U.S. Politics

[StefanAVFC]

By multitude, I clearly meant the continuous shit that Trump finds himself in. 

Maybe I used scandal a bit loosely, but I can't see any other president behaving like the examples below. I won't list them and these are off the top of my head (Sorry, no 'emotional charged' articles from Huff Post here)

Trump Russia - I'm not going into this in great detail, but if it's proven to be true, it's the biggest political scandal in US history. There's so much at the moment, and it clearly isn't some wild conspiracy as we now have a special counsel looking into it. Innocent people don't lie as much as Trump has about this.
- Multiple Trump team undisclosed contact with Russians
- Flynn (Big enough on its own) But again, more lies. He discusses sanctions with the Russian foreign minister, which Spicer lies about.
- Trump telling Russia to hack the DNC; then it happened. At the same event, he says he's never met Putin and doesn't know who he is.
- Trump states he has no business in Russia. His son disagrees
- Manafort
- Carter Page
- During a private meeting, Republican leaders discuss the DNC hack. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy remarks, "There's two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump.”

Quote

"Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets…We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

Sharing Intel with Russia - This isn't a legal thing. It's a 'moral and unbelievably stupid' thing. And McMaster's spin the other day was awful.  Yes, he legally has the right as POTUS to declassify Intel, but it wasnt the US' Intel to declassify. It was Israel's and he did not have their permission to share it. I've never seen another

Comey - obstruction of justice (There's three huge things just within this)

Firing Comey - Gets his AG/Deputy AG to find reasons for the firing. Then goes on TV and totally contradicts these reasons stating that he fired him because of the Russian investigation.
Threatening Comey with tapes publicly - Tweets that there better not be any tapes of his and Comey's conversations. This is just threatening behaviour, and not appropriate for the **** POTUS to be engaging in. Not sure on the legality of recording him, then threatening him with said tapes.
Asking Comey to end the Flynn investigation - Yet more obstruction of justice. The president doesn't have this power, and I believe it would be illegal for him to stop the investigation himself.

Accusations of wiretapping of Obama - Serious misconduct, still no proof at all that Obama ordered anyone to specifically tap Trump's phones to spy on Trump.

Mocking a disabled reporter - I've never seen a presidential candidate/sitting president do this. The backflips done by right wing media to justify his actions too was pathetic.

The 'grab her by the pussy' tapes - Would be enough to derail a campaign in a normal situation. Admitting sexual assault - "They let you do whatever you want" does not vindicate him. In addition, multiple accusations of sexual assault, and Ivana's details of his abusive behaviour then.

Multiple military personnel scandals - In a country such as the US, which is absurdly proud of its military, you'd think one of these would be enough.
- McCain - "War heroes don't get caught"
- The Khan family fiasco.
- Congratulating a purple heart recipient
- "I always wanted a purple heart"

Trump University

I could go on, but I'm fairly sure I'l be rebuffed with some sort of Whataboutism or deflection anyway.

All of these things, would be enough to end it all, in a normal situation. In the UK, if a PM candidate had done any of the above, then they'd be gone.

 

[a m ole]

Criticising Donald Trump and supporting Hillary Clinton are not the same thing.

[magnkarl]

Just now, a m ole said:

Criticising Donald Trump and supporting Hillary Clinton are not the same thing.

I'll criticise both every day of the week mate. None of them should've been candidates. 

[MakemineVanilla]

21 minutes ago, Straggler said:

So what?

Clinton did some bad things.  That is bad.  Trump is doing some bad things that is also bad.

one bad thing does not cancel out or excuse the other it just adds up to two bad things.

Okay, but if someone claims Trump's scandals are the worst in modern times (whatever that means), it surely must be legitimate to point out other scandals by way of comparison?

Edited May 18, 2017 by MakemineVanilla

[StefanAVFC]

Why did you do a combined Bill/Hillary list?

They're not the same person.

Edited May 18, 2017 by StefanAVFC

[StefanAVFC]

Flynn, not Trump, related.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article151149647.html

Quote

One of the Trump administration’s first decisions about the fight against the Islamic State was made by Michael Flynn weeks before he was fired – and it conformed to the wishes of Turkey, whose interests, unbeknownst to anyone in Washington, he’d been paid more than $500,000 to represent.

