The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

The "Russian Hoax" Options
Oscar D. Grouch
Posted: Sunday, May 5, 2019 2:46:02 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/26/2014
Posts: 1,020
Neurons: 1,359,810
Tiny tRump is whipped by Putin...


Trump Says He Discussed the 'Russian Hoax' in a Phone Call With Putin
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/03/us/politics/trump-putin-phone-call.html

Quote:
President Trump telephoned President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Friday for what both men described as a lengthy, positive conversation, in which they dismissed two years of investigations into Russia’s intervention in the 2016 presidential campaign as a “Russian Hoax” and a mountain that "ended up being a mouse."

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office after his first exchange with Mr. Putin since the release of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, which asserted that "the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion," Mr. Trump said he did not broach the threat of Russian interference in future elections with Mr. Putin.

Instead, the two leaders pledged to embark on a new era of cooperation on issues from North Korea to Venezuela, where Mr. Trump said the Russian leader "is not looking at all to get involved, other than he’d like to see something positive happen."

The timing of the call, two weeks after the release of the Mueller report, suggested a president eager to lift the cloud of the investigation from his dealings with Moscow and return to the policy of warmer relations with Russia that he once promised as a candidate. But it illustrated yet again the deep disconnect between Mr. Trump's personal treatment of Mr. Putin and his administration's more hard-edge relations with the Russian government.

Mr. Trump's dismissal of Russian election interference runs counter to the assessments of the nation's intelligence agencies, as well as Mr. Mueller's report, while his characterization of Mr. Putin's role in Venezuela contradicts the views of his own top advisers. They accuse Russia of propping up the Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro, in defiance of an American-led pressure campaign to force him from power.






Epiphileon
Posted: Sunday, May 5, 2019 4:14:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,281
Neurons: 166,361
I'm pretty certain that the vitriol and hyper-derogatory hyperbole directed at our President is at best useless, and at worst counterproductive as it just fortifies his supporters. That being said however, I do think he is the most destructive president ever to the principles of this country, and it is stunning to me that people do not see that he is running the biggest con in American history. It is my opinion that his interactions with the Russian president are treasonous, if not in fact then in spirit and that his ardent supporters who cannot see this have sacrificed objectivity to emotional reasoning.
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, May 5, 2019 10:37:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,062
Neurons: 66,973
Epiphileon wrote:
I'm pretty certain that the vitriol and hyper-derogatory hyperbole directed at our President is at best useless, and at worst counterproductive as it just fortifies his supporters. I think you are right about that. It might be comparable to the reaction of Obama's supporters whenever they perceived any criticism of him.

That being said however, I do think he is the most destructive president ever to the principles of this country, and it is stunning to me that people do not see that he is running the biggest con in American history. That's an interesting idea. Since you didn't give a list of those, I'm having some difficulty knowing what principles are being destroyed: Freedom? Liberty? Justice? Representative government? Actually trying to accomplish what he promised the citizens he would do? I must admit I don't see that.

It is my opinion that his interactions with the Russian president are treasonous, if not in fact then in spirit and that his ardent supporters who cannot see this have sacrificed objectivity to emotional reasoning. I'm not sure what kind of interactions you find treasonous, since you didn't list any of those either; or is it the fact that he interacts at all that is treasonous? I'm curious because Democrats seem to continually make this claim, but never give any details on exactly what they find treasonous and why they are the only ones who see it.

Since Presidents meet with world leaders all the time, is it the meetings, or is it just Putin who triggers this "treasonous" idea? What about China or N. Korea? Are meetings with Xi or Kim treasonous also? It seems truly strange to me to see this reaction. This causes me to believe that it is the Democrats who have sacrificed reason and objectivity to illogical emotional reactions.
Blaidd-Drwg
Posted: Sunday, May 5, 2019 12:16:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 2,133
Neurons: 465,483
Location: Zimmerman, Minnesota, United States
The people who have been hurt by His Holy Terror aren't allowed to get pissed about it because that just "fortifies" his supporters. But then people aren't supposed to not get pissed about it because that just incentivizes his supporters. They are also not supposed to be kinda sorta maybe a bit tee'd off about it because they may as well be wearing a "kick me" sign for being wishy washy and unable to make any serious decisions without their Facebook support group.

One other observation: Pretty much anywhere else in the entire world, people get out and strike/protest/march/boycott with bullhorns, megaphones and pretty loud damn voices and it is almost taken in stride (as a way of getting people's attention). In the US if you do that you are put on watch lists, interrogated as terrorists and bullied into submission with a criminal record that is then used against you at almost every turn for the rest of your life. And now even getting pissed off on an international online forum is tut-tutted and tsk-tsked as they murmur, "oh, how positively VULGAR, can't they act like decent, well-bred, society?"
BobShilling
Posted: Sunday, May 5, 2019 3:18:05 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,448
Neurons: 7,886
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
progpen wrote:
Pretty much anywhere else in the entire world, people get out and strike/protest/march/boycott with bullhorns, megaphones and pretty loud damn voices and it is almost taken in stride (as a way of getting people's attention).

