Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 164

On September 25 2019 15:21 NMcNasty wrote: Good morning LP! Well it looks like the "dems rushing to conclusions" angle was just blown out of the water as the transcript shows exactly what was accused (and that Trump/Giuliani already gave away) in that Trump was trying to withhold military aid in exchange for "a favor". Of course now comes the inevitable switch from "fake news" to "nothingburger". Being immune to objective reality, there's no level of corruption obvious enough for Republican politicians or the Trump base to actually support impeachment, so yeah, the chance Trump actually gets removed from office is 0. Still, its nice to see democrats finding their spine and actually taking a stand. If you don't offer pushback the laggy donkey gets away with raising more and more garbage.

From where do you get that in the transcript, could you be specific?

Becuase at most you could say that Trump said "the US does a lot for Ukraine, I want you to investigate this" that is quite different, not that to me makes much difference even if legaly there is a big one.

I think its naive to think this about this in terms of dems growing a spine or wanting to do what is rigth etc, there are just politial moves with the upcoming election.

Pelosi has been keeping a lid on the radical members of the party about impeachment for a while probably because she knows it can backfire like the Russia probe did and gurantee a reelection, but this time she is going along with it knowing it has a 0% chance of happening so I see this as 4 scenarios:

- She can't contain the fractured DNC anymore and has no choice but to run with it.
- She sees this as a legit strategy for the upcoming election, which is weird given how alike this situation is with the Russian one, maybe they are out of ideas.
- They want to torpedo Biden (and hopefully hurt Trump too in the process) to give the ticket to Warren.
- They are afraid of what the investigation in Ukraine can show so they are attacking preemptively.

I mean I'm just cut/pasting regular news, and don't really want to do that unless there's an actual point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/transcript-of-trumps-call-with-ukrainian-president-shows-him-offering-us-assistance-for-biden-investigation/2019/09/25/16aa36ca-df0f-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html

Trump said the United States “has been very very good to Ukraine,” and Zelensky replied by agreeing “1,000 percent.” The Ukrainian president went on to suggest his country may soon buy more anti-tank missiles from the United States. “We are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes,” Zelensky said. Trump replied: “I would like you to do us a favor because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” He then asked for help in finding the Democratic National Committee computer server that U.S. officials say was hacked by Russian intelligence in the run-up to the 2016 election.

Pretty obvious, not sure what else people think is going on here.

“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,” Trump said, according to the memo. “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. … It sounds horrible to me.”

wtf.. the memorandum i s posted right there in a PDF a few posts above... did you seriously didn't read it? or why would you post links to newsites?

As I said Trump sais the US has been to good to Ukraine so do this, which isn't threatening to cut aid, the moral difference is very small, legally it's quite relevant but I don't care about legal fine-print tbh, Trump is more than capable than strong arming Ukraine and probably isn't aware of what is legal and isn't unless he is being closely advised which often seems like he isn't.

What It's telling to me is that Trump is asking for an investigation regarding the hacking into the DNC, which you seemed to care a lot, but apparently you don't if its not done to hurt Trump, so you never cared about the truth, also he wants Biden and Biden Jr investigated for serious corruption with foreign countries, with actual recorded transactions and more evidence than the russia-trump investigation.

You should work on your biases

On September 25 2019 23:06 Baalim wrote: wtf.. the memorandum i s posted right there in a PDF a few posts above... did you seriously didn't read it? or why would you post links to newsites?

Uh I'm posting links just to be extra helpful to people to who are still somehow confused as to where the corruption is happening.

As I said Trump said the US has been to good to Ukraine so do this, which isn't threatening to cut aid, the moral difference is very small, legally it's quite relevant but I don't care about legal fine-print tbh, Trump is more than capable than strong arming Ukraine and probably isn't aware of what is legal and isn't unless he is being closely advised which often seems like he isn't.

Even if what Trump did was legal, its still a blatant misuse of power and an impeachable offense. And if it isn't legal (likely not), ignorance isn't an excuse.

What It's telling to me is that Trump is asking for an investigation regarding the hacking into the DNC

Because he believes a crazy story that a server with DNC secrets exists somewhere in the Ukraine! He's a complete nutcase searching for dirt.

he wants Biden and Biden Jr investigated for serious corruption with foreign countries, with actual recorded transactions and more evidence than the russia-trump investigation.

FWIW, I'll take Biden and Trump canceling each other out all day.

