US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9685

On January 14 2018 07:26 Emnjay808 wrote:
Seems like trump stopped appeasing to NK what bush and Obama has been doing for years and now we’re experiencing turbulence when NK doesn’t get their way.

On January 14 2018 07:36 Adreme wrote:
Why does it seem like Trumps response to any criticism devolves into the childish "No you" response.

When Hilary said he would said he would become Putins puppet "I'm not the puppet you are the puppet."

When the accusations that Russia waa interfering to help him "they were really trying to help Hilary"

Now when the author paints him as mentally unstable his response is again "No, You" which I thought people stopped doing in elementary school

On January 14 2018 07:36 Adreme wrote:
Why does it seem like Trumps response to any criticism devolves into the childish "No you" response.

When Hilary said he would said he would become Putins puppet "I'm not the puppet you are the puppet."

When the accusations that Russia waa interfering to help him "they were really trying to help Hilary"

Now when the author paints him as mentally unstable his response is again "No, You" which I thought people stopped doing in elementary school

On January 14 2018 07:46 semantics wrote:

He said he was a genius not a wordsmith XD, but it is pretty laughable that when your accomplishment is as a businessman, not a build an industry up kind of businessman but sink money into something to see if it works 80's type that you're unable to express yourself any better than that when faced with criticism. Considering money and smooth talking is suppose to be the way to be that kind is successful.

On January 14 2018 08:14 Doodsmack wrote:


Trump has a long history of accusing someone of precisely what they are accusing him of. It puts him on the offensive rather than the defensive and makes it into a he said she said. He stumbled into the presidency because this strategy aligned very well with Republicans' dislike of the media.

On January 14 2018 07:36 Adreme wrote:
Why does it seem like Trumps response to any criticism devolves into the childish "No you" response.

When Hilary said he would said he would become Putins puppet "I'm not the puppet you are the puppet."

When the accusations that Russia waa interfering to help him "they were really trying to help Hilary"

Now when the author paints him as mentally unstable his response is again "No, You" which I thought people stopped doing in elementary school

On January 14 2018 07:37 Longshank wrote:
I just watched Obama at Letterman on Netflix and all that I'm left with is this feeling of 'Good Lord, how is it possible for the US to go from this man to Donald Trump'. Now I don't have a say in the matter, americans are free to fuck their nation up in any way they see fit. But as an european, I can't help feeling uneasy over the notion that it could happen here as well. While it was good to see both Obama and Letterman again, the whole thing just made me worried for my own future.

The Same Democrats Who Denounce Donald Trump as a Lawless, Treasonous Authoritarian Just Voted to Give Him Vast Warrantless Spying Powers

LEADING CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS have spent the last year relentlessly accusing Donald Trump of being controlled by or treasonously loyal to a hostile foreign power. Over the last several months, they have added to those disloyalty charges a new set of alleged crimes: abusing the powers of the executive branch — including the Justice Department and FBI — to vindictively punish political opponents while corruptly protecting the serious crimes of his allies, including his own family members and possibly himself.

The inescapable conclusion from all of this, they have relentlessly insisted, is that Trump is a lawless authoritarian of the type the U.S. has not seen in the Oval Office for decades, if ever: a leader who has no regard for constitutional values or legal limits and thus, poses a grave, unique, and existential threat to the institutions of American democracy. Reflecting the severity of these fears, the anti-Trump opposition movement that has coalesced within Democratic Party politics has appropriated a slogan — expressed in the hashtag form of contemporary online activism — that was historically used by those who unite, at all costs, to defeat domestic tyranny: #Resistance.

One would hope, and expect, that those who genuinely view Trump as a menace of this magnitude and view themselves as #Resistance fighters would do everything within their ability to impose as many limits and safeguards as possible on the powers he is able to wield. If “resistance” means anything, at a minimum it should entail a refusal to trust a dangerous authoritarian to wield vast power with little checks or oversight.

Yesterday in Washington, congressional Democrats were presented with a critical opportunity to do exactly that. A proposed new amendment was scheduled to be voted on in the House of Representatives that would have imposed meaningful limits and new safeguards on Trump’s ability to exercise one of the most dangerous, invasive, and historically abused presidential powers: spying on the communications of American citizens without warrants. Yesterday’s amendment was designed to limit the powers first enacted during the Bush years to legalize the Bush/Cheney domestic warrantless eavesdropping program.

LEADING THE CHARGE against reforms of the FBI’s domestic spying powers was Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee who, in countless TV appearances, has strongly insinuated, if not outright stated, that Trump is controlled by and loyal to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Indeed, just this weekend, in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Schiff accused Trump of corruptly abusing the powers of the DOJ and FBI in order to vindictively punish Hilary Clinton and other political enemies. Referring to Trump’s various corrupt acts, Schiff pronounced: “We ought to be thinking in Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, beyond these three years what damage may be done to the institutions of our democracy. ”

Yet just two days later, there was the very same Adam Schiff, on the House floor, dismissing the need for real safeguards on the ability of Trump’s FBI to spy on Americans. In demanding rejection of the warrant requirement safeguard, Schiff channeled Dick Cheney — and the Trump White House — in warning that any warrant requirements would constitute “a crippling requirement in national security and terrorism cases.”

Standing with Schiff in opposing these safeguards was his fellow California Democrat Eric Swalwell, who has devoted his entire congressional term almost exclusively to accusing Trump of being a puppet of the Kremlin, in the process becoming a media darling among the MSNBC set and online #Resistance movement. Yet after spending a full year warning that Trump’s real loyalty was to Moscow rather than America, Swalwell echoed Schiff in demanding that no warrant safeguards were needed on the spying power of Trump’s FBI.

