13
   

All of Robert Mueller’s indictments and plea deals in the Russia investigation so far.

 
 
Sturgis
 
  3  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2018 02:39 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
...even if it transpires that Trump has actually done something wrong, who cares?


Millions of U.S. citizens would likely care, including plenty of those that voted for him and had believed in him and his words.

Leaders of other nations would likely care too.

Quote:
If Bill Clinton gets to be above the law, so does Trump.


There might well be different crimes here, so any punishments meted out would be set accordingly.

Further, Clinton was not above the law and did pay. Politically and financially.
mysteryman841
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2018 12:03 pm
@Sturgis,
Quote:
Further, Clinton was not above the law and did pay. Politically and financially


How did he pay politically?
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2018 05:07 pm
@Sturgis,
Sturgis wrote:
Millions of U.S. citizens would likely care, including plenty of those that voted for him and had believed in him and his words.
Nah. The only people who would care are the same people who said that it was OK for Bill Clinton to break the law.

And their excusing of Bill Clinton's crimes invalidates their right to be taken seriously when they complain about Republicans.

Sturgis wrote:
Leaders of other nations would likely care too.
They should mind their own business.

Sturgis wrote:
There might well be different crimes here, so any punishments meted out would be set accordingly.
If anything, Bill Clinton's crimes were more serious. He committed felonies while he was president, and he committed them inside the White House.

Since there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by Trump, speculating on his hypothetical wrongdoing needs to be rather vague. But if he committed any wrongdoing at all, it seems likely that it would have happened before he launched his campaign for president.

Sturgis wrote:
Further, Clinton was not above the law and did pay. Politically and financially.
That is incorrect. The Democrats let him off the hook and refused to remove him from office.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2018 05:09 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Given that I don't, you are wasting your time asking me.
I think my question illustrates that complaints about witch hunts are not whining.

Setanta wrote:
The two situations are not analogous
The only difference that I perceive is that Senator McCarthy's witch hunt was designed to protect freedom and civil rights from malevolent liberals.

The current witch hunts are attempts by malevolent liberals to destroy anyone who supports freedom and civil rights.

Setanta wrote:
--once again, a respected, life-long Republican has been appointed by a Republican Congress. Calling it a Democratic witch-hunt is the height of dull-witted stupidity.
The Democrats continuously demanded a witch hunt to persecute Trump until the justice department blinked and gave in to their demands.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2018 10:44 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
They should mind their own business.
By this reasoning, why should the US stick it's nose in anyone else's business?
Sturgis
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2018 11:01 pm
@mysteryman841,
Quote:
How did he pay politically?


His overall standing and stature were lowered considerably. A great deal of the fall came from his dishonesty. Many turned from Clinton for his personal actions as well. People and organizations might once have wanted to have an association with him; that diminished.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2018 11:48 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
By this reasoning, why should the US stick it's nose in anyone else's business?
We're a civilized democracy. Presumably the people whose business we are sticking our nose in are third-world trash.

I wouldn't think we'd be sticking our nose in the business of other civilized democracies.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2018 12:00 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
why should the US stick it's nose in anyone else's business?


absolutely no good reason

I wish that when people like #45 say they're not going to get involved in other countries' business, that they meant it
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2018 02:42 pm
@ehBeth,
The US has the right to force third-world hellholes to comply with civilized standards.
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2018 03:24 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
Dictators around the world use police forces for their own personal ends, so that is a path you never want a leader to go down - putting in place a series of events that lead to gaining control of a police force (ie. Keep appointing bootlickers to the top positions, until they influence the rest of the police force, who start to understand that the only path to promotion is through meeting certain political demands, and so on down the slippery slope).

You just described what happened in the Obama administration and would have continued with the Clinton 2.0 administration.

0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  4  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2018 07:15 am
If it was on already, I missed it, but the following write up about the Goldstone interview with NBC News is interesting.

Man behind making the meeting speaks out


So, Emin Agalarove on behalf of his father, told his publisher in an email to set up a meeting with the Trump campaign with promises of dirt on Clinton. Goldstone, puffed up (his words) the email to Trump Jr and after some phone calls between Jr and Emin they agreed to the meeting. Trump Jr went to the meeting fully expecting dirt on Clinton in connections with the Russians.

