You can be prejudice and not think your race is superior. But you cannot be racist and not a racial supremacist. It doesn't make sense. I can, and I am. I definitely don't believe my race is somehow superior. I do get called out on racist comments, leading me to believe I am at the very best, insensitive to racial issues and thus a bit racist myself. E: oh, and just to be absolutely clear: to be a white supremacist, you obviously do have to be a racist, and Vox Day is very obviously both. Also, I believe xDaunts hilarious argument was that Vox Day, as pasty-faced a white dude as anybody has ever seen, cannot be a white supremacist, because he's not white (what is it, 1/16th Cherokee?). A few after this, xDaunt clarified his remarks for me. We figured out where the issue was (semantics).
I'm prejudice myself to an extent and I'm sure everyone is. It's how you survive in the world. But you can't be pro whatever your race is and claim to not be a racist. It's contradictory.
|
On September 19 2017 15:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 15:07 Aquanim wrote: Does anybody here disagree with my assertion that the claim that the Obama administration wiretapped anybody related to the Trump campaign because he was a political opponent has no known basis in fact? Does it really matter why though? If Obama knew that Trumps campaign was being wiretapped indirectly thats a huge conflict of interest. That people in the media refuted, or were told to the effect that they refuted the fact of, that anyone was wiretapped is bad That it was done because he was a political opponent is subjective and opinion based. Its not Watergate where nixon specifically wanted to spy on the dems bad but its still pretty bad and would taint Obama's "practically scandal free" legacy. I think it matters a lot if you tap someone clandistinely for being a political opponent or tap someone through official channels because a judge is convinced he is so damn shady that it is necessary, yes.
It's like a mafia sting and then Trump being outraged he was taped having a conversation with some mobsters. I'd say the bigger problem would be Trump talking to the mobsters in the first place.
|
On September 19 2017 18:05 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 15:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 19 2017 15:07 Aquanim wrote: Does anybody here disagree with my assertion that the claim that the Obama administration wiretapped anybody related to the Trump campaign because he was a political opponent has no known basis in fact? Does it really matter why though? If Obama knew that Trumps campaign was being wiretapped indirectly thats a huge conflict of interest. That people in the media refuted, or were told to the effect that they refuted the fact of, that anyone was wiretapped is bad That it was done because he was a political opponent is subjective and opinion based. Its not Watergate where nixon specifically wanted to spy on the dems bad but its still pretty bad and would taint Obama's "practically scandal free" legacy. I think it matters a lot if you tap someone clandistinely for being a political opponent or tap someone through official channels because a judge is convinced he is so damn shady that it is necessary, yes. It's like a mafia sting and then Trump being outraged he was taped having a conversation with some mobsters. I'd say the bigger problem would be Trump talking to the mobsters in the first place. Yep. The same thing has actually happened in Italy where their PM (Berlusconi) has been caught on tape a bunch of times because he kept calling Mafiosi who were being wiretapped.
|
On September 19 2017 18:05 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 15:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 19 2017 15:07 Aquanim wrote: Does anybody here disagree with my assertion that the claim that the Obama administration wiretapped anybody related to the Trump campaign because he was a political opponent has no known basis in fact? Does it really matter why though? If Obama knew that Trumps campaign was being wiretapped indirectly thats a huge conflict of interest. That people in the media refuted, or were told to the effect that they refuted the fact of, that anyone was wiretapped is bad That it was done because he was a political opponent is subjective and opinion based. Its not Watergate where nixon specifically wanted to spy on the dems bad but its still pretty bad and would taint Obama's "practically scandal free" legacy. I think it matters a lot if you tap someone clandistinely for being a political opponent or tap someone through official channels because a judge is convinced he is so damn shady that it is necessary, yes. It's like a mafia sting and then Trump being outraged he was taped having a conversation with some mobsters. I'd say the bigger problem would be Trump talking to the mobsters in the first place.
That's exactly it and it actually infuriates me that American conservatives in this thread don't seem to see the difference. The conservatives in Australia seem to get the difference so I dunno what's going on here. Either they actually can't see the difference you highlight in your post, which is extremely concerning in so many ways, or they're being intentionally obtuse and trying to run some stupid "but Obama" angle.
Paul Manafort wasn't some day to day campaign manager who got some dirt dug up because Obama apparently kept wiretaps on his party's political opponent to help Hillary Clinton. The intelligence community and even the media had an idea who this guy was. In fact, the whole Ukraine u-turn combined with Trump associating himself with Manafort and Flynn so strongly are the reasons why the Russian collusion allegations are even a relatively reasonable allegation.