On September 25 2019 19:50 Baalim wrote: Pelosi has been keeping a lid on the radical members of the party about impeachment for a while probably because she knows it can backfire like the Russia probe did and gurantee a reelection, but this time she is going along with it knowing it has a 0% chance of happening so I see this as 4 scenarios: - She can't contain the fractured DNC anymore and has no choice but to run with it. - She sees this as a legit strategy for the upcoming election, which is weird given how alike this situation is with the Russian one, maybe they are out of ideas. - They want to torpedo Biden (and hopefully hurt Trump too in the process) to give the ticket to Warren. - They are afraid of what the investigation in Ukraine can show so they are attacking preemptively.

Yeah I think it's 1. Trump would win in a landslide vs Warren.

On September 26 2019 02:11 GoTuNk wrote: Show nested quote + On September 25 2019 19:50 Baalim wrote: Pelosi has been keeping a lid on the radical members of the party about impeachment for a while probably because she knows it can backfire like the Russia probe did and gurantee a reelection, but this time she is going along with it knowing it has a 0% chance of happening so I see this as 4 scenarios: - She can't contain the fractured DNC anymore and has no choice but to run with it. - She sees this as a legit strategy for the upcoming election, which is weird given how alike this situation is with the Russian one, maybe they are out of ideas. - They want to torpedo Biden (and hopefully hurt Trump too in the process) to give the ticket to Warren. - They are afraid of what the investigation in Ukraine can show so they are attacking preemptively. Yeah I think it's 1. Trump would win in a landslide vs Warren.

In regards of likeliness to beat Trump I would say Sanders > Biden > Warren

On September 26 2019 02:43 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On September 26 2019 02:11 GoTuNk wrote:   On September 25 2019 19:50 Baalim wrote: Pelosi has been keeping a lid on the radical members of the party about impeachment for a while probably because she knows it can backfire like the Russia probe did and gurantee a reelection, but this time she is going along with it knowing it has a 0% chance of happening so I see this as 4 scenarios: - She can't contain the fractured DNC anymore and has no choice but to run with it. - She sees this as a legit strategy for the upcoming election, which is weird given how alike this situation is with the Russian one, maybe they are out of ideas. - They want to torpedo Biden (and hopefully hurt Trump too in the process) to give the ticket to Warren. - They are afraid of what the investigation in Ukraine can show so they are attacking preemptively. Yeah I think it's 1. Trump would win in a landslide vs Warren. In regards of likeliness to beat Trump I would say Sanders > Biden > Warren

Atm maybe, Biden is toast and dems are throwing him under the bus trying to get Trump dirty in the process. His drug addicted son getting payed 50k a month for his expertice on nuclear energy and ukranian international relationship is lol worthy, even if dems try to portray it as normal.

communists were in general delighted when the ussr fell actually. Never seen my dad happier from a political event than when the berlin wall fell, I was 5 years old and still remember his face reading the newspaper in the morning.

On September 26 2019 13:06 Liquid`Drone wrote: communists were in general delighted when the ussr fell actually. Never seen my dad happier from a political event than when the berlin wall fell, I was 5 years old and still remember his face reading the newspaper in the morning.

Not sure what you mean. People who actually had to endure communism, were obviously very happy when the USRR.

Western communist who lived in capitalism, where very sad. I guess some were happy when they had completed their mental gymnastic and declared the "USRR was not real communism"

No, western communists were really happy. By the time the USSR fell, virtually nobody had illusions it represented anything near the communist ideals they were supporting. USSR to communism really IS like north korea to democracy, that is how far off it is. It's possible it was different in latin america specifically (as countries like cuba depended on soviet aid, I presume the same might have been true for various communist groups in various latin american countries), but for western communists, they were not sad. I mean, I don't know communists in every western country, but I'm very intimately familiar with ones in Norway. (And it being a very international movement, communists in Norway were usually very similar to communists in france and italy and spain. It's possible that american communists, being far fewer in number (% wise for sure), were a slightly different group.

If you go back to the 60s-70s, theres a lot apologism going on. A lot of norwegian leftist intellectuals supported Pol Pot and Mao for example, and for so long that it must have taken some fairly impressive deliberate ignorance and mental gymnastics to do so. My aforementioned dad had a stint where he supported violent revolution (in Norway, this was also during the height of the Vietnam war, which is where support for communism is the strongest - partially because of its juxtaposition with the US, and with how the Vietnam war represents a low point, PR wise, for western capitalism). But by the time you hit 1990, the disillusionment had hit a long time ago. Part of this again is because of the war in Afghanistan, where Soviet atrocities were widely documented - it became very, very hard to continue supporting the USSR during this period of time. (I mean you can do whataboutism rather successfully during this period looking at the african or latin american groups supported by the us, so it's not like people became pro-usa instead.)