Quote:
Goldstone himself had promised as much, in an email to Trump Jr. saying the Russian had information that "would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father," and that it was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."


Based on just this information, at least Trump Jr is implicated in an attempt to conspire with a foreign government (Russia)in an attempt to discredit Hillary Clinton's campaign. Which also amounts to campaign violations and may amount to other laws, I wouldn't know. We also know for a fact Donald Trump dictated the first response about the meeting on Air Force one which might amount to obstruction of Justice.


Regardless tomorrow, everything may be different after Trump and Rosenstein meet.
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2018 11:11 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
We're a civilized democracy. Presumably the people whose business we are sticking our nose in are third-world trash
Alright, it appears you've missed the hypocrisy of your stance.
Quote:
The US has the right to force third-world hellholes to comply with civilized standards.

I'm pretty sure that according to you, citizens have the right to kill any foreign invader that steps foot on their soil - which is one of the reasons you believe in the right to bear arms in the way you do...so I presume you approve other countries citizens trying to kill / killing any american invaders.

And no, the US does not have the right to force third world hellholes to comply with civilised standards. And it has in fact done the opposite numerous times, propping up dictactors. So using it as a justification for invasion is a self-serving claim at best.

Nor is 'enforcing civilised standards' it's usually motivation for invasion. Otherwise it would be in Africa quite a bit. But the Clinton era was the only time I remember them actually trying Africa.

oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2018 05:43 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
Alright, it appears you've missed the hypocrisy of your stance.
Is it hypocrisy that police officers are allowed to shoot at bank robbers, but bank robbers are criminally prosecuted for shooting at police officers?

And yes, I think it fair to equate the US to a police officer and equate a third-world hellhole to a bank robber.

vikorr wrote:
I'm pretty sure that according to you, citizens have the right to kill any foreign invader that steps foot on their soil - which is one of the reasons you believe in the right to bear arms in the way you do...so I presume you approve other countries citizens trying to kill / killing any american invaders.
If they comply with the laws of war, they should not be criminally prosecuted for fighting our soldiers.

But if they engage in combat against our soldiers, our soldiers have the right to engage in combat against them.

vikorr wrote:
And no, the US does not have the right to force third world hellholes to comply with civilised standards.
I strongly disagree.

I do think that we should not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear power. However, overwhelming conventional force is just fine with me.

vikorr wrote:
And it has in fact done the opposite numerous times, propping up dictactors. So using it as a justification for invasion is a self-serving claim at best.
The Cold War was a bad time for the planet. We were desperately trying to keep the Soviets from conquering the entire planet, and sometimes we needed to support a very bad person just to keep the Soviets in check.

However, even when we did this, we still pushed hard to move those countries towards democracy and civil rights. We had some nice success stories too. Indonesia and South Korea are both democracies now because we pushed them to evolve in that direction.

vikorr wrote:
Nor is 'enforcing civilised standards' it's usually motivation for invasion. Otherwise it would be in Africa quite a bit. But the Clinton era was the only time I remember them actually trying Africa.
I'm expressing my personal view of what US foreign policy should be, not making a statement of what we actually do.

I acknowledge that we do not invade as many third-world hellholes as I'd like us to invade.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2018 06:44 pm
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
Regardless tomorrow, everything may be different after Trump and Rosenstein meet.


who knows when that will happen

got bumped from Thursday to some unknown date in the future

quite a lot of juggling going on in DC these days
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2018 03:41 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
And yes, I think it fair to equate the US to a police officer and equate a third-world hellhole to a bank robber.
That is a really bad analogy. But if you want you compare the US to a policeman:
- The US in foreign policy terms, has never gone into any country where it didn't gain an economic advantage (Clinton Era, and Afghanistan aside). So if you want to compare the US to a policeman - it would be to a corrupt policeman, who only tackles crime if there's a cut in it for him
- certainly the US, as a policeman ignores the attrocities, dictators, and wars in Africa...so it's a policeman that chooses which crimes it wants to investigate...turning its head away from inconvenient crimes...and address only those which happen to be those most economically beneficial to it.
- And it's a police officer that apparently supports mob bosses (as we're using analogies, the mob bosses would be dictators)

So sure, if you want to compare it to a police officer - it would be be the equivalent of just about the most corrupt police officer you could find...but it's not a police officer.

