General Current Events/Political Discussion

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

13 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

If thats a travesty, i wonder what future folks will think of Trump soliciting foreign interference in elections, enriching himself through the government and his properties, 

Speaking of enriching himself, he has now spent the equivalent 344 YEARS of presidential salary GOLFING AT PROPERTIES HE OWNS.

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

8 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

Speaking of enriching himself, he has now spent the equivalent 344 YEARS of presidential salary GOLFING AT PROPERTIES HE OWNS.

Wow thats crazy. I wonder if he ever gave obama shit for playing Golf?

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

6 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

Wow thats crazy. I wonder if he ever gave obama shit for playing Golf?

I am sure he would never engage in open hypocrisy. He just isn't that kind of guy.

[Tabonga | 2,318]

@Californication

Most of the killings done by "white extremists" are committed by individuals who in some way subscribe to the general mindset (but may not even be a formal member of any  group) and decide to act out on their own.  The organized groups generally don't want the attention focused on them by killing people they consider enemies or inferior (although they might have no ideological qualms about killing someone). .  Even McVeigh apparently was not following any instructions when he committed his deed - he had only one (or possibly two since there was a leg dressed in camo found in the debris that was never identified) accomplice -there was a third man convicted who apparently knew about the plot but did not participate in it.

There was a group called the Bruder Schweigen who committed some murders (and other crimes) in an organized fashion - including killing a talk show host in Denver.  But they were more of an exception.   In any event the various groups in the white nationalist fringe seem to operate independently with very little co-cordination berween the groups - in fact they may fight with each other - IIRC George Lincoln Rockwell was killed by another white nationalist.

There are occasionally hate crime murders involving non-white groups - two of the more prominent ones were the infamous Zebra murders in San Francisco and the more recent shootings in the Jewish grocery store in New Jersey were committed by people associated with the Black Hebrew Israelite movement.  Malcolm X was assassnated by members of the Nation of Islam - quite likely they were aided and directed by higher ups in that movement.  

Antifa seems to be somewhat more organized than the White Nationalists - they seem to be able to draw on large numbers of people and operate in a remarkably similar fashion whenever/wherever they bravely appear.

The reason I consider them as being more dangerous is not because I favor the white nationalists in any manner but  that the most obvious model (not a parallel)  we have historically for them is what was occurring on the streets in Weimar Germany between the Communists and the Nazis. (In fact the term antifa was coined in that time period.   While the Nazis eventually won those it is pretty obvious that the Communists would have been every bit as vicious (we have the infamous record of Stalin in that same time period to go by) .had they won. Antifa acts pretty much in the same manner as the Nazi and Communist thugs did in Weimar.

The most chilling part of this model is that the police ignored the Nazis (and in some cases aided them) while sometimes operating against the Communists (when they could be bothered to intervene).  We now have a situation where the various local authorities generally refuse to intervene against antifa attacks - there has been scattered footage of police standing down and watching stuff occur - likely on orders from the local govenment.

I will give you a chance to read up on Weimar Germany (assuming you have not read much or not recently) so we can have an intelligent discussion on my thesis about antifa and the white nationalist movement.  I am sure you will let me know when you are ready to continue..

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Wandering Tellurian

[Californication | 1,477]

Antifa - means anti fascist. The nazi's were fascists.

White supremacists try and create ties between themselves and Nazi Germany including adopting similar language.

White supremacists read up on Nazi history and try and mythologize white history and lineage.

The white supremacist/neo nazi ideology in America influenced lone terrorists like McVeigh. He may have not been a card carrying member of any group, but he came into contact with white supremacist ideology and it influenced his attack on the government.

In being violent Antifa is breaking the law which should be looked down upon. The reason they are breaking the law is because they do not know how to respond to the surge of white nationalism resulting from Donald Trump; white nationalism that kills people every year.

This does not put Antifa on the same level as White Nationalists who are murderers and purveyors of hate. Ant

It really sounds like you are defending white nationalists and are attacking people because they don't like white nationalists.

Then you have a convoluted interpretation of history rationalizing disliking modern people that do not like Nazi's. 

I'm not saying you are racist, I don't know you. But this is the exact rhetoric White Supremacists believe and teach. 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Californication

[Tabonga | 2,318]

20 minutes ago, Californication said:

Antifa - means anti fascist. The nazi's were fascists.

White supremacists try and create ties between themselves and Nazi Germany including adopting similar language.