Have you not read/heard of what happens to people who attempt to protest in some parts of the world?

The USA is far from perfect, and, under its present leadership, it is going downhill fast. However, to suggest that the situation is better "Pretty much anywhere else in the entire world" is demonstrably untrue.

If I were an American, I would be extremely worried about the contempt shown by Trump and the Republican party for the spirit of the Constitution. However, as I have suggested in other threads, fighting lies with lies, exaggerations with exaggerations, is not the way forward.


Hope123
Posted: Sunday, May 5, 2019 5:23:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Taking the word of Putin over his own intelligence agencies is what infuriates any Americans paying attention who then think it is "treason in spirit".

Trump refuses to acknowledge interference in the election by Russia to try prevent as much future interference as possible. Russia is the country intelligence agencies caught. When he doesn't denounce it, it is perfectly fine to speculate that his motive might be that he wants this interference to help him win again in 2020.

Giving Russians, right in the Oval Office, intelligence gained from another country makes him untrustworthy - he can't keep his mouth shut.

Obstructing justice. Mueller said he was not exonerated.

Conflating the DOJ and the President's wishes is against the law. It is erosion of rule of law which is supposed to be the basis of how the US operates. "He cooperated with Republican congressman Devin Nunes and others in a campaign that led to the disclosure of the identity of an FBI informant. Trump ordered the justice department to investigate its own investigation – of him.

I hereby demand,” Trump tweeted, “that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DoJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes – and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!”

Look at the history of other countries to compare steps - one little one at a time so the overall picture may be missed unless the public is paying attention and is not blinded by loyalty.

By consolidating the power in the presidency, by attacking the DOJ, Congress, Senate, even members of his own party, and the media that keeps power accountable, by removing checks and balances, even gaining power in the courts, he is sliding into authoritarianism without there even being a crisis. "National security has also been endangered, as Trump has undermined public trust in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and intelligence agencies whose work is often conducted in secret and who therefore depend uniquely on such trust to function." He uses unsecured communication devices while still demanding Hillary's emails be investigated - again.

Actively promoting division and thus dysfunction.

Conflicts of interest, Emoluments clause, benefitting from the presidency while in office.

Runaway government spending, increased many taxes when lowering them for the wealthy.



Add the possibility of wars, inflation, & economic collapse and voilá. A real problem.

I think the quotes are all from "The Guardian".
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, May 5, 2019 6:54:36 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
How to Become a Dictator in General Terms

1 Expand your power base through nepotism and corruption. Put loyal people around you and make sure they think as you do. Fire them if they are not completely loyal and do as you say. Put someone loyal to you in a position to protect you from your wrongdoings.
2. Butter up the military. Butter up the gun lobby.
3. Make sure the economy is firing, develop large infrastructural projects that create a lot of jobs and it will strengthen your power base.  
4 Get rid of your political enemies; use what ever means you have to keep others loyal to you - gifts, blackmail etc.
5 Create and defeat a common enemy - the press, the "other", the FBI, the Intelligence, the DOJ, for example, or start a war
6 Repeat your mantra, whether true or not, over and over till others believe
7 Do all this gradually and distract from what the overall picture is

Anyone can compare with the leader of their country to see any similarities.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, May 5, 2019 11:50:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Did I say something about distraction and war? About obstruction? Trump does not want Mueller to address Congress with the report they paid for. If he can stop who addresses Congress then the US really does have a weird set up.

Obama had an agreement with Iran. Two years later this is where the world is -




[image not available]



U.S. sends bomber task force as warning to 'escalatory indications' in Iran

(link: https://montrealgazette.com/news/us-increases-military-pressure-on-iran-with-military-moves/wcm/bfe78167-39d0-40f3-aab0-2d5d6b2e49dc?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1557110844)





Oscar D. Grouch
Posted: Monday, May 6, 2019 12:02:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/26/2014
Posts: 1,020
Neurons: 1,359,810
Epiphileon wrote:
I'm pretty certain that the vitriol and hyper-derogatory hyperbole directed at our President is at best useless, and at worst counterproductive as it just fortifies his supporters. That being said however, I do think he is the most destructive president ever to the principles of this country, and it is stunning to me that people do not see that he is running the biggest con in American history. It is my opinion that his interactions with the Russian president are treasonous, if not in fact then in spirit and that his ardent supporters who cannot see this have sacrificed objectivity to emotional reasoning.


Because tiny trump and the banana republicans treated Obama with such ebullient respect?

Because
tiny trump dogged Obama for years with his birther conspiracy?

Because the banana republicans refused to even allow Obama to carry out his presidential duties in nominating a supreme court justice?

Because the banana republicans have been found guilty of illegal jerry mandering of voting districts aimed at disenfranchising democratic voters?

Because the banana republicans' supporters showed such a high degree of respect for Obama?












Shirley you jest!
lazarius
Posted: Monday, May 6, 2019 12:50:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/27/2016
Posts: 813
Neurons: 896,632
Location: Kotel’niki, Moskovskaya, Russia
Hope123 wrote:
Taking the word of Putin over his own intelligence agencies is what infuriates any Americans paying attention who then think it is "treason in spirit".