The 'police officer' tag is just what it uses when it wants something. There's certainly a major reason why it chooses to intervene in the Middle East more than Africa. All it's small wars have been beneficial to it, with US companies setting up major bases in those countries after.

Quote:
However, even when we did this, we still pushed hard to move those countries towards democracy and civil rights.
Odd. The US doesn't seem to be doing this now. It certainly has had little success achieving this.

I don't necessarily disagree with this action, in terms of protecting a countries interest, because, sometimes, in removing dictators, worse comes along afterwards.

I do though, say it's hypocritical to prop up dictators (no matter your reasoning), while claiming to support civilised societies / democracy etc. If you have to do it, fine...but don't call it anything other than what it is, and you most certainly can't claim to be a policeman (unless you happily admit to being a corrupt one).

Quote:
I'm expressing my personal view of what US foreign policy should be, not making a statement of what we actually do.
Which is fine...but you would have to say that before making a statement like that...otherwise it's always going to misinterpreted (in light of the US' actual actions)
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2018 04:56 am
What a crock of ****. How democratic is Saudi Arabia? If you're not Wahhabi or tolerated by the Wahhabis, you can forget civil rights in Saudi Arabia. Egypt has been a military dictatorship since King Farouk was run out, and almost all governments in the middle east are tribal minority governments. The Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party has run Syria since 1963, and ran Iraq until the 2003 invasion. In Iraq, the Kurds (a largely secular group) were oppressed as an ethnic minority, and the Shi'ites (almost exclusively Twelver Shi'ites) as well, even though they represent almost two-thirds of the population. When Iraq was a client state of the United States, no one attempted to guarantee democracy in a government run by less than 15% of the population. Hafaz al-Assad created the minority tribal government of Syria as Prime Minister in 1970, and it was based on the Alawi, Twelver Shi'ite power tribe that rose to prominence in the French Mandate in the 1930s. Hafaz al-Assad became the President in 1971, and any mention of Sunnis and Shi'ites, or Ismailis and Druze was forbidden--the fairy tale was a majority Muslim state, as if these differences not only didn't matter, but didn't exist. Bashar al-Assad has run the same crime mob style of governemnt since Hafaz died in 2000. The Kurds live in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, and no one has allowed them to unite since the death of Saladin (actually, Youssuf Sah'lah ad-Din [Joseph, Savior of the Faithful]) died about 800 years ago. Frankly, the though of a united Kurdistan scares the **** out of the rulers of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Iran has a majority Twelver Shi'ite society. and the last time anything like democracy reigned there was in 1953, when Mohammed Mossadegh's democratically elected government was overthrown by Central Intelligence at the urging of the Secret Services in London, because Mossadegh was going to cancel the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's concession in Iran. Eisenhower was so pissed off over that one that he never trusted the CIA again--and he jerked the carpet out from under the Brits and the French in 1956 when the dropped paratroopers on the Suez Canal, and issued an executive order to cancel all transfer of funds to Israel (until the Zionists withdrew their troops from the Sinai). The Senate majority leader, Lyndon Johnson told him he couldn't do that, and Eisenhower effectively told him "Watch this." If Johnson organized a vote in Congress to override the executive order, Eisenhower would just veto it. The Zionists knew what side their bread was buttered on, and they backed off lickity-split. In fact, the tribal minority running Israel is, in effect, the Zionists. How much democracy do the Palestinians enjoy? Who protects their civil rights? The Zionists have been killing them and stealing their land since 1947. Eisenhower and Carter are the only presidents who ever stood up to the Zionists.

Really, don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2018 09:06 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
That is a really bad analogy.
I strongly disagree. I think the analogy is perfect.

vikorr wrote:
- The US in foreign policy terms, has never gone into any country where it didn't gain an economic advantage (Clinton Era, and Afghanistan aside). So if you want to compare the US to a policeman - it would be to a corrupt policeman, who only tackles crime if there's a cut in it for him
How is it corrupt to gain economic benefits when we help out another country?

vikorr wrote:
- certainly the US, as a policeman ignores the attrocities, dictators, and wars in Africa...so it's a policeman that chooses which crimes it wants to investigate...turning its head away from inconvenient crimes...and address only those which happen to be those most economically beneficial to it.
I'd love for the US to have the power to invade all the third-world hellholes in the world all at once. And I'd love for us to do so. But realistically our power is not infinite.

vikorr wrote:
- And it's a police officer that apparently supports mob bosses (as we're using analogies, the mob bosses would be dictators)
We supported dictators during the Cold War because we needed to save the planet from a much greater evil.