White supremacists read up on Nazi history and try and mythologize white history and lineage.

The white supremacist/neo nazi ideology in America influenced lone terrorists like McVeigh. He may have not been a card carrying member of any group, but he came into contact with white supremacist ideology and it influenced his attack on the government.

In being violent Antifa is breaking the law which should be looked down upon. The reason they are breaking the law is because they do not know how to respond to the surge of white nationalism resulting from Donald Trump; white nationalism that kills people every year.

This does not put Antifa on the same level as White Nationalists who are murderers and purveyors of hate.

It really sounds like you are defending white nationalists and are attacking people because they don't like white nationalists.

Then you have a convoluted interpretation of history rationalizing disliking people that do not like Nazi's.

I'm not saying you are racist, I don't know you. But this is the exact rhetoric White Supremacists believe and teach. 

Hmmmm.... I feel like I have entered the twilight zone here.

The term antifa comes come from the Nazi era ( duh) - I am pretty sure I said that in my post (unless there is some confusion on your part as to what the word coined means) (so double DUH!)  - and the term fascist (from the Roman fasces - which were bundles of rods with one axe carried by sticks that represented civil authortiy in Rome) was actually first used by Mussolini rather than Hitler .

They never succeed in organizing on any large scale since they all want to be the new fuhrer and this creates rifts almost immediately.  Adopting a common lingo (for whatever reason) is hardly unique to them. 

They only study parts of Nazi   - they generally want to ignore the Holocauset and are generally ignorant about it.  They also ignore the fact that Hitler was an idiot on most levels and lost a war that Germany likely could have won. (in fact the British initially tried to come with a way to assassinate him but stopped once they realized he would lead Germany to defeat more quickly than just about anyone else.) And the Nazis idealized only portions of the white race - other portions the Nazis demonized and treated just about as badly as the Jews - the supremacists are not ignorant of this.

They may influence people but it still the individuals' choices to do things.  And solo acts of terrorism have occurred long befoe the white supremacists.  Just to name two there was  an (likely) anarchist  bombing in New York in 1920 that killed 40 people, seriously injured 143 people and injured hundreds more.  Some of the buildings still bear the scars today.  In 1927 a disgruntled politician blew up a school - said explosion killed 38 children and 6 adults and injured at least 58 others.  Didn't do the schoolhouse much good either.

While  I agree that antifa should be squashed like  a bug if they behave illegally (as should whire supremecists) that is the saddest justification I have ever read for their activities.  We have ballot boxes for a reason.

It does place them on the same level - accept that they tend to act out more publically vis a vis illegal activities.  They certainly display hate when they beat the f^^k out of anyone that crosses their path either in a counter protest or pretty much apropo of nothing (as in the video I posted earlier where they blocked off the street and attacked innocent mororists.  Punishing these hooligans doesn not mean tje gpvernment can't pucnish whire supremecists at the same time.

Just because I point out the transgressions of antifa in no way indicates I support the other camp - like I said I am willing to discuss my thesis vis a vis Weimar Germany any time you want to rise to the challenge.  Do you think the Nazi might get mentioned (in a negative light) in that hypothetical discussion?

Not defending white nationalists at all - I don''t like them but that in no way mandates I have to like the other scoundrels.tw

I am willing to bet that my understanding of history (of many sorts) is somewhat deeper than yours, I don't  automatically  dislike people because they are anit-Nazi - but that doesn't mandate that I have to think all people who hate Nazis are saints.  

Where is that "exact" rhetoric - and whar is it - an understanding and knowledge of history?  Or is it a case of a simple fact of life you do not see, tp grasp - the truth (often) hurts?

 

 

 

 

[Tabonga | 2,318]

7 hours ago, arch_8ngel said:

There is a bit of difference between planning for impeachment (no matter what) from the beginning, and having a plan from the beginning for when a guy like Trump inevitably commits impeachable offenses.

It was actually more like creating  (after several failed attempts) a crime to fit impeachment rather than creating an impeachment to fit a crime.

[Tabonga | 2,318]

7 hours ago, arch_8ngel said:

When people talk about "crime" in the generic, the thought they are generally pushing for is imagining the people as VIOLENT criminals (ie making your community materially less safe).

That is why violent crime is the more relevant statistic.

 

 

Edit: this isn't taking a position on whether illegal immigration is problematic in other ways.  Just making a point about the crime rates that actually "matter" when you have a group you can otherwise arbitrarily define as 100% offender rate.