Blaidd-Drwg
Posted: Monday, May 6, 2019 1:31:36 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 2,133
Neurons: 465,483
Location: Zimmerman, Minnesota, United States
BobShilling wrote:
progpen wrote:
Pretty much anywhere else in the entire world, people get out and strike/protest/march/boycott with bullhorns, megaphones and pretty loud damn voices and it is almost taken in stride (as a way of getting people's attention).

Have you not read/heard of what happens to people who attempt to protest in some parts of the world?

The USA is far from perfect, and, under its present leadership, it is going downhill fast. However, to suggest that the situation is better "Pretty much anywhere else in the entire world" is demonstrably untrue.

If I were an American, I would be extremely worried about the contempt shown by Trump and the Republican party for the spirit of the Constitution. However, as I have suggested in other threads, fighting lies with lies, exaggerations with exaggerations, is not the way forward.


I'm not using lies, nor am I using exaggerations, so thank you for your agreement. We are also extremely worried about the contempt shown for the Constitution, however, we are using words you don't seem to like and that is ok (even good) because getting the word out to as many people as possible and in as many different ways as possible is the objective. You don't have to like the words I use, just as I don't have to like the words you use. But hey, the longer we go at each other instead of those who are harming the US and its citizens the better for them.

And I was talking about protests in Europe for the most part. If I needed to be more specific I'll remember next time. And it does actually make my point that we have to look at places like China, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc. to find countries that treat their protesters worse.

Another Edit: And I just realized that you misread my post. I was not even hinting that the overall situation was better "pretty much anywhere else in the entire world". I was talking about how a country treats protesters.
Blaidd-Drwg
Posted: Monday, May 6, 2019 1:45:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 2,133
Neurons: 465,483
Location: Zimmerman, Minnesota, United States
Hope123 wrote:
How to Become a Dictator in General Terms

1 Expand your power base through nepotism and corruption. Put loyal people around you and make sure they think as you do. Fire them if they are not completely loyal and do as you say. Put someone loyal to you in a position to protect you from your wrongdoings.
2. Butter up the military. Butter up the gun lobby.
3. Make sure the economy is firing, develop large infrastructural projects that create a lot of jobs and it will strengthen your power base.  
4 Get rid of your political enemies; use whatever means you have to keep others loyal to you - gifts, blackmail etc.
5 Create and defeat a common enemy - the press, the "other", the FBI, the Intelligence, the DOJ, for example, or start a war
6 Repeat your mantra, whether true or not, over and over till others believe
7 Do all this gradually and distract from what the overall picture is

Anyone can compare with the leader of their country to see any similarities.


Thank you Hope. We have been talking about these similarities for a while now and they need to be repeated.
Hope123
Posted: Monday, May 6, 2019 10:45:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Proggy, now Trump wants and extra two years added to his term because he was "robbed" by the Mueller report.

Wake up, FounDit. The demagogue wants more. Your freedom and justice are being eroded a little at a time.
FounDit
Posted: Monday, May 6, 2019 11:37:29 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,062
Neurons: 66,973
Hope123 wrote:
Proggy, now Trump wants and extra two years added to his term because he was "robbed" by the Mueller report.

Wake up, FounDit. The demagogue wants more. Your freedom and justice are being eroded a little at a time.


I intended to skip over all the entries I expected to be ridiculous except those by Epiphileon, had he responded, but yours was so short, I read it with just a glance.

At the risk of offending the delicate sensibilities of both you and Lotje1000, I will 'splain it: It's a joke.
Blaidd-Drwg
Posted: Monday, May 6, 2019 1:39:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 2,133
Neurons: 465,483
Location: Zimmerman, Minnesota, United States
Hope123 wrote:
Proggy, now Trump wants and extra two years added to his term because he was "robbed" by the Mueller report.

Wake up, FounDit. The demagogue wants more. Your freedom and justice are being eroded a little at a time.


An extremely informative article.
https://medium.com/@DeoTasDevil/the-rhetoric-tricks-traps-and-tactics-of-white-nationalism-b0bca3caeb84

Blaidd-Drwg
Posted: Monday, May 6, 2019 1:51:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 2,133
Neurons: 465,483
Location: Zimmerman, Minnesota, United States
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/alt-rights-newest-ploy-trolling-false-symbols/

They repeated this cycle—make a joke, perform the joke in real life, watch the media report on the joke as a real menace—with the OK sign. A number of media sites recently claimed that the alt-right adopted it as a symbol of white power, and that ultra-conservative commentators like Mike Cernovich use it as a dog whistle. None of that is true. Cernovich was indeed using it, but only to rile up people convinced that he and others on the far right use it to convey white supremacy. All of this, in the eyes of the trolls, makes the mainstream media look like buffoons.

But as those false symbols add up, it gives people downstream of 4chan, like Infowars' Paul Joseph Watson—a prominent member of the alt-right's relatively mild-mannered sibling the "alt-lite"—a seemingly inexhaustible stockpile of ammunition.
Hope123
Posted: Monday, May 6, 2019 11:54:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Good advice from the article on your link, Proggy:

DON'T FEED THE trolls" remains indispensable guidance for the internet, if only because trolls exist solely to get a reaction out of you. Ignore them and they lose all power.