We stopped propping up dictators at the end of the Cold War.

And we always did our best to push those dictatorships to evolve towards democracy.

vikorr wrote:
So sure, if you want to compare it to a police officer - it would be be the equivalent of just about the most corrupt police officer you could find...but it's not a police officer.
Doing what is necessary to defend civilization from destruction doesn't make us corrupt.

vikorr wrote:
The 'police officer' tag is just what it uses when it wants something. There's certainly a major reason why it chooses to intervene in the Middle East more than Africa. All it's small wars have been beneficial to it, with US companies setting up major bases in those countries after.
Our preventing a Middle Eastern dictator (doesn't matter which one) from stopping the flow of oil to the world is something that benefits the entire world.

vikorr wrote:
oralloy wrote:
However, even when we did this, we still pushed hard to move those countries towards democracy and civil rights.
Odd. The US doesn't seem to be doing this now.
That is incorrect. We still do our best to push our non-Democratic allies towards democracy.

vikorr wrote:
It certainly has had little success achieving this.
South Korea has been an amazing success story.

Indonesia and the Philippines are far from perfect, but they certainly look more like a democracy than like a dictatorship.

vikorr wrote:
I don't necessarily disagree with this action, in terms of protecting a countries interest, because, sometimes, in removing dictators, worse comes along afterwards.

I do though, say it's hypocritical to prop up dictators (no matter your reasoning), while claiming to support civilised societies / democracy etc.
Propping up dictators was the only way to defend civilization and democracy from the Soviets. And we pushed hard to evolve those dictatorships into democracies.

Our actions were the only thing that kept freedom and democracy alive on this planet.

vikorr wrote:
If you have to do it, fine...but don't call it anything other than what it is, and you most certainly can't claim to be a policeman (unless you happily admit to being a corrupt one).
I vehemently reject all allegations of corruption.

vikorr wrote:
Which is fine...but you would have to say that before making a statement like that...otherwise it's always going to misinterpreted (in light of the US' actual actions)
It's been more than 80 years since the US has invaded a third-world hellhole in the manner that I advocate. I don't see how there could be any confusion.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2018 09:12 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
What a crock of ****. How democratic is Saudi Arabia? If you're not Wahhabi or tolerated by the Wahhabis, you can forget civil rights in Saudi Arabia. Egypt has been a military dictatorship since King Farouk was run out, and almost all governments in the middle east are tribal minority governments.
The fact that some countries have resisted our push towards democracy does not change the reality that we are pushing them towards democracy as best we can.

Setanta wrote:
When Iraq was a client state of the United States, no one attempted to guarantee democracy in a government run by less than 15% of the population.
I haven't researched the matter, but I would be very surprised if we weren't doing our best to nudge Iraq in the direction of democracy during this time.

Setanta wrote:
Hafaz al-Assad created the minority tribal government of Syria as Prime Minister in 1970, and it was based on the Alawi, Twelver Shi'ite power tribe that rose to prominence in the French Mandate in the 1930s. Hafaz al-Assad became the President in 1971, and any mention of Sunnis and Shi'ites, or Ismailis and Druze was forbidden--the fairy tale was a majority Muslim state, as if these differences not only didn't matter, but didn't exist. Bashar al-Assad has run the same crime mob style of governemnt since Hafaz died in 2000.
I am not aware of any US support for the Syrian dictatorship at any point in history.

Setanta wrote:
The Kurds live in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, and no one has allowed them to unite since the death of Saladin (actually, Youssuf Sah'lah ad-Din [Joseph, Savior of the Faithful]) died about 800 years ago. Frankly, the though of a united Kurdistan scares the **** out of the rulers of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
I am deeply ashamed of our mistreatment of the Kurds. Personally I'd be in favor of the US Air Force giving air support to a Kurdish invasion of Turkey.

Setanta wrote:
Iran has a majority Twelver Shi'ite society. and the last time anything like democracy reigned there was in 1953, when Mohammed Mossadegh's democratically elected government was overthrown by Central Intelligence at the urging of the Secret Services in London, because Mossadegh was going to cancel the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's concession in Iran.
Mostly our support for the Iranian coup came at the urging of the Iranian clerics -- the same ones who rule Iran today. However, the UK did have a legitimate grievance given that Mossadegh was stealing their oil.