That is your assessment of what crrme means (not only in this cirumstance but likely others as needs demand).  Will it come  as a shock to you that I disagree?  We can play the find the definiton game again if you want.

But let's go down your path a bit - DUI is not technically a violent crime - although it can be just as devastating as a violent crime.  Should we therefore exclude/ignore it from discussion visa vis this topic?

In any event it was not specified  by you know who - and I was accused of being a racist  (well using racist rhetoric - but that was quibbling IMHO by someone -not me) despite the fact that I more or less proved that most illegals actually do commit felonies.  Minimize them all you want but they are still felonies.  Better to evade than deal with things I guess,

So let's go down my path a bit - suppose you own/run a small buisness (say a convenience store) and someone robs you of $600 dollars using a fake gun.  No one is hurt in this.  It is treated as a violent crime.  Somone in your employ embezzles $50,000 in a white collar crime.  Which is going to cause you more damage?  The distnction between a violent crime and white collar becomes somehwat moot doesn't it?

 

 

[Tabonga | 2,318]

7 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

If thats a travesty, i wonder what future folks will think of Trump soliciting foreign interference in elections, enriching himself through the government and his properties, referring to himself as a king, using his power to get back at people with grudges, firing people that did the right thing by testifying, etc. 

What about a sham trial by the senate, in the face of overwhelming evidence?

Its like you are glossing over all that because Democrats followed the rules.   What should they have done? Just said nothing? Laugh it off Because Trump is so hilarious, he was just trolling them?

I feel like I am in the wrong end of a shooting gallery..............

Only time will be able to judge this stuff - my guess is that a lot of info is still hidden (on both sides) - I only hope it comes out before I die.  Biden used his in..  We could go into things like Biden doing much the same (and publically admitting it) , the fact that most presidents  seem to acquire signifgant sums of wealth after leaving office.  And executive privilege and related matters (which most presidents claime at one time or another), And most presidents have misused government agencies to harass opponents.  Doesn't make it right for any of them but it occurs nonetheless.

If it was supposed to be a fair trial, why didn't Bennet, Klobuchar,  Snaders and Warren recuse themselves?   The only person who acted honorably in this regard was Tulsi Gabbard.  And whether you like it or not, it was never determined whether those charges were based on impeachable offenses or not. 

Well the Dems followed the rules sorta -since there are few formal rules and they made the rest of them.  I think all they did was make fools fo themselves and they may well lose the house in November because of it.  But I know that is just me.  The Republicans also followed the rules sorta since in the Senate there are also few formal rules and they got to make the rest there.

 

 

[m308gunner | 352]

4 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

I feel like I am in the wrong end of a shooting gallery..............

...

The dogpile is real. I wish real life circumstances gave me more time to contribute to this thread, but them 're the brakes.

[Tabonga | 2,318]

2 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

The dogpile is real. I wish real life circumstances gave me more time to contribute to this thread, but them 're the brakes.

That's ok - I suspect I am bigger than most of them.........

 

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

18 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

I feel like I am in the wrong end of a shooting gallery..............

Only time will be able to judge this stuff - my guess is that a lot of info is still hidden (on both sides) - I only hope it comes out before I die.  Biden used his in..  We could go into things like Biden doing much the same (and publically admitting it) , the fact that most presidents  seem to acquire signifgant sums of wealth after leaving office.  And executive privilege and related matters (which most presidents claime at one time or another), And most presidents have misused government agencies to harass opponents.  Doesn't make it right for any of them but it occurs nonetheless.

If it was supposed to be a fair trial, why didn't Bennet, Klobuchar,  Snaders and Warren recuse themselves?   The only person who acted honorably in this regard was Tulsi Gabbard.  And whether you like it or not, it was never determined whether those charges were based on impeachable offenses or not. 

Well the Dems followed the rules sorta -since there are few formal rules and they made the rest of them.  I think all they did was make fools fo themselves and they may well lose the house in November because of it.  But I know that is just me.  The Republicans also followed the rules sorta since in the Senate there are also few formal rules and they got to make the rest there.

 

 

Im just trying to hear your side of it, if you feel attacked Ill stop responding. Just figured we were having a discussion. 
 

Im fascinated by People who literally think Trump is innocent in all this after all the things hes done, all the people he is insulted etc. (if that is what you truly think) or maybe you just dislike democrats?

[Tulpa | 3,501]

24 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

 

Well the Dems followed the rules sorta -since there are few formal rules and they made the rest of them. 