I have said on the forum many times, "Always consider the source".

Maybe this also fits in with the other thread "Sixth Grade Bully". Problem is in Politics, the bullies often win because the opposition is too nice to hit below the belt and the bullies actually enjoy doing just that.
BobShilling
Posted: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 1:25:55 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,448
Neurons: 7,886
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Hope123 wrote:
. Problem is in Politics, the bullies often win because the opposition is too nice to hit below the belt and the bullies actually enjoy doing just that.

The problem with that is - if the nice guys act nasty, how can you tell the difference between nice guys and nasty guys?
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 10:37:56 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
You wouldn't be able to. That's why Liberals and Democrats, for the most part, remain civil, giving facts rather than ad hominem.

I have probably mentioned this before on the Forum. I did find out in grade one, back in the dark ages before there was kindergarten, that sometimes one has to stand up for oneself even if it means accepting the consequences. Two twin older boys, who lived next door to us, were bullying me, pushing me into a creek on the way home through the fields on my one mile walk to school. Etc. One day when one of the twins was picking on me by himself at recess, I gave him a bloody nose. The teacher sent me home, expelled me, until I turned 6 later that fall. So I paid the consequences (which were fine with me) but when I went back the twins never bothered me again.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 1:19:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Useless or not - No name calling just a joke trending on Twitter:

How do you make a billion dollars? Start with at least two billion dollars, if I'm doing the math right. And now I saved you the pain of reading "The Art of the Deal". #BillionDollarLoser
Epiphileon
Posted: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 4:20:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,281
Neurons: 166,361
FounDit wrote:
Epiphileon wrote:
That being said however, I do think he is the most destructive president ever to the principles of this country, and it is stunning to me that people do not see that he is running the biggest con in American history. That's an interesting idea. Since you didn't give a list of those, I'm having some difficulty knowing what principles are being destroyed: Freedom? Liberty? Justice? Representative government? Actually trying to accomplish what he promised the citizens he would do? I must admit I don't see that.

Well I wasn't looking to get into a debate on these issues, but you're right I should have probably given at least some examples. Probably the most obvious example right now is the propaganda he is promoting regarding refugees. My grandparents came to this country fleeing nothing more than impoverished conditions in their home countries and the opportunity for a better life. There are people at the southern border who are fleeing violence, death, and subjugation that are being demonized by this man and he is taking every step he can to refuse them the chance for mere survival let alone a better life. I consider the inscription on the base of the Statue of Liberty to be one of the principles of this country.
FounDit wrote:
Epiphileon wrote:
It is my opinion that his interactions with the Russian president are treasonous, if not in fact then in spirit and that his ardent supporters who cannot see this have sacrificed objectivity to emotional reasoning. I'm not sure what kind of interactions you find treasonous, since you didn't list any of those either; or is it the fact that he interacts at all that is treasonous? I'm curious because Democrats seem to continually make this claim, but never give any details on exactly what they find treasonous and why they are the only ones who see it.

Since Presidents meet with world leaders all the time, is it the meetings, or is it just Putin who triggers this "treasonous" idea? What about China or N. Korea? Are meetings with Xi or Kim treasonous also? It seems truly strange to me to see this reaction. This causes me to believe that it is the Democrats who have sacrificed reason and objectivity to illogical emotional reactions.


First let me clear something up, I am not a democrat so my evaluation of our President's behavior is not a partisan one. I am looking at his behavior and evaluate it as objectively as possible. I do not buy into any of the pundits' opinions without an evaluation of the facts and it is those facts that lead me to my conclusions concerning President Trump. Outside of a number of what seem like very reasonable suspicions of his interactions with Russia there are two glaring examples of what I consider treason in spirit. One, after being presented with evidence from every relevant U.S. authority on the issue of Russian interference in the last election, when President Putin told him personally that he had nothing to do with it Mr. Trump stated he believed him. Then despite the exhaustive evidence in the Muller Report
Quote:
Mr. Trump said he did not broach the threat of Russian interference in future elections with Mr. Putin.
If you do not see this as treasonous in spirit then it is at the least a failure to properly carry out the duties of the office of President of the United States.

The second example of what I consider treason in spirit is that despite the facts of the first example he engages with the Russian president as if he was a trustable ally,
Quote:
the two leaders pledged to embark on a new era of cooperation on issues from North Korea to Venezuela, where Mr. Trump said the Russian leader "is not looking at all to get involved, other than he’d like to see something positive happen.
This is as well contrary to the intel on the situation of his own administration on the state of affairs in Venezuela. There are not a lot of ways to interpret his willingness to "embark on a new era of cooperation", with a Soviet-style Russian. It is either hopelessly naive, practically criminally incompetent, or is an indication of the pursuit of a personal agenda for which he is using the office of the President as a means to an end. I see no possible legitimate argument for the trustworthiness of the Russian President which it seems only leaves the above options to characterize our President's behavior.

