Trump

[wufan]

Correct me if this is incorrect, but I believe property crime continues to decrease, while I hear that income inequality is ever increasing. I don't know what or how income inequality is measured, just going by what I hear throughout the media and politics.

This would seem to dispute this theory.

This is correct on the federal level; however, in US cities, where income inequality is more obvious, crime continues to rise. There are tons of exceptions, but generally.

Its also important to note that it is a correlation overall, but not on an every case basis.

[wufan]

This seems relevant if you aren’t familiar with the claim:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/06/07/the-stark-relationship-between-income-inequality-and-crime

[wufan]

2. I don't know that it's a hypothesis. Certainly people are pointing out that he publicly asked the Russians to hack Clinton earlier on the same day that they did so.

3. What do you mean it wasn't reported by Obama? Do you believe he had information that came to him and he didn't give it to the CIA or FBI?

4. I think there is mounds and mounds of evidence that Trump's policies are favorable to Russia. From delaying sanctions to weakening NATO alliances to meeting privately with Putin, tons of policies benefit Russia. I do think there's little NON-policy evidence of this scenario. Other than the incredibly weird Helsinki summit that is. But this game is about what you'd support if the evidence showed each scenario. It sounds like you would basically only support impeachment if Trump himself directed Russian hacking or Trump himself was being blackmailed and doing Putin's bidding. I'm certainly not holding my breath for the evidence to show those things.

You’ve got my overall take correct. There are several policies where Trump is tough on Russia. If you’re particularly interested I will look them up for you.

As to #3, Obama was absolutely aware that Russia was attempting to hack and he retaliated with a virus that was input into Russian networks as retaliation. The FBI and CIA were made aware, but it was withheld from the American public. Why would he withhold this knowledge prior to the election?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.1138cf3e5222

[wufan]

NPRs take on Trump/Russia policy

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/20/630659379/is-trump-the-toughest-ever-on-russia

[ShockingButTrue]

Vast evidence points towards this administration's being much tougher than the previous administration. To claim otherwise would be a false equivalent. Or certainly more leftist propaganda. But that's been going on since Trump was voted President. Ray Charles sees it.

[ShockingButTrue]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cnns-jim-acosta-fears-trumps-131353540.html

This dummy is concerned about somebody getting hurt? Where has he been the last 18 or so months?

[jdshock]

You’ve got my overall take correct. There are several policies where Trump is tough on Russia. If you’re particularly interested I will look them up for you.

As to #3, Obama was absolutely aware that Russia was attempting to hack and he retaliated with a virus that was input into Russian networks as retaliation. The FBI and CIA were made aware, but it was withheld from the American public. Why would he withhold this knowledge prior to the election?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...=.1138cf3e5222

I read that NPR article you posted, and it lists things like military spending, but that's only anti-Russian if our stance is anti-Russian. It also listed sanctions imposed by Trump. But, if you remember, those policies were passed by Congress, a bunch of Republicans said they weren't going to be able to stand behind Trump if he didn't enforce those sanctions, and then he took months and months to enforce them. I also don't understand how recommending Putin join the G7 isn't a "policy" position. Alas, it's irrelevant. The point of this exercise is a counter factual. It's to just say "if the evidence shows X, would you support impeachment?"

As for #3 - It was an ongoing investigation. There are so many counter intelligence operations that are ongoing that we don't know about. Obama informed the relevant government agencies, he personally warned Putin to not interfere with the election, and most importantly THE PUBLIC WAS TOLD. Your basis for not supporting impeachment in a scenario where Trump was aware of interference and infiltration of his campaign and did nothing was that "I don't know why Trump would be held to a different standard" than Obama. Obama's administration told all relevant parties. Does this change your stance on impeachment under this scenario? If not, why?

[wufan]

I don’t think it was said he didn’t do anything. I was suggesting that the public wasn’t informed until after the election.

[SB Shock]

Obama administration knew for a year what Russia was doing and did nothing for that year. In the end, all they did was largely symbolic measures of expulsions and sanctions after the fact. Obama administration debated for 6 months what to do, but much like with China just swallowed the whistle.

“It is the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend,” said a former senior Obama administration official involved in White House deliberations on Russia. “I feel like we sort of choked.” -- unnamed Obama official

.