The fact that Trump associated with these people, despite being warned and told that these people may have loyalties other than the United States of America, should be the problem here and not the fact that the DoJ chose to keep tabs on these people.
|
On September 19 2017 13:13 Danglars wrote:I was looking for this quote comparison since Nevuk linked her recent interview. It really is simply amazing what losing an election will do about your fears for Democracy. In other news, the wiretapping charge by Trump that led to much guffawing was actually proved true recently. Show nested quote +Washington (CNN)US investigators wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort under secret court orders before and after the election, sources tell CNN, an extraordinary step involving a high-ranking campaign official now at the center of the Russia meddling probe.
The government snooping continued into early this year, including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump. Some of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns among investigators that Manafort had encouraged the Russians to help with the campaign, according to three sources familiar with the investigation. Two of these sources, however, cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive.
Special counsel Robert Mueller's team, which is leading the investigation into Russia's involvement in the election, has been provided details of these communications. A secret order authorized by the court that handles the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) began after Manafort became the subject of an FBI investigation that began in 2014. It centered on work done by a group of Washington consulting firms for Ukraine's former ruling party, the sources told CNN. The surveillance was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence, according to one of the sources. The FBI then restarted the surveillance after obtaining a new FISA warrant that extended at least into early this year. Sources say the second warrant was part of the FBI's efforts to investigate ties between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives. Such warrants require the approval of top Justice Department and FBI officials, and the FBI must provide the court with information showing suspicion that the subject of the warrant may be acting as an agent of a foreign power. CNNTweet in question: Trump's campaign chairman was under wiretaps before and after the 2016 election. The dates on when the first warrant ended and when the second one started aren't clear as far as I can tell. If those dates don't include when Manafort was on the campaign Trump's claim is still unambiguously false; even if they do, his claim is still shaky at best. If this is what he was referring to, why didn't he clarify when asked? Because the details of Manafort seem to clearly justify such a wiretap, and the point of Trump's tweet was to spur outrage that "Obama decided to wiretap Trump." At which the claim is still intentionally deceptive, even if it winds up being narrowly correct (which, again, isn't even proven by these facts).
Here's a better question, though: why are you so eager to resurrect and vindicate random things Trump said? What does it change? A lot of your posting lately fits this pattern of reminding us of something Trump said that we thought was dumb, then trying to show that new evidence suggests it's not quite as dumb as we thought. Posting about antifa violence to justify the "both sides" comment. Posting about a shroud over a Jefferson statue to justify the "next it's Washington and Jefferson" bit. Now retconning the wiretap claim.
I don't find these terribly persuasive, but that's just my opinion. My question is, what would it even prove? If we thought Trump lied about 1000 things, but he actually lied about 999, what does it change? Iirc you self-identify as an "anti-anti-Trumper" because you also think Trump is mendacious and incompetent; does any of this move the needle for you on switching back to pro-Trump?
|
The Caribbean island nation of Dominica sustained “mind boggling” damage from Hurricane Maria, its prime minister said on Tuesday, after the storm hit with maximum sustained winds of nearly 160 miles per hour that ripped roofs off buildings, including his own home.
There was no immediate word of deaths or injuries on the island from Maria, the third in a string of devastating hurricanes to sweep through the region in recent weeks.
The National Hurricane Center said Tuesday morning that Maria, now moving away from Dominica, had regained Category 5 strength, after briefly dropping to Category 4. The “potentially catastrophic” storm is expected to approach the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico on Tuesday night and Wednesday, the center said.
Roosevelt Skerrit, Dominica’s prime minister, wrote on Facebook earlier Tuesday that the island nation of 72,000 had experienced “widespread devastation,” based on initial reports.
“So far we have lost all what money can buy and replace,” he said. “My greatest fear for the morning is that we will wake to news of serious physical injury and possible deaths as a result of likely landslides triggered by persistent rains.”
Mr. Skerrit said that “the winds have swept away the roofs of almost every person I have spoken to or otherwise made contact with.” On Monday night, he had said on Facebook that he had to be rescued after the storm tore the roof off his own official residence.
He said the island’s immediate priority was to rescue people who were trapped and provide medical care to the injured. “I am honestly not preoccupied with physical damage at this time, because it is devastating … indeed, mind boggling,” Mr. Skerrit said.