They followed the rules set up by the Republicans for previous hearings (Benghazi, etc.) There was no sorta about it. They didn't make up anything to avoid accusations of, well, making up the rules.

But then they get accused anyway. Go figure.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Tulpa

[Tabonga | 2,318]

2 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

Im just trying to hear your side of it, if you feel attacked Ill stop responding. Just figured we were having a discussion. 
 

Im fascinated by People who literally think Trump is innocent in all this after all the things hes done, all the people he is insulted etc. (if that is what you truly think) or maybe you just dislike democrats?

No problem - the shooting gallery was just a joke (which was what the ,,,,, was for) in reference to the number of posts I was replying to. 

I don't think any president is totally innocent -there is too much going on with the office.  The problem is that we have no standards that are universally applied and dealt with.  So whatever reaciton is more reliant on who is in power rather than any justice (a  very clear (crystal clear) case  in point - look at how Hillary's breaking the law in regards to the emails was swept under the rug.)  

I don't particularly dislike democrats - although never one at one point in time I usually voted democratic.  But that party moved away from me so now I often vote Republican (often regrettfully)  or third party.  But in reality there are only 2 shows in town - so I pick whoever I find the least distasteful. 

[Tabonga | 2,318]

4 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

They followed the rules set up by the Republicans for previous hearings (Benghazi, etc.) There was no sorta about it. They didn't make up anything to avoid accusations of, well, making up the rules.

But then they get accused anyway. Go figure.

The Benghazi hearing (and others such as Fast and Furious) were not impeachment hearings.  At best they might have been hearings to see if there was cause to initiate impeachment hearings.

And to a certain extent it doesn't matter who made the rules since it was perfectly within their power to change them.  They chose not to.

[Tulpa | 3,501]

8 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

The Benghazi hearing (and others such as Fast and Furious) were not impeachment hearings.  At best they might have been hearings to see if there was cause to initiate impeachment hearings.

And to a certain extent it doesn't matter who made the rules since it was perfectly within their power to change them.  They chose not to.

House hearings are House hearings, impeachment or otherwise. They were conducted by the intelligence committee, (Schiff and Nunes), so the rules were chosen to be the same as the Republican hearings.

The actual impeachment was the full House vote.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Tulpa

[Link | 2,712]

16 hours ago, Tabonga said:

whilst  race relations took several steps backward under Obama. 

What are your thoughts regarding the reason/s for this?

 

[Link | 2,712]

15 hours ago, Tabonga said:

several really brave antifa masked hooligans (not even the despicable Nazis do that - KKK used to but I believe they abandoned the full hood a long time ago) -

the times, they are a-changin’...

https://dcist.com/story/20/02/10/more-than-100-white-nationalists-march-through-d-c-with-police-escort/

[VegHead | 127]

Trump should have been removed from office for abuse of power, as per that particular article of impeachment.  He was soliciting a foreign government to investigate a political rival for personal political gain (re-election), and withheld Congressionally-approved aid as incentive to comply.  The Republicans in the Senate had enough evidence to convict him of that, but they chose not to except for Mitt Romney.  It's pretty cut and dry, really.  I am not surprised by the outcome, but that doesn't make Trump's acquittal the actual truth of the matter.  

[Tabonga | 2,318]

4 minutes ago, Link said:

the times, they are a-changin’...

https://dcist.com/story/20/02/10/more-than-100-white-nationalists-march-through-d-c-with-police-escort/

Heh - now antifa is getting aped.  At least we can tell them apart since they have different color masks.

 

[Tabonga | 2,318]

9 minutes ago, Link said:

What are your thoughts regarding the reason/s for this?

 

1. He jumped in on several occasions on race related events even though he had  limited authority to do so.  The two most egregious were the Treyvon Martin situation and the Michael Brown situation.  He essentially fanned the false narratives driving these - which had nasty results - especially in Ferguson.  It also fed the Only Some Lives Matter movement.  

[Tabonga | 2,318]

14 minutes ago, epiclotus said:

Trump should have been removed from office for abuse of power, as per that particular article of impeachment.  He was soliciting a foreign government to investigate a political rival for personal political gain (re-election), and withheld Congressionally-approved aid as incentive to comply.  The Republicans in the Senate had enough evidence to convict him of that, but they chose not to except for Mitt Romney.  It's pretty cut and dry, really.  I am not surprised by the outcome, but that doesn't make Trump's acquittal the actual truth of the matter.  

