Jump to content
tanknet.org

Because Trump 2.0


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stuart Galbraith

    2009

  • DKTanker

    1550

  • Murph

    1521

  • Paul G.

    1455

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Answer me this: Why are the leadership of the Democrat Party, and those on the Left ALL connected to Paedophiles, sexual abusers, and abusers of women, and defend said people?

The same breed that share set of values different from others. One shared value within their set is the use of other percieved values in a manipulated way for garnering political support for self-interest. Values that involve the things listed are low in weight within that set of shared values

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is anything in LD's comments I agree with, id say the US is disenfranchising its voters. I dont think its the political system that is causing this, I think its the 2 party system, and the deliberate attempt to make binary choices on things that defy them, like civil rights, or regional development, or the myriad of other issues. Its not the political system that is the problem here, is the lobbying and the party system that is at fault. Which is remarkably close to the same problems I believe we have, though at least having a third party does go some way to give us alternatives.

 

I think it's pretty safe to say that two-party presidential systems like in the US don't scale very well under the complexities of the current political spectrum. In the US you have a political spectrum that includes, at the least, green-party-style left-wing politics, social-democrats, classical small-government conservatives, libertarians, evangelical religious fundamentalists, and classical right-wing anti-immigration politics, and you're trying to cram all of that into two parties in Congress, making the whole thing mostly unable to legislate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For Murph and others, is this on the major tv news? Probably redundant I know, but I haven't watched tv in years. Nor do I miss it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Der Zeitgeist--your latest post. Those ideas you mentioned are sorted out in the U.S. Primary voting system. The most popular amalgamation of these ideas are represented best by whom the voters of said primary vote on to be their candidate. If you pay close attention to the Democrat Primaries you can hear these differences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who cares? Once people have convinced themselves that all politicians are criminals anyway, none of that matters any longer.

 

Not quite - you've twisted one key detail. What people actually believe is that nobody in politics can stand up to the level of scrutiny that the system can unleash, and the existing laws on the books are so numerous, detailed, jumbled, contradictory, and open to new "innovative" interpretations, that anyone can be ensnared. With Trump, for example, the Democrats have decided that investigating Biden's kid in Ukraine is interference with the 2020 election and therefore a violation of the laws about not using personal office for campaign purposes. This level of twisting of existing laws to suit political purposes, (Biden is not yet even the Democratic nominee!) is what is at the heart of the current cynicism.

Without a Special Prosecutor most of those process crimes would never be prosecuted. Remember Eric Holder lied to Congress and only got censured. Who knew it was a real crime? To get process crimes of persons not remembering what they said years past you need a Witch Hunt to get people under oath.

Did he though? Emails disclosed prove otherwise.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/28/eric-holder-contempt-historic-congress-vote

Link to post
Share on other sites

Der Zeitgeist--your latest post. Those ideas you mentioned are sorted out in the U.S. Primary voting system. The most popular amalgamation of these ideas are represented best by whom the voters of said primary vote on to be their candidate. If you pay close attention to the Democrat Primaries you can hear these differences.

The primaries are a relatively new thing, and a party thing and not required by law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If there is anything in LD's comments I agree with, id say the US is disenfranchising its voters. I dont think its the political system that is causing this, I think its the 2 party system, and the deliberate attempt to make binary choices on things that defy them, like civil rights, or regional development, or the myriad of other issues. Its not the political system that is the problem here, is the lobbying and the party system that is at fault. Which is remarkably close to the same problems I believe we have, though at least having a third party does go some way to give us alternatives.

 

I think it's pretty safe to say that two-party presidential systems like in the US don't scale very well under the complexities of the current political spectrum. In the US you have a political spectrum that includes, at the least, green-party-style left-wing politics, social-democrats, classical small-government conservatives, libertarians, evangelical religious fundamentalists, and classical right-wing anti-immigration politics, and you're trying to cram all of that into two parties in Congress, making the whole thing mostly unable to legislate.