On September 26 2019 20:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: No, western communists were really happy. By the time the USSR fell, virtually nobody had illusions it represented anything near the communist ideals they were supporting. USSR to communism really IS like north korea to democracy, that is how far off it is. It's possible it was different in latin america specifically (as countries like cuba depended on soviet aid, I presume the same might have been true for various communist groups in various latin american countries), but for western communists, they were not sad. I mean, I don't know communists in every western country, but I'm very intimately familiar with ones in Norway. (And it being a very international movement, communists in Norway were usually very similar to communists in france and italy and spain. It's possible that american communists, being far fewer in number (% wise for sure), were a slightly different group. If you go back to the 60s-70s, theres a lot apologism going on. A lot of norwegian leftist intellectuals supported Pol Pot and Mao for example, and for so long that it must have taken some fairly impressive deliberate ignorance and mental gymnastics to do so. My aforementioned dad had a stint where he supported violent revolution (in Norway, this was also during the height of the Vietnam war, which is where support for communism is the strongest - partially because of its juxtaposition with the US, and with how the Vietnam war represents a low point, PR wise, for western capitalism). But by the time you hit 1990, the disillusionment had hit a long time ago. Part of this again is because of the war in Afghanistan, where Soviet atrocities were widely documented - it became very, very hard to continue supporting the USSR during this period of time. (I mean you can do whataboutism rather successfully during this period looking at the african or latin american groups supported by the us, so it's not like people became pro-usa instead.)

Not sure why you start with "no", we are basically in agreement.

TLDR: Western communist had finalized their mental gymnastics by 1990 -> USSR = no real communism = happy it fell apart.

only some of the left-western intellectuals were like that. Look at Chomsky, howard zinn, and all the others that are not prominent enough to be remembered in history. They all oppossed pol pot. Other socialists like bertrand russell opposed leninism as soon as it was born. So yeah the ones on the left that tend to have very little in morality and braincells supported him. Chistopher hitchens is a good example, was a trotskyist up until 9/11 then switched to supporting the neo-cons. There really isn't that much difference in being pro-stalin and pro capitalist as an intellectual. You just need to very servile. and you can just change the parameters around for your beleifs when you switch ur masters.

But guess what, the media were fervently opposed to pol pot from 1975-1978. What happened in 1978? Vietnam invaded cambodia and toppled pol pots regime, so most of the western governments in the world turned around and supported pol pot. From here on out the capitalist media stopped talking about him so much. Pol pot lived a long life and died peacefully, thanks to the american, british, australian, new zealand and other governments who crucially supported him.

Hey if you agree that USSR is to communism what north korea is to democracy, I'm totally content.

This is cringe worthy.

An American lobbyist getting in the board of directors in one of the most important companies in a country which just cut all ties with Russia and sacked their Russian-friendly president? SHOCKING! I would say its a pretty retarded move that Biden put his son there though, no doubt about that.

Trump actually going after that though.... is like going against the entire political and election system of the US - I'm not sure he realizes that in his pety attempt. The good thing for him is though that the Dems are actually stupid enough to try to impeach him on something as weak as this and will have everything backfire in their face.... Shoulda just let the lobbyist crush Trump during the campaigns

Christopher Hitchens was a trotskist? wow I didnt know that, I think his stance in politics in particular foreign policy were atrocious fwiw.

You can be a communist and be glad the USSR fell the same way you can believe in the free market and recognize that the US economoy is a beaurocratic atrocity very far from the free market and not support it.

"communist in general were delighted the USSR fell" is a huge strech though.

Joe Biden confessing and implicating Obama directly in exactly what Trump is accused of doing, why wasn't he impeached?

On September 26 2019 21:23 Liquid`Drone wrote: Hey if you agree that USSR is to communism what north korea is to democracy, I'm totally content.

yeah i think that's it's very obvious and you need to be indoctrinated to think that either ussr is communist or north korea is democratic.

look at george orwell and betrand russell. both admirer's of anarchism and were socialists. Orwell wrote animal farm, and bertrand russell always beleived stalin to be a monster, and was supressed from the british media for a while when stalin was a great ally of britain and churchhill was going around calling him uncle joe. These guys were essentially saying that the USSR is not true communism, and when leftists say it today, its apparently 'mental gymnastics', or 'revisionist history'. Well, it's gymnastics for the small section on the left that supported stalinism and its variants, and benefitted from those views. (i dont think trotsky was that different from stalin really). But for people like russell, orwell and other socialists that had similar views, it was always a very apparent and obvious truth that the USSR wasn't true communism.

There is a difference between USSR/Communis and NorthKorea/Democracy though, there are many better examples of large-scale democracies exposing NK as a fake democracy, the USSR doesn't have that benefit.

The USSR is as communist as the US is capitalist, that is way more precise.

Mind blown