If Hunter Biden was up to no good (and it looks pretty damn suspicious) then Trump was well within his duties to ask Ukraine to investigate -in fact I believe that we have a treaty obligating each other to help invesitigate corruption that involves both countries.   Just because someone is related to a government official should not make them immune to investigation/possible prosecution. 

If Trump had asked Ukraine to manufacture evidence that would be a much different story. (Which is pretty much what Hillary did earlier with Russia.)

The elder Biden did pretty much the same thing when he arm twisted Ukraine into dismissing a prosecutor who at one time investigated Burisma.  That investigation was dormant but could have been revived at any time   Thereby avoiding any cluttering up of his possible run in 2020 (at least from that quarter).  In addition he also maintained Obama  had his back in this (I don't remember what the exact phrasing was) - at the very least implying that Obama likely knew what was going on.

[Tabonga | 2,318]

1 hour ago, Tulpa said:

House hearings are House hearings, impeachment or otherwise. They were conducted by the intelligence committee, (Schiff and Nunes), so the rules were chosen to be the same as the Republican hearings.

The actual impeachment was the full House vote.

I guess no one told them (like my mother told us) that just because someone else jumps off a cliff doesn't mean you should do it to.

The fix was in long before any hearings started.   (The only one who showed any integrity was Tulsi Gabbard.)

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

 Michael Brown robbed a convenience store and bum rushed a cop. He was hardly acting like the gentle giant the media, and subsequently, BLM claimed him to be.  The support he received on the matter really discredited this extremely important movement. Especially since the whole BLM movement really took off with him. Trayvon Martin, Freddie Gray, Philando Bastille, et all, needed justice. The attachment of those guys to Brown was such a slap in the face. Made me sick.

I remember Obama commenting on the matter Of Trayvon saying something to the effect of "that could be my son." He's right. I look at it the same way. Trayvon could be my son too in 8 years walking to the corner store to buy some candy only to get harassed and ultimately killed by some busybody with a weapon. And the law being what it is would favor the busybody.

BLM was very important. It created the whole idea of being "woke" to the way the world actually is. Duray McKesson was being hailed like a modern day MLK preaching peaceful protests to get the word out of the social injustices going on the the world. Hence the term Black Lives Matter. What it really means isn't that some lives matter more than others. What it mean is Black Lives Matter Also. Because as the deaths of Freddie Gray, Philando Castille, and Trayvon Martin have shown us, they in fact do not matter nearly as much as they should.

Then Colin Kaepernick took a knee and made the movement all about him self. Trump, sensing national controversy that he could capitalize on took an opposing interest in it. And the media forgot why the movement began in the first place and it has all but been forgotten.

Long story short it is such a disrespect to refer to it as the "only some lives matter" movement. That is the exact opposite of what BLM means.

And I am by no means a Bernie fan, but he is the only politician in the running who understands the purpose of BLM. He proved it during the first democratic presidential debate 4 years ago.  

 

 

[VegHead | 127]

15 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

If Hunter Biden was up to no good (and it looks pretty damn suspicious) then Trump was well within his duties to ask Ukraine to investigate -in fact I believe that we have a treaty obligating each other to help invesitigate corruption that involves both countries.   Just because someone is related to a government official should not make them immune to investigation/possible prosecution. 

If Trump had asked Ukraine to manufacture evidence that would be a much different story. (Which is pretty much what Hillary did earlier with Russia.)

The elder Biden did pretty much the same thing when he arm twisted Ukraine into dismissing a prosecutor who at one time investigated Burisma.  That investigation was dormant but could have been revived at any time   Thereby avoiding any cluttering up of his possible run in 2020 (at least from that quarter).  In addition he also maintained Obama  had his back in this (I don't remember what the exact phrasing was) - at the very least implying that Obama likely knew what was going on.

There are already defined processes for investigating an American's actions in a foreign country.  I suggest perusing the following article for reference. 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/09/donald-trump-impeachment-ukraine-corruption-rudy-giuliani-joe-biden-229828

It mentions the treaty that you brought up, which is the Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, and how the process for utilizing it works.  I believe at the time of Trump's phone call, and even today, that there is no US investigation into the Biden's activities in Ukraine.  That would need to be a first step which was never taken.  Circumventing that process by asking the president of Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens, and attempting to withhold preapproved aid until said announcement was made, was the impeachable part.  That was the abuse of power that he was impeached for and should have been convicted on.