 

 

You can see it on this grate site, when its assumed that anyone of a left wing perspective 'must' subscribe various crackpot draconian measures. And the left wing posters assume the right must be in favour of all other forms of draconian proceedures. I can only assume is this political straight jacketing that is forcing people to think in this way, even when its self evident in the 21st Century, people are far better informed and intelligent than they were in an era when a 2 party system sufficed. It just doesnt work anymore.

 

Heck, even in the UK, a 3 party system doesnt suffice, certainly not when you get to major issues like Brexit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuart, whenever you bring up something about Japanese imperialism in a "had to be removed" kind of way, and then I make rebuttlas, each and every time, you never elabroate on a counter rebuttal that takes in the points made. If I'm wrong, I would like to have a good reason to it. Japanese Imperialsim was inherently but in general not really worse than British or French imperialism, certainly not worse to the extent of crossing over the line of "must be terminated". Circumstances were different to make direct and straight comparisons invalid really. But ultimate, humans are shit, and the Japanese did some really awful things which means they really don't deserve to be rhetorically defended so much, and so I get tired of it. But if one is not going to be scholoastically honest about it, then the defense is coming. And also, IMHO, it is also about learning history as it is and not about narrating the history in preferable ways. What was the phrase used all so often? "People don't learn from history". I would argue that people have not even learned the history. And why? Because it is unpleasant to pride and is contrary to what has been broadacsated as if its obvious and indisputable.

 

It had to be removed when it moved out of its box. I really dont recall the UK expressing much of an issue with Japanese Imperialism before japan invaded Singapore and declared war on us. Up to that point, we were perfectly willing to let Japan kill the Chinese by the score. That was undoubtedly an aggressive war waged against us, however one may try to reframe it. Ditto France and the Netherlands and Australia for that matter. What did any of them do against Japan? Absolutely nothing. It was Japans choice on that score, and nobody elses.

 

For the US the reasons are undeniably more complex, but, arguably, Japan seemingly wanted a world war, and it got one. It wasn't the outcome it expected , but thems the breaks.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For Murph and others, is this on the major tv news? Probably redundant I know, but I haven't watched tv in years. Nor do I miss it.

 

Of course not! They could not let little things like THE TRUTH interupt the NARRATIVE Orange Man Bad!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Stuart, whenever you bring up something about Japanese imperialism in a "had to be removed" kind of way, and then I make rebuttlas, each and every time, you never elabroate on a counter rebuttal that takes in the points made. If I'm wrong, I would like to have a good reason to it. Japanese Imperialsim was inherently but in general not really worse than British or French imperialism, certainly not worse to the extent of crossing over the line of "must be terminated". Circumstances were different to make direct and straight comparisons invalid really. But ultimate, humans are shit, and the Japanese did some really awful things which means they really don't deserve to be rhetorically defended so much, and so I get tired of it. But if one is not going to be scholoastically honest about it, then the defense is coming. And also, IMHO, it is also about learning history as it is and not about narrating the history in preferable ways. What was the phrase used all so often? "People don't learn from history". I would argue that people have not even learned the history. And why? Because it is unpleasant to pride and is contrary to what has been broadacsated as if its obvious and indisputable.

 

It had to be removed when it moved out of its box. I really dont recall the UK expressing much of an issue with Japanese Imperialism before japan invaded Singapore and declared war on us. Up to that point, we were perfectly willing to let Japan kill the Chinese by the score. That was undoubtedly an aggressive war waged against us, however one may try to reframe it. Ditto France and the Netherlands and Australia for that matter. What did any of them do against Japan? Absolutely nothing. It was Japans choice on that score, and nobody elses.

 

For the US the reasons are undeniably more complex, but, arguably, Japan seemingly wanted a world war, and it got one. It wasn't the outcome it expected , but thems the breaks.

The Pacific War was because of the oil embargo which got put in place because the US was not willing to just let the Japanese be. If what you said was true, then the oil embargo would have never been put in place to begin with, or, the US side would have been willing to meet Konoye for talks about resolving the oil embargo with Japan agreeing to leave the axis. The UK and Churchill were desparate for US involvement so they were happy to see Japan strike PH, putting an end to "when/how can we get the US in the war"

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Answer me this: Why are the leadership of the Democrat Party, and those on the Left ALL connected to Paedophiles, sexual abusers, and abusers of women, and defend said people?