The storm had strengthened to Category 5, with maximum sustained winds near 160 m.p.h., hours before the eye passed over Dominica. Just over a day earlier it had been a tropical storm, but wind speeds had increased by 90 m.p.h. within 27 hours, the National Weather Service said.
After hitting Dominica, Maria weakened to Category 4 and continued northwest, with the eye of the storm passing south of the French island of Guadeloupe, before regaining strength.
Guadeloupe, which avoided the worst of Hurricane Irma, has been a staging ground for the regional aid response to that storm. It has also been a refuge for people from St. Martin, an island that was hit hard by Irma two weeks ago. So the arrival of Maria could compound the difficulties involved in recovering from the disasters.
The storm appeared to have knocked out Dominica’s radio stations, and Mr. Skerrit’s Facebook feed became the most prominent source of news about the storm’s arrival.
“Rough! Rough! Rough!” he wrote as the storm hit.
“I am at the complete mercy of the hurricane,” he said before he announced he had been rescued. “House is flooding.”
He said Tuesday morning that it was too early to discuss the condition of the island’s airports and seaports, but he expected them to be inoperable for a few days. He asked “friendly nations and organizations” to provide a helicopter so that he could survey the damage.
“We will need help, my friend, we will need help of all kinds,” he said.
Source
|
Can we please leave the "Trump's deranged tweet about wiretaps was correct" stuff to t_d? Trump was relying on a report by Judge Nap that Trump Tower itself was wiretapped. No, Judge Nap did not get an exclusive scoop about Manafort being wiretapped. Trump's tweet says that Trump's own Trump Tower wires were tapped for political purposes. Trump was very clearly not talking about Manafort's cell phone.
But I guess it is a somewhat useful deflection to talk about Trump's tweet being vindicated instead of the fact that his campaign manager was under surveillance by the FBI. So I'll give you that.
|
To me this boils down to, "See, I was right! I was under FBI investigation!"! Kind of an odd thing to be bragging about, all things considered. It's kind of like bragging that your test for gonorrhea came back positive.
|
On September 19 2017 22:41 ticklishmusic wrote: To me this boils down to, "See, I was right! I was under FBI investigation!"! Kind of an odd thing to be bragging about, all things considered. It's kind of like bragging that your test for gonorrhea came back positive. Well when you say something and everyone tells you that you're wrong and you're paranoid before turning out that somehow you were right all along its different.
I don't see how Trump hireing manafort is a point. Again reality doesn't matter in this case much like most of Hillary's campaign its the perception that it creates at the end of the day when someone's campaign is beign wiretapped indirectly. Facts of the why can't really change that until the DOJ actualy comes out with something.
|
Yeah in a reality doesn't matter sense, Trump was right. But it's still like admitting his gonorrhea test was positive.
|
But was Trump actually right all along in the sense he had knowledge of what was going on, or alternatively was it him reposting something from some corner of the alt right web which happened to coincide with reality? because you don't get points when the final answer is somehow right but most of the math is wrong.
|
That is like saying you have been thrown in jail by Obama just because you visited some one who was in a jail during the Obama administration. I guess you could claim that in the first case you'd know you were in jail, but you didn't know about the wire tap in this case. But then again you should probably not hire the "Torture Lobbyist" in the first place (while bragging that you surround yourself by the best people)...
|
On September 19 2017 22:41 ticklishmusic wrote: To me this boils down to, "See, I was right! I was under FBI investigation!"! Kind of an odd thing to be bragging about, all things considered. It's kind of like bragging that your test for gonorrhea came back positive. Except in this case there is absolutely nothing that they were right about. Obama didn't order any tapping of Trump or Trump tower, which was the entire premise behind the tweets. There is no evidence that Trump or Trump tower were the targets of the tap. The FBI, NSA, and DoJ all refuted Trump's claims, yet certain people are just ignoring all the shit Trump got blatantly wrong and are making leaps of faith into what he might have meant because maybe, just maybe, they weren't complete fools for buying into it the first time.
|
i will amend my STD analogy by saying "it's like claiming that you got AIDS from your ex, but instead you got gonorrhea from a "lady of the night". or something like that.
|
I do wish people (and there's more than one offender here) would stop making arguments about how X is bad, then when it is demonstrated that X wasn't bad at all they retreat to "oh but X has bad optics and that's what's important".
What X looks like is important - but by making the erroneous statement first, and then pretending that discussing the optics is in any way the same as discussing the reality, you confound discussion on both issues.
|
|
|
|