jakee
-
Content
24,933 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74 -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by jakee
-
Pretty much exactly what everyone else thinks about the hyperbolic hysteria of your posts, I’d say. Equating people who happen to be atheists with the political dogma of Stalinism? Come on man, give it a rest. No need for that kind of blatant trolling.
-
Oh give over. Never have I heard someone so desperate to be the victim. You're not a poor oppressed majority, you run the whole damn country. What more do you want?
-
I think the dirty tricks might be happening already. I’m getting more and more convinced Mulvaney is a deep cover Democrat plant. His latest gem - Trump wanted to host the G7 at Doral because “he still considers himself to be in the hospitality business”. Yes Mick, yes he does!
-
Exactly. On balance of probability, is the Trump White House running a sophisticated double bluff, or are Trump and Giuliani simply so stupid as to believe both conspiracy theories and pressure the Ukrainians to go along with them. Yep, I'm going with door number two there.
-
I think this is exactly where the distinction between 'is' and 'can be' is quite important. It can be a good faoundation, but it can be a bad foundation also. I'd certainly say it's highly likely to introduce extraneous factors that have nothing to do with morality into the good/bad equation, or as in your case flip the two upside down completely.
-
Why do you think that?
-
Mulvaney also just reported that the G7 meeting would be held at Doral, but not because Trump would profit from it or that the Trump/Doral brand needed polishing. He said it was simply because Doral was the single best location in the country for large conferences like the G7. He believed it so strongly that he repeated it several times, on the press podium, at the White House. There can be no suggestion that Doral was chosen for the G7 meeting to strengthen Trump's business brand or to advertise Doral, it's simply that Doral is "by far and away the best location" anywhere in the USA for large professional get-togethers. So now everyone knows that's the official government reason - Doral is the best. Sounds legit
-
This is actually quite an interesting quote, which illustrates a lot about how authoritarian propaganda works. Mussolini did not get the trains to run on time. However, to some degree there's always a temptation to think that whatever else is going on, the 'strong man' leader is at least going to Get Things Done. And so it's easy for them to get people to believe they are Getting Things Done. The Trump phenomenon is a prime example of this. But it's bollocks. The authoritarian ruler can have all the downfalls of authoritarian rulers and still be completely useless at the admin too.
-
Yes, but the discussion started with what I just said, not what you just said. You first replied to a post referencing Trump supporters, not people who merely agree with some of what Trump said. You’re now arguing a point that a) is fundamentally irrelevant, b) is like yeah, obviously, and c) is not actually a response to anything that anyone here has said. Or to put it a shorter way, you’ve drifted off topic.
-
How often do you see that, though? Certainly on here in almost every case someone who agrees in part with Trump then defends to the hilt the indefensible things he does. Whether or not they agree with it they’re still knowingly enabling it. To be honest, at this point Trump’s moral shortcomings, ethical misdeeds and then damage he is doing to the institutions and processes that are uploaded to keep the Oval Office in check are so obvious and egregious that anyone who supports his re-election, for any reason, has to own up to tacitly supporting everything else he stands for. Including the racism.
-
OK, try this. "Ms. Hill, the senior director for European and Russian affairs, testified that Mr. Giuliani and his allies circumvented the usual national security process to run their own foreign policy efforts, leaving the president’s official advisers aware of the rogue operation yet powerless to stop it." Can you agree that whatever you think of Trump personally, that this - the rampant disorganisation, the nepotism and cronyism, the routine circumventing of ethics, process and oversight, the sheer disregard for the good of the country over the fortunes of the administration that leads to a private associate of the President with no official government role being able to formulate and implement foreign policy at his own discretion - this should disqualify any right thinking, logical person from being able to support the Trump Presidency? Emotionally it shocks me. I didn't realise you guys were in the king-making business.
-
That's simply not true though. It's not supported by any objective assessment of the last election. Clinton brought an exceptionally detailed manifesto to the table. She lost because was the victim of the most sustained and focussed character assassination any of us have ever seen, and came up against a candidate no-one expected with a message no-one (not even his own side) took seriously until too late. You put far too much stock into the assumption that the last thing that happened is guaranteed to happen again. Trump won the last election with madness, it doesn't mean madness will win every future election - just as Obama winning two elections with reason didn't mean reason prevailed last time. Even so, what if Trump did change the game and that's how you've got to play it? Well then, Trump's victory showed that constant attack is the best form of attack, and he won in the midst of a virtual civil war with almost every well known leader of his party.
-
Who should have? Who is actually in a position to do that? Sorry dude, but framing an american poilitcal party as a single unified organism with a single unified focus is a pretty dire misrepresentation of how american politics works.
-
In what way? What does a potential impeachment of Trump (one which is incredibly unlikely to remove him from office) have to do with the Democratic primary process?
-
It's not an either/or situation.
-
Right, but (as could become the case here) the President could be indicted at State level, try the defence that he is immune, and see that defence rejected by the courts. The Justice department would then need to reconsider their position. Aside from that, I liked that the judge commented on Trump’s use of personal attorneys to argue Executive privileges. One of the most insidious parts of the whole shoddy affair is the normalisation of sending personal cronies to do State business. It’s bonkers that Trump thinks it supports him that Zelensky mentioned Giuliani first in that phone call. Giuliani is a personal employee of Trump the private citizen. He doesn’t work for the government. He is not White House staff. He has no accountability or responsibility to the US taxpayer, and no ethical oversight from any branch of government. His only responsibility is to advance the personal interests of DJT. So what the fuck is he doing out there?
-
There clearly is a debate. The justice department does not make the law, and the decisions of the justice department do not set a legal precedent. While theirs is an informed opinion, it doesn’t actually matter what they say if a judge says different.
-
Are you auditioning for a writers gig on Star Trek? “The entrainment’s stuck in a negative attractor paradigm - the engines cannay take it Cap’n!”
-
And scripted the whole thing Is this Trump’s defence? “I’m a puppet who can’t make his own decisions”?
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49930863 Text from a top Diplomat in the US Embassy in Ukraine to the Ambassador to the EU: "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign." Text from US - Ukraine envoy: "Heard from White House - assuming President Z convinces Trump he will investigate / 'get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down a date for visit to Washington. Good luck!" Gun, meet smoke?
-
Gosh that's funny. It's interesting how the White House think it's a defense that the Ukrainian President mentioned Giuliani first. As if the fact that Giuliani (a man who works for Trump personally and whose job is to protect the interests of Donald Trump, private citizen) had already been talking to them didn't indicate that they were actively looking for personal political gain.
-
What does that mean? But you moved away from the valleys to the mountaintops. You talk about it literally all the time.
-
But you're conceding that they're not who they say they are, have nothing to do the intelligence community and have no real insight or intel to share?
-
So you're finally conceding that there is no Q?
-
Thereby proving that some people will believe anything.