Crickets from our resident lefties?

 

If you want a discussion, you need to tone down the craziness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Der Zeitgeist--your latest post. Those ideas you mentioned are sorted out in the U.S. Primary voting system.

 

No, they aren't. If that were the case, you wouldn't have a President Donald J. Trump in office and a Republican party torn apart along the Trumper / Never Trump divide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Answer me this: Why are the leadership of the Democrat Party, and those on the Left ALL connected to Paedophiles, sexual abusers, and abusers of women, and defend said people?

Crickets from our resident lefties?

 

If you want a discussion, you need to tone down the craziness.

 

No craziness just a question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People outraged by Trumps pardons, forget Obama pardoning traitors and terrorists, or Bill Clinton's pardons of Marc Rich, etc.

 

 

Last week, President Trump granted full pardons for Army First Lt. Clint Lorance and Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, who’d been accused of war crimes. Lorance had served six years of a 19-year sentence, and Golsteyn was facing trial for killing an alleged Taliban bombmaker. Navy SEAL Edward R. Gallagher, who was found not guilty of war crimes, but still had his rank reduced, was granted clemency and restoration of rank.

Lawmakers had been pushing for pardons for Lorance and Golsteyn because they’d taken actions to defend themselves on the battlefield and were charged with war crimes for it. Yet, when President Trump pardoned them, it immediately sparked controversy and outrage. Pete Buttigieg joined in the outrage chorus, claiming Trump “dishonored our armed services.”

American soldiers join the military knowing they can be sent away from their families for long periods of time into unsafe conditions with the possibility they might never come back—or come back severely injured. For Trump to give various members of our military a second chance is infinitely less outrageous than acts of clemency made by his predecessor.

Barack Obama commuted the sentence of Bradley Manning (you may also know him as Chelsea), who leaked hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to WikiLeaks. A traitor in every sense, in 2013 Manning was convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison. But, Bradley Manning became a hero of the political left for declaring himself to be transgender, and Obama made his controversial commutation days before leaving office.

Obama also commuted the sentence of convicted terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera. Lopez Rivera was a leader of the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña (FALN), a Puerto Rican terrorist group responsible for 130 attacks in the United States, and at least six deaths. An unrepentant Lopez-Rivera was serving a 70-year sentence when Obama set him free.

Obama also granted clemency to hundreds of drug offenders he claimed were non-violent offenders who deserved a second chance, because of racism or something. It later came out that many of the people he released were actually violent offenders guilty of gun crimes. Obama granted more acts of clemency than any president since Truman, though he saved much of that executive use of power for the latter months and days of his presidency.

While Obama may have granted clemency to plenty who deserved it, granting clemency to an unrepentant terrorist was nonsensical. Doing the same for a traitor responsible for the biggest national security breach in history sends the worst possible message. I think it’s clear that Trump has shown far better judgment so far than his predecessor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Stuart, whenever you bring up something about Japanese imperialism in a "had to be removed" kind of way, and then I make rebuttlas, each and every time, you never elabroate on a counter rebuttal that takes in the points made. If I'm wrong, I would like to have a good reason to it. Japanese Imperialsim was inherently but in general not really worse than British or French imperialism, certainly not worse to the extent of crossing over the line of "must be terminated". Circumstances were different to make direct and straight comparisons invalid really. But ultimate, humans are shit, and the Japanese did some really awful things which means they really don't deserve to be rhetorically defended so much, and so I get tired of it. But if one is not going to be scholoastically honest about it, then the defense is coming. And also, IMHO, it is also about learning history as it is and not about narrating the history in preferable ways. What was the phrase used all so often? "People don't learn from history". I would argue that people have not even learned the history. And why? Because it is unpleasant to pride and is contrary to what has been broadacsated as if its obvious and indisputable.