Please keep in mind that when Mr. Trump was elected as our President I initially gave him the benefit of the doubt, and I continue to evaluate his behavior as objectively as I can. The above are only two examples of many that lead me to the conclusion that he is the most dangerous President we have ever had, there are numerous others but I do not care to dwell on this topic. Occasionally his behavior crosses a threshold level which elicits a comment from me such as the phone call referenced in this topic but I have come to view this sub-forum as toxic and destructive to the type of reasonable discussions that once were far more common on this forum so I limit both my exposure and participation here.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 1:01:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,062
Neurons: 66,973
Epiphileon wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Epiphileon wrote:
That being said however, I do think he is the most destructive president ever to the principles of this country, and it is stunning to me that people do not see that he is running the biggest con in American history. That's an interesting idea. Since you didn't give a list of those, I'm having some difficulty knowing what principles are being destroyed: Freedom? Liberty? Justice? Representative government? Actually trying to accomplish what he promised the citizens he would do? I must admit I don't see that.

Well I wasn't looking to get into a debate on these issues, but you're right I should have probably given at least some examples. Probably the most obvious example right now is the propaganda he is promoting regarding refugees. My grandparents came to this country fleeing nothing more than impoverished conditions in their home countries and the opportunity for a better life. There are people at the southern border who are fleeing violence, death, and subjugation that are being demonized by this man and he is taking every step he can to refuse them the chance for mere survival let alone a better life. I consider the inscription on the base of the Statue of Liberty to be one of the principles of this country.
You may not want to get into a debate, but it seems to me that posting your opinions and me posting mine is precisely what a debate is all about. Debates are fine, I think, so long as each is allowed to have an opinion and can express it without rancor. To my mind, that is what is missing in most debates/discussions.

My first point would be concerning your description of "propaganda" regarding refugees. It isn't propaganda to say people are flooding across our border illegally. I live here and am aware of it on a daily basis. To say some of them are criminals, i.e., rapists, murderers, drug traffickers, child traffickers, gang members, etc. is not propaganda, nor is it demonizing, it is truth. It is also true that many of them are simply people who have been told the U.S. is open and they can just come on in with only minor hindrances. There are, in fact, reports of groups of people financing just such caravans of people, encouraging them to do that.

The fact that there is violence, death, and subjugation in their countries does not give anyone an excuse to enter our illegally. There is a process that should be followed, but is being abused because our legislators have abandoned the welfare of our own citizens. Beyond that, we simply can't take in the everyone in the world who might want to come here simply because their country has problems, and it isn't our obligation to do so. It isn't the obligation of any country to do so. Most do what they can, but there must be some limits.

The writing on the base of the Statue of Liberty is a poem, not an open door invitation to flood the country with illegal entry. It wasn't done that way at Ellis Island, and should not be done that way today.

FounDit wrote:
Epiphileon wrote:
It is my opinion that his interactions with the Russian president are treasonous, if not in fact then in spirit and that his ardent supporters who cannot see this have sacrificed objectivity to emotional reasoning. I'm not sure what kind of interactions you find treasonous, since you didn't list any of those either; or is it the fact that he interacts at all that is treasonous? I'm curious because Democrats seem to continually make this claim, but never give any details on exactly what they find treasonous and why they are the only ones who see it.

Since Presidents meet with world leaders all the time, is it the meetings, or is it just Putin who triggers this "treasonous" idea? What about China or N. Korea? Are meetings with Xi or Kim treasonous also? It seems truly strange to me to see this reaction. This causes me to believe that it is the Democrats who have sacrificed reason and objectivity to illogical emotional reactions.


First let me clear something up, I am not a democrat That wasn't directed at you because as you will note, I was speaking of the Democrat Party.
so my evaluation of our President's behavior is not a partisan one. I am looking at his behavior and evaluate it as objectively as possible. I do not buy into any of the pundits' opinions without an evaluation of the facts and it is those facts that lead me to my conclusions concerning President Trump. Outside of a number of what seem like very reasonable suspicions of his interactions with Russia there are two glaring examples of what I consider treason in spirit. One, after being presented with evidence from every relevant U.S. authority on the issue of Russian interference in the last election, when President Putin told him personally that he had nothing to do with it Mr. Trump stated he believed him. Then despite the exhaustive evidence in the Muller Report
Quote:
Mr. Trump said he did not broach the threat of Russian interference in future elections with Mr. Putin.
If you do not see this as treasonous in spirit then it is at the least a failure to properly carry out the duties of the office of President of the United States.
Two things I would point out: One, the Mueller Report had nothing to do with whether or not Russia tried to interfere in our elections. It was an attempt to find a crime with which to charge the President under the guise of "collusion". No such crime was committed or found by Mueller. Furthermore, how does it become treason to not confront Putin and how do you know he didn't do so privately? And when did it become the duty of the President to challenge any world leader publicly? Where is that in the job description?

Secondly, the President is engaging in negotiations with Putin, as with other world leaders. It helps to project a positive attitude with any leader rather than a belligerent one, and I think any reasonable person would agree with that. That's why he is always saying how good his relationships are with Xi and Kim, even if they aren't really that good. So saying publicly that he believes Putin may be just that - put forth for public consumption. We can't know what is going on privately. No leader will reveal that when dealing with other leaders. That should be obvious.