[ShockingButTrue]

Do one of you sleuths have the time to research that proposed missile program in Europe that the Obama admin. bailed out on? I'm tired and getting ready to go watch Tucker and then Hannity. I'll look it up if you can't. Oh yeah, and Obama's middle-east policy that emboldened Russia to move into Syria?

And yeah, he did something, after Trump pulled off a massive upset. Too little too late. This about a month after telling Trump to quit whining about "rigged elections. No serious person would believe that," he said.

[wufan]

I read that NPR article you posted, and it lists things like military spending, but that's only anti-Russian if our stance is anti-Russian. It also listed sanctions imposed by Trump. But, if you remember, those policies were passed by Congress, a bunch of Republicans said they weren't going to be able to stand behind Trump if he didn't enforce those sanctions, and then he took months and months to enforce them. I also don't understand how recommending Putin join the G7 isn't a "policy" position. Alas, it's irrelevant. The point of this exercise is a counter factual. It's to just say "if the evidence shows X, would you support impeachment?"

As for #3 - It was an ongoing investigation. There are so many counter intelligence operations that are ongoing that we don't know about. Obama informed the relevant government agencies, he personally warned Putin to not interfere with the election, and most importantly THE PUBLIC WAS TOLD. Your basis for not supporting impeachment in a scenario where Trump was aware of interference and infiltration of his campaign and did nothing was that "I don't know why Trump would be held to a different standard" than Obama. Obama's administration told all relevant parties. Does this change your stance on impeachment under this scenario? If not, why?

No, doesn’t change my stance. I don’t think anyone is obligated to report on a potential crime. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

[jdshock]

The classic example is the Seinfeld series finale, and yeah, as a general proposition, you're not going to go to jail.

You probably get into way more of a gray area if you're talking about crimes done to further the employer's business and/or done specifically because of the job situation. For example, if you own a car dealership, and you have definitive proof that your employee is fraudulently advertising cars, you're probably not just in the clear because you aren't personally doing anything wrong. You are specifically benefiting from what you know is an illegal activity.

Presumably, the highlighted scenario is an example of Trump being aware of his employees' bad acts (knowing full well that those bad acts were an attempt to get Trump elected), and he continues to retain them as employees.

[wufan]

So, if Trump employed someone that was doing illeagal activities and he didn’t turn them in, then yes, impeachment is probably necessary. Getting pretty far away from the original hypothetical.

[jdshock]

If it's far from the original hypothetical, it's only because I wasn't clear the first time. My intention for that scenario was always that Trump knew people like Manafort or Flynn were acting illegally.

[ShockingButTrue]

If what you pretended was true, then most probably it would be safe to pretend the President would get impeached, because he pretended to conspire with the russians to win the election. Our surest evidence is when we pretend that the President wasn't pretending when he said "please hand over her e-mails." Yeah.

While we're at it, let's pretend high-ranking intelligence officers were really pretending when they were making statements that revealed extreme bias (because, hey, what's wrong with bias, right?), before Trump won the election, and after. And one more: Let's pretend that the "kremlin officals" who provided the unverified intelligence used to kick start the investigation weren't really pretending when they said they have "tapes" of DJT in -ahem- action. Then, after all that, would it be safe to say the whole thing wasn't pretend, but really true? Stay tuned... And, oh yeah, keep hope alive!

[WstateU]

If what you pretended was true, then most probably it would be safe to pretend the President would get impeached, because he pretended to conspire with the russians to win the election. Our surest evidence is when we pretend that the President wasn't pretending when he said "please hand over her e-mails." Yeah.

While we're at it, let's pretend high-ranking intelligence officers were really pretending when they were making statements that revealed extreme bias (because, hey, what's wrong with bias, right?), before Trump won the election, and after. And one more: Let's pretend that the "kremlin officals" who provided the unverified intelligence used to kick start the investigation weren't really pretending when they said they have "tapes" of DJT in -ahem- action. Then, after all that, would it be safe to say the whole thing wasn't pretend, but really true? Stay tuned... And, oh yeah, keep hope alive!

hope-is-a-good-thing-red-except-for-raiders-fans.jpg

cafc24a00998978344be2bfb0c492d94--funny-friday-memes-hilarious-memes.jpg

[ShockingButTrue]

For the people...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/trump-praised-pro-black-white-house-prison-reform-event-n896526

[WuDrWu]

Weird how I didn't see this meeting anywhere in the MSM or MSNBC CNN or any of the other fringe markets.