If one were to invoke the standard mentality and tactics of Schiff and Swalwell — namely, impugning the patriotism and loyalty of anyone questioning their Trump/Russia accusations — one could seriously question their own patriotism in handing these vast, virtually unlimited spying powers to a president whom they say they believe is a corrupt agent of a foreign power.

On January 14 2018 16:27 Archeon wrote:

Because Donald Trump is mentally stuck in kindergarden or puberty and everyone around him is so used to people trying to look reasonable that they don't know how to deal with it.
People immigrating illegally? Build a wall. Don't like that deal? Cancel it. Country supports terrorism? Ban them from coming in. Describe the problem in a void as simply as possible and imagine the simplest solution possible and you have a very good shot at predicting Donald Trump's behavior.

"My nuclear missile button is bigger than yours" gotta be my favorite 12-year-old insult turned dark ever.


To be fair as an European, our media doesn't cover that Obama illegally bypassed congress multiple times. From what I've seen in interviews I agree to Obama's worldview much more than to Trumps, but ignoring division of power because it's impractical for fulfilling the agenda isn't something I can see in a good light under any circumstances. Even the left-winged NYT gave him shit for that.

On January 14 2018 16:27 Archeon wrote:

Because Donald Trump is mentally stuck in kindergarden or puberty and everyone around him is so used to people trying to look reasonable that they don't know how to deal with it.
People immigrating illegally? Build a wall. Don't like that deal? Cancel it. Country supports terrorism? Ban them from coming in. Describe the problem in a void as simply as possible and imagine the simplest solution possible and you have a very good shot at predicting Donald Trump's behavior.

"My nuclear missile button is bigger than yours" gotta be my favorite 12-year-old insult turned dark ever.


To be fair as an European, our media doesn't cover that Obama illegally bypassed congress multiple times. From what I've seen in interviews I agree to Obama's worldview much more than to Trumps, but ignoring division of power because it's impractical for fulfilling the agenda isn't something I can see in a good light under any circumstances. Even the left-winged NYT gave him shit for that.

On January 14 2018 07:37 Longshank wrote:
I just watched Obama at Letterman on Netflix and all that I'm left with is this feeling of 'Good Lord, how is it possible for the US to go from this man to Donald Trump'. Now I don't have a say in the matter, americans are free to fuck their nation up in any way they see fit. But as an european, I can't help feeling uneasy over the notion that it could happen here as well. While it was good to see both Obama and Letterman again, the whole thing just made me worried for my own future.

[B] Yes, Bill Clinton and Monica you might say but it's not as fucked up as Bush in the Middle East and Trump being Trump.

On January 14 2018 07:36 Adreme wrote:
Why does it seem like Trumps response to any criticism devolves into the childish "No you" response.

When Hilary said he would said he would become Putins puppet "I'm not the puppet you are the puppet."

When the accusations that Russia waa interfering to help him "they were really trying to help Hilary"

Now when the author paints him as mentally unstable his response is again "No, You" which I thought people stopped doing in elementary school

On January 14 2018 21:17 Jacenoob wrote:


Clearly nothing comes close to the insanity of the Iraq war. But I won't call it a scandal, that term seems too mild. Also a good number of Democrats were pro war too, especially higher-ups like Clinton.

When it comes to scandals the Democrats recently had a lot too aside from Lewinsky. The Clinton Email Server thing, the Weiner saga or Weinstein being a massive supporter. Screwing Bernie out of the race wasn't honorable either. You could count Benghazi and Uranium One too but I won't get into any discussion on those.

On January 14 2018 22:15 zlefin wrote:

if you don't want to get into a discussion of them; don't bring them up. citing bad/false cases just makes your overall claim weaker. best to only mention the strongest cases. bernie wasn't screwed out of the race either.

On January 14 2018 22:18 Jockmcplop wrote:


I thought it had been established that Bernie was screwed out of the race.
Either that, or contingencies were in place to ensure that he would be if needed, I'm not sure on the exact sequence of how it went down.

On January 14 2018 22:23 zlefin wrote:

it had not been so established; the evidence establishes he was given a real, solid chance at winning. also that the dem establishment/party apparatus didn't like him, which could hvae biased some decisions, but didn't strongly affect the outcome or have major rulings that seriously hurt his chances. there weren't contingencies to screw him out of the race if he started winning either.

On January 14 2018 22:29 Jockmcplop wrote:


Well Brazile's account has never been refuted and strongly suggests some extremely unethical behaviour from Clinton and also suggests that she was completely in control of the Dems long before the end of the primary.
This doesn't say anything about what the outcome would have been had she not been in charge, but it does pretty much show that the primary was always going to go in her favour not because she was a better, more popular candidate but because she had rigged the whole process.
Whether you want to translate that as meaning Bernie was screwed is more down to personal interpretation, but it certainly wasn't as 'democratic' as they would want you to believe.

On January 14 2018 22:46 zlefin wrote:

brazile's account (which came out when she iirc had a book for sale AND lon gafter she had been disgraced) had considerable flaws in it; and iirc a more thorough look at the evidence showed that the deals made were fine, and the smae deal by the DNC was offered to sanders as to clinton; and sanders did not accept it.
your claims are misworded nonsense; claiming it's "rigged" would mean the outcome is controlled, as opposed to people being free to vote as they wish, and the votes land where they do. claiming it was "undemocratic" would require you to prove that the actual "will of the people" was overturned or would have been. if people get to vote as they want, and the winner wins; that sounds pretty democratic to me. (regardless of the merits/flaws of democracy itself, which is a whole other story).