The second example of what I consider treason in spirit is that despite the facts of the first example he engages with the Russian president as if he was a trustable ally,
Quote:
the two leaders pledged to embark on a new era of cooperation on issues from North Korea to Venezuela, where Mr. Trump said the Russian leader "is not looking at all to get involved, other than he’d like to see something positive happen.
This is as well contrary to the intel on the situation of his own administration on the state of affairs in Venezuela. There are not a lot of ways to interpret his willingness to "embark on a new era of cooperation", with a Soviet-style Russian. It is either hopelessly naive, practically criminally incompetent, or is an indication of the pursuit of a personal agenda for which he is using the office of the President as a means to an end. I see no possible legitimate argument for the trustworthiness of the Russian President which it seems only leaves the above options to characterize our President's behavior.
The President said he wanted to embark on "a new era of cooperation" with Russia. What does that mean? Does it mean threatening one another? Does it mean challenging one another? Does it mean interfering with one another in their activities around the world? Obviously, not. So again, this may be noting more than public pablum. World leaders projecting the appearance of friendliness while something else may be happening behind closed doors. Just because you or I or anyone else do not know what is happening in secret doesn't mean there is treasonous behavior happening.

Please keep in mind that when Mr. Trump was elected as our President I initially gave him the benefit of the doubt, and I continue to evaluate his behavior as objectively as I can. The above are only two examples of many that lead me to the conclusion that he is the most dangerous President we have ever had, there are numerous others but I do not care to dwell on this topic. Occasionally his behavior crosses a threshold level which elicits a comment from me such as the phone call referenced in this topic but I have come to view this sub-forum as toxic and destructive to the type of reasonable discussions that once were far more common on this forum so I limit both my exposure and participation here.

I listen to candidates and evaluate as objectively as I can and hope the goals they put forth for our people and our country will be what is good for all. Having made a decision of a candidate, I then trust the person to do what they say they will do. President Trump has fulfilled my expectations admirably as far as I am concerned. Because of that, I have positive feelings towards him. Others, particularly those who lost the last election to him harbor anger, disappointment, and even hatred for him. This makes no sense to me as it was just an election. The Democrat Party seem to think there will never be another. So I see no logic or reason in their attitude. It is this I was referencing earlier when I said they seem to have lost those things.

I think I have to quit now. My fingers are getting tired. Verbal debates/ discussions are much easier, I think.

Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 3:08:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Epi,

I am sorry that you feel this Forum is too toxic for you and am wondering what it is we all can do to make things more civil. I wish I had not posted the Twitter joke to bring up the point about Trump's business acuity shown by his tax returns. I will try to do better. But other than that, my other posts on this thread are facts of current events leading to logical, not ridiculous, points of view held by many respected persons. For example:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/10/trump-government-shutdown-democracy-power-dictatorship

I do wish Oscar would call Donald Trump either Donald or Trump written correctly, the gif of Trump as Putin's puppet is a little over the top for the Forum, and although the photos of them doing the same type of thing to Obama do make a point, they do stand out too.

Perhaps when FounDit can put past clashes behind him and decide to do exactly what he says would be good in a debate i.e. stop his rancour to other posters except you to whom he shows respect and doesn't make personal comments about you or your posts, and stops dismissing opinions without reading them assuming he knows what will be there in opposition to his point of view so therefore they are ridiculous, there could be some meaningful discussions from both sides.

However, I can only control my own actions and FD does not read my posts. Is the atmosphere here just a reflection of the public both in US and Canada so that we either accept reality or just not participate at all? Thoughts?
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 3:17:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Lazarius, I agree about Colin Powell. We respected him until he made the mistake of helping Bush with the WMD fiasco. It went against his usual inclinations. Unfortunately for the world it was a big mistake and we are still living with the major consequences that have unfolded in world politics.

However, he is only one man who made a mistake. The intelligence and prosecutors are bodies of hard working dedicated ordinary men and women who do their very best to be non partisan and just look for the truth.

Sullying the reputations of Intelligence and DOJ along with the media is how wannabe dictators start.
Epiphileon
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2019 3:12:46 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,281
Neurons: 166,361
FounDit wrote:

My first point would be concerning your description of "propaganda" regarding refugees. It isn't propaganda to say people are flooding across our border illegally.
Yes it is, the vast majority of asylum seekers are using a legal method to request asylum.


The fact that there is violence, death, and subjugation in their countries does not give anyone an excuse to enter our illegally. Again the vast majority are not.There is a process that should be followed, but is being abused because our legislators have abandoned the welfare of our own citizens. Beyond that, we simply can't take in the everyone in the world who might want to come here simply because their country has problems, and it isn't our obligation to do so. It isn't the obligation of any country to do so. Most do what they can, but there must be some limits.
Yes of course there must be limits; however, many of these people are legitimately afraid for their lives or the lives of their children, and as human beings we most certainly do have a responsibility to aid those in such distress. (That is if we do actually aspire to the ideal of being human rather than just a bunch of modified territorial naked apes.)