While the Shah was certainly a dictator, we did our best to push him in the direction of freedom and civil rights. Had the Shah not been overthrown by the same clerics who helped to overthrow Mossadegh, it is likely that by now we would have succeeded in our efforts to bring democracy back to Iran.

Setanta wrote:
In fact, the tribal minority running Israel is, in effect, the Zionists.
That is incorrect. They are the majority in Israel.

Setanta wrote:
How much democracy do the Palestinians enjoy?
The ones who are Israeli citizens are allowed to vote in Israeli elections.

The ones who are not Israeli citizens (and in fact live outside Israel) have no right to vote in Israeli elections, just as I have no right to vote in Mexican elections.

Setanta wrote:
Who protects their civil rights?
The ones who are Israeli citizens have their civil rights protected by Israeli courts.

Civil rights for non-Israeli Palestinians are a matter for the Palestinian Authority.

Setanta wrote:
The Zionists have been killing them and stealing their land since 1947.
The Palestinians are killed in lawful self defense when they try to murder people.

Israel is not stealing any land. The only land that belongs to the Palestinians is the Gaza Strip and Area A of the West Bank. Israel does not prevent Palestinians from possessing this land.

Setanta wrote:
Eisenhower and Carter are the only presidents who ever stood up to the Zionists.
Carter's an anti-Semite. I forget what the statements were now, but I remember that Carter made some statements about Israel that were so outrageous that the only conclusion can be that Carter is a closet neo-nazi.

I don't know much about Ike's position on Israel.

Setanta wrote:
Really, don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.
All I do is point out facts and reality.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2018 03:46 pm
@oralloy,
The bulk of this is opinion, and ill-informed opinion at that. The nudging you allege is illusory. The Ray-gun administration gave chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti, a good deal of which he promptly used on his own people. They full-well knew that that he was running a minority tribal government, they just wanted a client against Iran, even though Khomeini had quietly made overtures to the United States after the revolution. This is an example of your typical ignorance which is only informed by your political polemic.

I mentioned Syria because I was developing the theme of minority tribal government in the Middle East. Not everything is about your fantasy world. The government of Israel is little different because every government since 1947 has been held hostage by the Zionist minority, who will form a coalition with any party, especially Likud, the charter of which calls for the destruction of the Palestinian state, a direct violation of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 which established the Israel-Palestine state in 1947. It is absolute bullshit that Zionists are a majority. According to Haaertz, 22% of Israelis identify themselves as religious Zionists.

It is also bullshit that the oil in Iran belongs, or ever belonged to the Brits. A constitutional assembly formed in 1906, and when Mirza became Shah in 1907 and lured the cabinet to meet with him, he locked them up, and a civil war began. In 1909, Mirza locked up members of the Majlis (the constitutional assembly) but then had to flee, and he sought asylum in the Russian embassy. Russian troops moved on the Majlis, and in November, a second Majlis was formed. They granted the concession to the failing Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which could get new lease on life if they could produce the petroleum for the new Dreadnought class of ships, which otherwise would have been purchased from the United States. The D'Arcy license was taken over by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in 1909, and every government from 1911 onward asserted their exclusive right to grant or terminate concessions. The Brits started peeing in their pants when Mossadegh sent a bill to the Majlis to terminate the APOC concession and that is what lead to the 1953 coup.

Not only were clerics not involved, but their opposition to Pahlavi's new regime lead to the CIA introducing Israeli Mossad agents to the Shah's regime. They set up SAVAK, the Shah's not-terribly-secret police, and Israeli agents in Iran did the kidnapping, torture and murders which lead to Iran's present day hatred of Israel. You just don't display ignorance, you get everything not just wrong, you stand everything about these matters on their heads.

As you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about, I won't waste any more time on you.
KingReef
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2018 05:32 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Setanta wrote:
In fact, the tribal minority running Israel is, in effect, the Zionists.
That is incorrect. They are the majority in Israel.


I'm glad I am a Zionist. And I never been to Israel. Really, I am amazed at how much Setana knows about the Middle East. I am intrigued. But since I am a Zionist, would a conversation be possible?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/22/2019 at 06:17:36