The decision came 10 days before Donald Trump had been sworn in as president, in a conversation with President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, who had explained the Pentagon’s plan to retake the Islamic State’s de facto capital of Raqqa with Syrian Kurdish forces whom the Pentagon considered the U.S.’s most effective military partners. Obama’s national security team had decided to ask for Trump’s sign-off, since the plan would all but certainly be executed after Trump had become president.

Flynn didn’t hesitate. According to timelines distributed by members of Congress in the weeks since, Flynn told Rice to hold off, a move that would delay the military operation for months.

If Flynn explained his answer, that’s not recorded, and it’s not known whether he consulted anyone else on the transition team before rendering his verdict. But his position was consistent with the wishes of Turkey, which had long opposed the United States partnering with the Kurdish forces – and which was his undeclared client.

Trump eventually would approve the Raqqa plan, but not until weeks after Flynn had been fired.

What a treasonous clearing in the woods. And to think he was only fired for 'lying to Pence'.

[magnkarl]

14 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

By multitude, I clearly meant the continuous shit that Trump finds himself in. 

Maybe I used scandal a bit loosely, but I can't see any other president behaving like the examples below. I won't list them and these are off the top of my head (Sorry, no 'emotional charged' articles from Huff Post here)

Trump Russia - I'm not going into this in great detail, but if it's proven to be true, it's the biggest political scandal in US history. There's so much at the moment, and it clearly isn't some wild conspiracy as we now have a special counsel looking into it. Innocent people don't lie as much as Trump has about this.
- Multiple Trump team undisclosed contact with Russians
- Flynn (Big enough on its own) But again, more lies. He discusses sanctions with the Russian foreign minister, which Spicer lies about.
- Trump telling Russia to hack the DNC; then it happened. At the same event, he says he's never met Putin and doesn't know who he is.
- Trump states he has no business in Russia. His son disagrees
- Manafort
- Carter Page
- During a private meeting, Republican leaders discuss the DNC hack. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy remarks, "There's two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump.”

Sharing Intel with Russia - This isn't a legal thing. It's a 'moral and unbelievably stupid' thing. And McMaster's spin the other day was awful.  Yes, he legally has the right as POTUS to declassify Intel, but it wasnt the US' Intel to declassify. It was Israel's and he did not have their permission to share it. I've never seen another

Comey - obstruction of justice (There's three huge things just within this)

Firing Comey - Gets his AG/Deputy AG to find reasons for the firing. Then goes on TV and totally contradicts these reasons stating that he fired him because of the Russian investigation.
Threatening Comey with tapes publicly - Tweets that there better not be any tapes of his and Comey's conversations. This is just threatening behaviour, and not appropriate for the **** POTUS to be engaging in. Not sure on the legality of recording him, then threatening him with said tapes.
Asking Comey to end the Flynn investigation - Yet more obstruction of justice. The president doesn't have this power, and I believe it would be illegal for him to stop the investigation himself.

Accusations of wiretapping of Obama - Serious misconduct, still no proof at all that Obama ordered anyone to specifically tap Trump's phones to spy on Trump.

Mocking a disabled reporter - I've never seen a presidential candidate/sitting president do this. The backflips done by right wing media to justify his actions too was pathetic.

The 'grab her by the pussy' tapes - Would be enough to derail a campaign in a normal situation. Admitting sexual assault - "They let you do whatever you want" does not vindicate him. In addition, multiple accusations of sexual assault, and Ivana's details of his abusive behaviour then.

Multiple military personnel scandals - In a country such as the US, which is absurdly proud of its military, you'd think one of these would be enough.
- McCain - "War heroes don't get caught"
- The Khan family fiasco.
- Congratulating a purple heart recipient
- "I always wanted a purple heart"

Trump University

I could go on, but I'm fairly sure I'l be rebuffed with some sort of Whataboutism or deflection anyway.

All of these things, would be enough to end it all, in a normal situation. In the UK, if a PM candidate had done any of the above, then they'd be gone.

 

Quote

Trump Russia - I'm not going into this in great detail, but if it's proven to be true, it's the biggest political scandal in US history. There's so much at the moment, and it clearly isn't some wild conspiracy as we now have a special counsel looking into it. Innocent people don't lie as much as Trump has about this.
- Multiple Trump team undisclosed contact with Russians
- Flynn (Big enough on its own) But again, more lies. He discusses sanctions with the Russian foreign minister, which Spicer lies about.
- Trump telling Russia to hack the DNC; then it happened. At the same event, he says he's never met Putin and doesn't know who he is.
- Trump states he has no business in Russia. His son disagrees
- Manafort
- Carter Page
- During a private meeting, Republican leaders discuss the DNC hack. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy remarks, "There's two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump.”