Imagine if we took $5,000,000,000 and dedicated it to an integrated infrastructure building and refugee integration program how much could be done for our country while giving people a chance for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no way it is beyond the capability of the U.S. to deal with legitimate refugees. We could do it if we wanted to, and whats more I believe that the majority of Americans would want to if they saw the real faces of the crisis and didn't just hear the spun out and vitriolic hyperbole surrounding the issue.

The writing on the base of the Statue of Liberty is a poem, not an open door invitation to flood the country with illegal entry. It wasn't done that way at Ellis Island, and should not be done that way today.

The only way to cross the Atlantic at the time Ellis Island was in operation was by boat if people could have walked across they certainly would have. I'm glad you brought up Ellis Island though because it led me to do some research on the issue. What I discovered was that if our nation had the same attitudes and policies that are now in effect then, we would most likely never have become the nation we once were. Here are a few examples of what I found.
[quote=History.com]More than 12 million immigrants passed through Ellis Island between 1892 and 1954—with a whopping 1,004,756 entering the United States in 1907 alone. And yet, even during these days of peak immigration, for most passengers hoping to establish new lives in the United States, the process of entering the country was over and done relatively quickly—in a matter of a few hours.

Remember the vast majority of these people were only seeking a better life, not fleeing for their lives.

What is happening at the border is not a national security crisis it is a humanitarian crisis and it is a moral outrage that we are not better dealing with the problem.

lazarius
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2019 3:35:02 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/27/2016
Posts: 813
Neurons: 896,632
Location: Kotel’niki, Moskovskaya, Russia
Hope123 wrote:
However, he is only one man who made a mistake. The intelligence and prosecutors are bodies of hard working dedicated ordinary men and women who do their very best to be non partisan and just look for the truth.

Sullying the reputations of Intelligence and DOJ along with the media is how wannabe dictators start.


No, it's making Colin Powell a scapegoat responsible for the bumbling of Intelligence that will lead to another "mistake".

-
Epiphileon
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2019 4:54:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,281
Neurons: 166,361
FounDit wrote:
Since Presidents meet with world leaders all the time, is it the meetings, or is it just Putin who triggers this "treasonous" idea? What about China or N. Korea? Are meetings with Xi or Kim treasonous also? It seems truly strange to me to see this reaction. This causes me to believe that it is the Democrats who have sacrificed reason and objectivity to illogical emotional reactions.
Well in his other meetings he does not deny the findings of his own intelligence services in favor of the claims of world leader whose country has committed hostile acts towards the U.S. To reiterate what I said was,
"...there are two glaring examples of what I consider treason in spirit. One, after being presented with evidence from every relevant U.S. authority on the issue of Russian interference in the last election, when President Putin told him personally that he had nothing to do with it Mr. Trump stated he believed him. Then despite the exhaustive evidence in the Muller Report
Quote:
Mr. Trump said he did not broach the threat of Russian interference in future elections with Mr. Putin.
If you do not see this as treasonous in spirit then it is at the least a failure to properly carry out the duties of the office of President of the United States.
[b]Two things I would point out: One, the Mueller Report had nothing to do with whether or not Russia tried to interfere in our elections.
The actual title of the report, "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election "
It was an attempt to find a crime with which to charge the President under the guise of "collusion". No such crime was committed or found by Mueller.
Further Mr. Mueller immediately dismisses the notion of collusion as a legally undefined term and rather investigated whether there was a conspiracy which does have a legal definition. The idea that no investigation was warranted is incredibly biased. Given the evidence of active espionage on the part of the Russian GRU an investigation was absolutely called for.

Furthermore, how does it become treason to not confront Putin and how do you know he didn't do so privately? And when did it become the duty of the President to challenge any world leader publicly? Where is that in the job description?
When that world leaders country has attacked the U.S. in any manner. Then it is his sworn duty to respond appropriately. If you do not think that Russia's interference in our elections is not a hostile act I do not know how to respond to that.


FounDit
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2019 12:03:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,062
Neurons: 66,973
Epiphileon wrote:
FounDit wrote:

My first point would be concerning your description of "propaganda" regarding refugees. It isn't propaganda to say people are flooding across our border illegally.
Yes it is, the vast majority of asylum seekers are using a legal method to request asylum.
In seeking asylum, an individual is supposed to ask for it at the first country he or she enters outside the area they are escaping. This is not being done here. Rather, these people are being paid, fed, accommodated and otherwise herded intentionally through one or more countries for the express purpose of getting them to the U.S.

The second point I would make is that asylum is supposed to be done at the proper border entry points, not by entering the country illegally, i.e., hiring a coyote to transport them across the river at any point they can. Btw, this can cost up to $7,000.00 so that belies the idea these people are poor. And if they are not paying that cost, and someone else it, that is a telling fact in itself.


The fact that there is violence, death, and subjugation in their countries does not give anyone an excuse to enter our illegally. Again the vast majority are not.
The vast majority are not - what? entering our country illegally? Surely you jest. Nearly a thousand a day are being encountered by Border Patrol agents outside the border entry points, and that doesn't count those who get across without being met by agents. I have seen roads with groups of people walking down both sides who did not enter properly. That is obvious because the agency does not simply release them onto the side of the roads.

