US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[spudmunkey]

. I think germaphobia might be a Gemini thing. I am a germaphobic Gemini as well.

That's an odd conclusion to jump to. Do you have more than one data point? Howie Mandell and Mark Summers are two famously germaphobic people, and they are Sagittarius and Scorpio, respectively.

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

That's an odd conclusion to jump to. Do you have more than one data point? Howie Mandell and Mark Summers are two famously germaphobic people, and they are Sagittarius and Scorpio, respectively.

I wonder what "think" and "might" mean, too. As for being a germaphobe, he's mentioned it quite a few times.

 

[spudmunkey]

"Think" and "might", to me, meant that it was something you gave serious consideration to. To be fair, I come from the perspective that astrological signs have no impact on how anyone or anything was, is, or will be.

 

[BlackSG91]

;>)/

 

[Flappydoodle]

Honestly, I don't know enough about international politics to know who they think would end up being better for them, or worse for us (which is just as valid of an outcome for Russia).

I don't think Russia really cares who wins out of any generic republican or democrat.

What they actually want is to sow division, and they've been very effective.

They were taking out inflammatory ads on both sides - BLM and anti-gun stuff in Texas and anti-Trump stuff in NYC. They tried to organise events where opposing groups would be on opposite sides of streets etc. What Russia wants is for the US to be paralysed by political debate, distrust and in-fighting.

If Trump could actually accomplish his agenda, much of it would be shit for Russia. If all NATO members spent 2% of GDP, NATO would be better funded by 40%. Putin wouldn't like that. If the US seriously upped oil and gas production, they would undercut Russia and wreck their economy even more. Putin wouldn't like that either. At the same time, Trump's disinterest in Syria is something Putin does like. And any Democrat is going to also going to have policies which are liked or disliked.

Point is, the current situation, with the MSM blasting Trump 24/7, votes all going straight along party lines (even in courts), and the president essentially paralysed by investigations, sabotage from his own party - THAT helps Putin more than just about anything. And the rise of more radical right and left ideologies also helps, by moving people away from common sense middle ground and ensuring that cooperation (and thus action) is even more difficult.

People on the ground in DC even say that the politicians actually hate each other now. They used to debate and then go out for drinks now. That's changed. And hell, people in MAGA hats are verbally and physically attacked, banned from some places. That's the level the US has sunk to now. Putin will be very happy with that.

As far as impeaching Trump, the notion lost all value when it was brought up 3 seconds after he got elected by impatient democrats who were bitter of losing to a reality TV star. It is a complicated process and the Democrats are not pushing as hard for it, as they say to their supporters that they are. Such actions may cause a payback in the future and they do not want that, behind closed doors there is a much greater understanding between them and the Republicans. They attack each other on camera and hug during meetings.

I don't think there is any back room agreement. I think they genuinely hate each other at this point.

The U.S.A. will definitely not humiliate themselves by admitting that other countries are involved in their election process (actually all countries are concerned with your election as it affects them and do their part to promote a candidate which suits them and it is not unreasonable) and getting rid of their elected leader a year before the next election may or may not eject him from office. Furthermore, the U.S.A. meddle in the election of most countries they are interested in, by sending funds to local parties or applying pressure to people of influence, so it is not big news in the grand scheme of politics.

Agree. The Russian interference seems to come down to:
-taking out facebook ads (which were still fairly small scale. Less than 7 figures, which is an ad budget for a small company, not a state-level cyber program)
-handing over emails to Wikileaks. Every country is hacking everything they can, so that's nothing unusual. But usually they keep it private. Russia released Podesta's emails to embarrass him and cause more drama during the election.

I just don't think election interference is a "winning issue" for either side here. As you say, admitting it would be a weakness. And it's virtually impossible to stop other people from taking out targeted ads.

 

[StevenC]

Why are you guys selling nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia?

 

[Ralyks]

Why are you guys selling nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia?

Same reason Vince McMahon still wants to hold WWE shows there despite everything going on: some people are just greedy fucks.

 

[Explorer]

Ah yes, the guy who had unprotectd sex with multiple sex workers while his wife was home with a newborn is opposed to contact with8 bodily fluids, except in cases where he sees a sexual element to the incident.

Yeah, that doesn't rule it out.

 

[G_3_3_k_]

Which is a crime right there...

I’m vegetarian... So.

I wasn’t always, and that’s not how you eat steak.

 

[Ordacleaphobia]

Which is a crime right there...

There's at least one thing we can agree on- that's definitely grounds for impeachment.
For real dude lock him up.

Why are you guys selling nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia?

Fantastic question.
YOLO I guess? What if we tell them how to build the bombs so that we can get the money to build the bombs so that we can build the bombs, bomb them, and take their oil? Then in order to further justify our presence there, we'll supply weapons to a local insurgency group so that we can say "no look, see? We need to stay here so we can fight them" but you and me will know the whole time that we're just there for the oil.

Can I run for office yet?

 

[Drew]

If Trump could actually accomplish his agenda, much of it would be shit for Russia. If all NATO members spent 2% of GDP, NATO would be better funded by 40%. Putin wouldn't like that. If the US seriously upped oil and gas production, they would undercut Russia and wreck their economy even more. Putin wouldn't like that either. At the same time, Trump's disinterest in Syria is something Putin does like. And any Democrat is going to also going to have policies which are liked or disliked.