Most of the above isn't proven yet. Do you know how many presidents have had investigations into their campaigns and office? It's normal in a democratic country, just like the Tories had an investigation into their expenses recently. His Son disagrees? Wow - well that isn't biased and painted in emotion at all. Bill Clinton got a hell of a lot of money from Boeing after Hillary got them a contract in Russia. They must both be heads of the Russian Mafia right?

Flynn was a stupid move and is proven - he got fired.

Trump telling Russia to hack the DNC? You make me laugh. Show me proof for this that isn't a quote from a quote from a quote. 

Kevin McCarthy doesn't like someone who ran against him? That's a surprise.

Quote

Sharing Intel with Russia - This isn't a legal thing. It's a 'moral and unbelievably stupid' thing. And McMaster's spin the other day was awful.  Yes, he legally has the right as POTUS to declassify Intel, but it wasnt the US' Intel to declassify. It was Israel's and he did not have their permission to share it. 

Your point being? Russia is a tiny economy with no real threat to America.

Quote

Accusations of wiretapping of Obama - Serious misconduct, still no proof at all that Obama ordered anyone to specifically tap Trump's phones to spy on Trump.

Again, not proven.

Quote

 

Mocking a disabled reporter - I've never seen a presidential candidate/sitting president do this. The backflips done by right wing media to justify his actions too was pathetic.

The 'grab her by the pussy' tapes - Would be enough to derail a campaign in a normal situation. Admitting sexual assault - "They let you do whatever you want" does not vindicate him. In addition, multiple accusations of sexual assault, and Ivana's details of his abusive behaviour then.

 

Stupid I agree, however I've heard far worse said by people down the pub, playing football and so on. 

Quote

Multiple military personnel scandals - In a country such as the US, which is absurdly proud of its military, you'd think one of these would be enough.
- McCain - "War heroes don't get caught"
- The Khan family fiasco.
- Congratulating a purple heart recipient
- "I always wanted a purple heart"

The president before him had a way worse record with this. Bush dwarfs Trump on military scandals.

Quote

I could go on, but I'm fairly sure I'l be rebuffed with some sort of Whataboutism or deflection anyway.

Most of your post is about emotion and things that aren't proven. If anything it is the biggest whataboutism in this thread because you have no baseline for most of what you claim. Stop taking accusations as truth before you write these things. If we are to judge people based on accusations alone there would never be a president in America because they'd be in jail before entering office. People slander, that is how the world works. Rise above it and do some research.

Edited May 18, 2017 by magnkarl

[Straggler]

1 minute ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Okay, but if someone claims Trump's scandals are the worst in modern times (whatever that means), it surely must be legitimate to point out other scandals by way of comparison?

Yes it is.  Is the argument really about who is the biggest clearing in the woods of them all?  That could go all day. GWB is arguably a war criminal and a dolt, Shagger Clinton was a corporate shill, Obama was also a corporate shill (as much as I admire him, his presidency was deeply flawed). Trump is an idiot bordering on mentally ill.  I still think Trump is the worst President that I've ever see, but GWB did the worst thing.

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Your point being? Russia is a tiny economy with no real threat to America.

Russia is a nuclear-armed superpower. 

Just because it isn't as important as America doesn't mean it isn't important. 

[magnkarl]

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

Russia is a nuclear-armed superpower. 

Just because it isn't as important as America doesn't mean it isn't important. 

Russia's economy is bust, their military is okay in the special units, they have more people dying than being born. They don't produce enough food to feed themselves. Russia isn't a superpower anymore, China and America are. This isn't 1965 where Russia had half of Europe to produce for them.

[HanoiVillan]

Just now, magnkarl said:

Russia's economy is bust, their military is okay in the special units, they have more people dying than being born. They don't produce enough food to feed themselves. Russia isn't a superpower anymore, China and America are. This isn't 1965 where Russia had half of Europe to produce for them.

It is an important country. I don't think there is an agreed-upon definition of 'superpower', but any country with a sufficiently large nuclear arsenal to destroy the planet needs to be taken seriously. It is also an American rival for influence in two key parts of the world, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. 