There is a process that should be followed, but is being abused because our legislators have abandoned the welfare of our own citizens. Beyond that, we simply can't take in the everyone in the world who might want to come here simply because their country has problems, and it isn't our obligation to do so. It isn't the obligation of any country to do so. Most do what they can, but there must be some limits.
Yes of course there must be limits; however, many of these people are legitimately afraid for their lives or the lives of their children, and as human beings we most certainly do have a responsibility to aid those in such distress. (That is if we do actually aspire to the ideal of being human rather than just a bunch of modified territorial naked apes.)
And we do. We take in over one million people every year, including those legitimately seeking asylum. That's the legal way.

In the last month, April, illegal entrants totaled almost 110,000 people. Illegals are now "renting" children in order to claim asylum. More than 10,000 people were taken into custody in just that last week. Mexican people are now calling on their own government to deport these people, as the vast numbers are causing problems in Mexico, theft being one of the largest problems. Another is infectious diseases, which they bring into the countries they travel through and into. Hundreds of university students are now quarantined after a measles outbreak in L.A., and we now have cases of mumps in schools in our area, brought in by people who evaded medical examinations when they entered illegally.

Imagine if we took $5,000,000,000 and dedicated it to an integrated infrastructure building and refugee integration program how much could be done for our country while giving people a chance for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We do spend billions on them; many more than we should have to because they are entering the country illegally. We have spent over 98 billion just in the first four months of this year, and that is just what is being spent at the border. That doesn't count the value of the benefits they get once here. By the end of the year, we'll be very close to your 5 billion number simply because they refuse to enter legally. Then once here, they are entitled to benefits most American citizens can't get.

Our government exists to protect the rights of our own citizens, and should not be subjecting our people's needs to those of the citizens of any country in the world who want to come here.

There is no way it is beyond the capability of the U.S. to deal with legitimate refugees. We could do it if we wanted to, and whats more I believe that the majority of Americans would want to if they saw the real faces of the crisis and didn't just hear the spun out and vitriolic hyperbole surrounding the issue.

The key words you use are "legitimate refugees", and those we do make efforts to accommodate, but we have a system that they are supposed to use, and should be using. No one would complain if they do it properly, legally. How many would you be willing to take into your home without a proper vetting or medical exam?

The writing on the base of the Statue of Liberty is a poem, not an open door invitation to flood the country with illegal entry. It wasn't done that way at Ellis Island, and should not be done that way today.

The only way to cross the Atlantic at the time Ellis Island was in operation was by boat if people could have walked across they certainly would have. I'm glad you brought up Ellis Island though because it led me to do some research on the issue. What I discovered was that if our nation had the same attitudes and policies that are now in effect then, we would most likely never have become the nation we once were. Here are a few examples of what I found.
[quote=History.com]More than 12 million immigrants passed through Ellis Island between 1892 and 1954—with a whopping 1,004,756 entering the United States in 1907 alone. And yet, even during these days of peak immigration, for most passengers hoping to establish new lives in the United States, the process of entering the country was over and done relatively quickly—in a matter of a few hours.

Remember the vast majority of these people were only seeking a better life, not fleeing for their lives.
And recall that at that time, we needed people and had the room for them. Furthermore, your one million number over 62 years is a drop in the bucket compared to what we have today. The peak number of 1.3 million legal immigrants occurred in 1903. And the fact that they were legal immigrants is important. Also, the immigration act of 1924 restricted the number to 2% of each nationality recorded in the 1890 census to prevent what we see today - a usurpation of the culture by overwhelming numbers without a cooling off period for assimilation.
What is happening at the border is not a national security crisis it is a humanitarian crisis and it is a moral outrage that we are not better dealing with the problem.
It is a national security crisis when we don't know who is entering our country, or if those who do enter bring in diseases that may be deadly to our people, like measles, or the Ebola virus. People identified as terrorists have also be caught by Border agents, with no way of knowing how many may have slipped through. You cannot focus only on one aspect of the problem simply because you have sympathy for some of them. Our citizens require the protection and benefit of government first and foremost, and if you can't agree to that, we will never be able to reach an agreement.

Hope123
Posted: Sunday, May 12, 2019 9:17:44 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
FounDit should stop believing everything Trump and Kirsten tell him. Post is full of errors.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, May 12, 2019 9:20:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,325
Neurons: 53,297
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Mexico is not designated as a "safe country". Under the UN agreement there is no obligation for refugees to seek refuge in the first country they come to.

The caravans are not being paid - individuals in Mexico are donating to help them. They try to avoid "coyotes". Possession of money does not mean they were not being persecuted in their home country.

LA measles outbreak is because American antivaxxers travelled to countries with high measles outbreaks - mostly to the Philippines. Not one mention of refugees!


Facts re numbers:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/30/illegal-immigration-facts-children-immigrants/747934002/



https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-the-migrant-caravan-who-are-they-and-where-are-they-going/

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-measles-outbreak-la-20190429-story.html

Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.