[wufan]

I think prison reform is perhaps something republicans and democrats could get behind. Maybe?

[Shockm]

China is not playing fair when it comes to the economy but it isn't the most dangerous. While tariffs on China are just a part of the story of what Trump is fighting from them, my understanding is that for an American company to operate in the Chinese economy, they have to partner with another Chinese company. The danger stems from the Chinese government's control over all of these companies. With this stipulation, they gain an unlimited access to networks of these companies and all of the secrets that go along with the companies.

That is where I think that the Koch's and others make a mistake when they move against the Trump agenda which include tariffs and attacking China for their stolen secrets. This is also why I think that Trump wants the triangulate against China with Russia (and to some goes seemingly soft on Russia). Trump may not be right about everything, but he fears China most, and his main attention is on them. China has taken advantage of every President prior to Trump. I hope he is successful

https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/21/news/economy/china-us-ip-theft-tensions/index.html

[C0|dB|00ded]

China is like the USA's adolescent child. We gave birth to the monster. But make no mistake, we have many levers we can pull to adjust their behavior. Had we waited much longer though, this adolescent could have become the adult that sends us all to the nursing home. It may still happen.


T


...:cool:

[ShockingButTrue]

Say it ain't so...

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/31/good-news-for-the-gop-hispanics-are-boosting-trump/

Don't they know he called them a bunch of "animals?" That's what CNN said. Oh, wait...

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Say it ain't so...

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...oosting-trump/

Don't they know he called them a bunch of "animals?" That's what CNN said. Oh, wait...

Here's the deal - Hispanics are largely conservative Very religious, very do things by the bible, anti abortion etc theres also a very large percentage that would make you (I definitely put you in the percentage of "Extreme" Conservatives) blush. Family first individuals who often have a very strong family core and so forth.

But even those individuals (legal and/or illegal) arent going to sit around and be called a bunch of names and blamed for every single problem in this country. There are a group of people who right now think its okay to demand the citizenship papers of every brown person they see (im still unsure if thats a large or small group)People arent going to sit around for that.

You can try to deny he said this or that then your going to get tired of it then you move on to "well what he actually meant was" No one is going to be able to change your mind on it. But this asshole is literally turning away voters because of their rhetoric. But whatever I wasted 5 minutes of my life writing this. Youre welcome.

[wufan]

I wasn’t aware anyone was asking for papers except in legal matters, when crossing the border, and at voting booths. Are there other instances? Additionally, I wasn’t aware those laws/proposed laws had anything to do with color.

[wufan]

I read that NPR article you posted, and it lists things like military spending, but that's only anti-Russian if our stance is anti-Russian. It also listed sanctions imposed by Trump. But, if you remember, those policies were passed by Congress, a bunch of Republicans said they weren't going to be able to stand behind Trump if he didn't enforce those sanctions, and then he took months and months to enforce them. I also don't understand how recommending Putin join the G7 isn't a "policy" position. Alas, it's irrelevant. The point of this exercise is a counter factual. It's to just say "if the evidence shows X, would you support impeachment?"

As for #3 - It was an ongoing investigation. There are so many counter intelligence operations that are ongoing that we don't know about. Obama informed the relevant government agencies, he personally warned Putin to not interfere with the election, and most importantly THE PUBLIC WAS TOLD. Your basis for not supporting impeachment in a scenario where Trump was aware of interference and infiltration of his campaign and did nothing was that "I don't know why Trump would be held to a different standard" than Obama. Obama's administration told all relevant parties. Does this change your stance on impeachment under this scenario? If not, why?

Do you think Trump should be impeached now? With current accusations?

[jdshock]

Probably not. But I mentioned it awhile back, that I think we need EVERYONE in the government to support the investigation. If we are going to call an investigation a witch hunt and we're going to say presidents shouldn't be investigated, then we need to be willing to impeach people very, very early in the game.