My point is your sentence trivialises what is obviously an exceedingly important bilateral relationship, probably the second-most important relationship in world politics after America-China. 

[magnkarl]

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

It is an important country. I don't think there is an agreed-upon definition of 'superpower', but any country with a sufficiently large nuclear arsenal to destroy the planet needs to be taken seriously. It is also an American rival for influence in two key parts of the world, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. 

My point is your sentence trivialises what is obviously an exceedingly important bilateral relationship, probably the second-most important relationship in world politics after America-China. 

Fair enough. I just don't think Russia is a superpower anymore. I went to Moscow last year and it's not what I'd consider a capital of a superpower. The amount of poor people, alcoholism and HIV/TB plaguing that place shows that most of what we fear Russia for is a facade. They have a good number of old nuclear missiles, but America can easily counter most of them with their missile shields. Russia isn't a threat anymore. They couldn't feed their army for more than 2 months of a war if they deployed anywhere near 80%. USA/NATO could go for years.

[magnkarl]

5 hours ago, a m ole said:

 

MRA confirmed.

Oh and I forgot to say, SJW confirmed.

[StefanAVFC]

29 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Most of the above isn't proven yet. Do you know how many presidents have had investigations into their campaigns and office? It's normal in a democratic country, just like the Tories had an investigation into their expenses recently. His Son disagrees? Wow - well that isn't biased and painted in emotion at all. Bill Clinton got a hell of a lot of money from Boeing after Hillary got them a contract in Russia. They must both be heads of the Russian Mafia right?

Flynn was a stupid move and is proven - he got fired.

Trump telling Russia to hack the DNC? You make me laugh. Show me proof for this that isn't a quote from a quote from a quote. 

Kevin McCarthy doesn't like someone who ran against him? That's a surprise.

Your point being? Russia is a tiny economy with no real threat to America.

Again, not proven.

Stupid I agree, however I've heard far worse said by people down the pub, playing football and so on. 

The president before him had a way worse record with this. Bush dwarfs Trump on military scandals.

Most of your post is about emotion and things that aren't proven. If anything it is the biggest whataboutism in this thread because you have no baseline for most of what you claim. Stop taking accusations as truth before you write these things. If we are to judge people based on accusations alone there would never be a president in America because they'd be in jail before entering office. People slander, that is how the world works. Rise above it and do some research.

 

42 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I could go on, but I'm fairly sure I'l be rebuffed with some sort of Whataboutism or deflection anyway.

 

Not sure why I wasted my time to be honest.

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

 

Not sure why I wasted my time to be honest.

Ah the old "oh shit I realised I was wrong so I'm going to backtrack and keep defending that I'm right". Most of what you put in your post has no base in truth and is slander/unproven. Keep believing buddy.

[StefanAVFC]

Sure

[Xann]

14 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

... but America can easily counter most of them with their missile shields...

'Most' doesn't wash with thermonuclear weapons.

Look up the Russian RS-24 MIRV.

It's not just the big boy stuff. They haven't stopped developing effective conventional weaponry either.

[Awol]

14 minutes ago, Xann said:

'Most' doesn't wash with thermonuclear weapons.

Look up the Russian RS-24 MIRV.

It's not just the big boy stuff. They haven't stopped developing effective conventional weaponry either.

They've certainly got better tanks, artillery and some fearsome electronic warfare capabilities.

Maybe Russia could only feed its army for 2 months, but without direct and massive US support (or nuclear intervention) they'd be on the Rhine long before that. 

 

[ml1dch]

37 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

 Most of what you put in your post has no base in truth and is slander/unproven. Keep believing buddy.

Do you now want to go back to that long list of terrible stuff about Bill Clinton on the previous page and filter out the ones that are rumours, unproven or just plain old "actually about a different person". Of course you don't. Because it won't give you any opportunities to wet your knickers about gender studies.

[MakemineVanilla]

17 minutes ago, Xann said:

'Most' doesn't wash with thermonuclear weapons.

Look up the Russian RS-24 MIRV.

It's not just the big boy stuff. They haven't stopped developing effective conventional weaponry either.

But the MAD scenario surely ensures that it is not about whose got the best nukes and more about geopolitical reach.

The West want to break up the Russian federation and get access to resources and markets and Putin doesn't want that.

When Chomsky claims that all countries are judged according to their openness to American capitalism, I think he has a point.