It had to be removed when it moved out of its box. I really dont recall the UK expressing much of an issue with Japanese Imperialism before japan invaded Singapore and declared war on us. Up to that point, we were perfectly willing to let Japan kill the Chinese by the score. That was undoubtedly an aggressive war waged against us, however one may try to reframe it. Ditto France and the Netherlands and Australia for that matter. What did any of them do against Japan? Absolutely nothing. It was Japans choice on that score, and nobody elses.

 

For the US the reasons are undeniably more complex, but, arguably, Japan seemingly wanted a world war, and it got one. It wasn't the outcome it expected , but thems the breaks.

The Pacific War was because of the oil embargo which got put in place because the US was not willing to just let the Japanese be. If what you said was true, then the oil embargo would have never been put in place to begin with, or, the US side would have been willing to meet Konoye for talks about resolving the oil embargo with Japan agreeing to leave the axis. The UK and Churchill were desparate for US involvement so they were happy to see Japan strike PH, putting an end to "when/how can we get the US in the war"

 

 

There was no justification for the Japanese aggressive war against the British Empire, none, and even less for the wholesale murder of British and Commonwealth servicemen on the Burma Railway, or other human rights abuses against our personnel and civilians in that war.

 

.Jason, I respect you, and for the respect I hold the other posters not to derail the thread, ill leave it there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Der Zeitgeist--your latest post. Those ideas you mentioned are sorted out in the U.S. Primary voting system.

 

No, they aren't. If that were the case, you wouldn't have a President Donald J. Trump in office and a Republican party torn apart along the Trumper / Never Trump divide.

 

Yes they are. As a U.S. primary and general election voter for decades, I have a fair understanding on the differences of the general and primary elections. This may look "confused" to European eyes, but for the U.S. it works just as your system works for you. Just different ways of doing things, none "better" than the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer me this: Why are the leadership of the Democrat Party, and those on the Left ALL connected to Paedophiles, sexual abusers, and abusers of women, and defend said people?

 

Ignore all the rhetoric, and look at behavior. America's Left (and really, all left-wing movements) is about power, not principle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Der Zeitgeist--your latest post. Those ideas you mentioned are sorted out in the U.S. Primary voting system.

 

No, they aren't. If that were the case, you wouldn't have a President Donald J. Trump in office and a Republican party torn apart along the Trumper / Never Trump divide.

 

Yes they are. As a U.S. primary and general election voter for decades, I have a fair understanding on the differences of the general and primary elections. This may look "confused" to European eyes, but for the U.S. it works just as your system works for you. Just different ways of doing things, none "better" than the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You just know this is going to end badly....

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-news-live-impeachment-hearing-testimony-giuliani-ukraine-latest-a9206801.html

Mr Trump has meanwhile been invited by House speaker Nancy Pelosi to testify to the impeachment inquiry and “speak all the truth he wants”, a welcome also extended by Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, who said the president should give his side of the story on Ukraine rather than grumble about the proceedings on Twitter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Answer me this: Why are the leadership of the Democrat Party, and those on the Left ALL connected to Paedophiles, sexual abusers, and abusers of women, and defend said people?

Ignore all the rhetoric, and look at behavior. America's Left (and really, all left-wing movements) is about power, not principle.

 

 

I doubt you'll ever be able how clearly you guys are projecting.

The fascists are still the party of Roy Moore, Jim Jordan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answer me this: Why are the leadership of the Democrat Party, and those on the Left ALL connected to Paedophiles, sexual abusers, and abusers of women, and defend said people?

Crickets from our resident lefties?

If you want a discussion, you need to tone down the craziness.

No craziness just a question.
From the sideline, I did not understand it was a real question, and not just an outburst.

 

Are there records, charges, convictions that support your claim/question? Ie, the "all" part?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Answer me this: Why are the leadership of the Democrat Party, and those on the Left ALL connected to Paedophiles, sexual abusers, and abusers of women, and defend said people?

Ignore all the rhetoric, and look at behavior. America's Left (and really, all left-wing movements) is about power, not principle.

 

 

I doubt you'll ever be able how clearly you guys are projecting.

The fascists are still the party of Roy Moore, Jim Jordan.

 

Wow, deluded much?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...