The problem with that line of thought, though, is it ignores the other half of Trump's international policy. Does Trump want NATO members to spend more? He's said so repeatedly. But, he's said so repeatedly while threatening to pull out of NATO because he thinks its an outdated relic of the Cold War that the US spends far too much supporting. He's similarly critical of the UN and DID pull us out of the Human Rights Council, he's opposed to international free trade agreements, he's questioned the authority of the International Court of Justice, he's weakened US commitments to the IMF, and he's ceeded leadership on climate change to the EU and the Chinese. It'd be one thing if Trump seemed like he was legitimately trying to make the post-war international system stronger, but he's not - he's trying to weaken it, and weaken the US's commitment to the rest of the world as the acting global policeman. Whether or not that's something you personally like or dislike, a weaker international order with a power vacuum is absolutely something that works in the favor of an ex global superpower with its eye on becoming resurgent.

So, yeah, the primary goal was to spread political discord in the United States and weaken the democratic institutions of this country... But there's a reason Putin actively sought to promote Trump, and not Clinton, in the election - an United States with Trump as president would create a LOT more opportunity for Russia than one with Clinton.

I don't think there is any back room agreement. I think they genuinely hate each other at this point.

It's not as far gone as that - there's SOME bipartisanship in Washington, but it's definitely at the lowest level in my lifetime. That's a process that began with Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America, though, and if Putin sped that up, it wasn't by much. Russia's focus wasn't elected officials, though - they were fanning partisanship at the voter level.

 

[Drew]

Ah yes, the guy who had unprotectd sex with multiple sex workers while his wife was home with a newborn is opposed to contact with8 bodily fluids, except in cases where he sees a sexual element to the incident.

Yeah, that doesn't rule it out.

This is also the guy who wanted a porn star to spank him with a magazine he was on the cover of, before fucking her without a condom. If he's a germophobe, he's a VERY selective one.

 

[Ralyks]

This is also the guy who wanted a porn star to spank him with a magazine he was on the cover of, before fucking her without a condom. If he's a germophobe, he's a VERY selective one.

In his defense, he used Toad from Mario Kart to do the deed.

 

[Randy]

spank him with a magazine he was on the cover of

That's the worst part. I'd sooner unclog a toilet with my bare hands than touch that thing.

 

[Drew]

Depends. Does throwing it in a fire count?

 

[BlackSG91]

;>)/

 

[Xaios]

He eats well done Steak with ketchup.

...

...




...

Yeah, time to nuke humanity out of existence and let the world start fresh. We as a species no longer deserve to be here.

 

[spudmunkey]

He eats well done Steak

Hey hey hey...so does The Guy From Harlem, who's superpower is being the hell from Harlem. He's not actually in Harlem in the movie, but he is from there. Very "from" there.

(skip to 18:08 for relevant clip)
(Note: Film is rated "R", so parts are NSFW)

 

[Drew]

Kind of an interesting read for anyone following the shakeup at DHS:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/federal...er-trump-department-homeland-security-edition

tl;dr - Kirstjen Nielsen was fired by Trump over twitter on 4/7, naming Kevin McAleenan, current head of Customs and Border Protection, as the acting secretary. She tweeted her own resignation an hour later. Then, three and a half hours after that, she tweeted that she had agreed to stay on through the 10th to ensure a smooth transiton - after being "fired" by Trump, remember. Then on Monday the 8th, Trump also fired the Undersecretary of Management of Homeland Security, providing no reason.

The reason, evidently, is that Trump didn't realize that under the law he couldn't appoint an acting head, so long as anyone in the chain of succession met eligibility criteria and had been confirmed by the Senate, and Undersecretary of Management Claire Grady was Senate-confirmed and met the necessary eligibility criteria, so with Nielsen gone Grady would have automatically become the acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, since unlike the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Department of Justice, Homeland Security actually had a clear chain of succession in its charter, something Trump was evidently unaware of when he decided to fire Nielsen and appoint McAleenan in her place.

This is notable for two reasons - one, Trump essentially just decapitated DHS to install a loyalist at his head, during what's allegedly a "crisis" on our southern border, allegedly because Nielsen refused to break the law and continue the Administration's child separation policies and to close the border to asylum seekers presenting themselves at border checkpoints to claim asylum. If were indeed is a crisis, tossing senior leadership and bringing in outsiders unfamiliar with the department is kind of stupid. Second, it speaks pretty bluntly to how far Trump is prepared to go to circumvent the usual Congressional oversight roles, at a time when the Senate is actually fairly friendly to Trump nominees. That's a pretty concerning and flagrant attempt to get around the rule of law.

 

[777timesgod]

Take a minute and a half and google how the Clinton Foundation spends its money.

It's kind of a problem, rhetorically, to call out a specific organization, because a person associated with it by name is corrupt, especially if the greater point you are trying to make is that the person is corrupt because she is associated with that particular organization.
I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion, just the evidence presented to support it.

I never claimed that what the Clinton foundation does is illegal, if you re-read my posts. I simply underline the ethical gap of presenting yourself as a defender of the gay community (for example) and taking money from people who implement laws against it in their own country. Kind of like a Jewish person having business dealings with a Nazi CEO of a company.

Many NGOs/Corporations/Political parties help people and communities, they may provide food-shelter-protection or use their influence to bring awareness for a cause. However, I am noting that their end game may not be philanthropical but political and ugly in its nature. Helping others to gain their trust before turning against them.
For example, the Taliban warlords in Pakistan, took advantage of the 2010 floods to offer food and assistance to the victims. Their purpose was to nurture an image of being the protectors of the common folks, taking advantage of the incompetence of the government due to the overwhelming disaster.

https://www.dw.com/en/pakistani-taliban-try-to-benefit-from-floods/a-5891119

As a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the Clinton Foundation cannot spend money for the direct benefit of Hillary, Bill, their children, their business interests, any other board member, etc etc etc, and any indirect benefits have to be disclosed in a section about any potential conflicts of interest, to eliminate the possibility of secret self-dealing. So, yeah, the Saudis donating to the Clinton Foundation did not help Clinton's presidential campaign, because to do so would have broken nonprofit law.

Copy/paste my above answer. Once more, I never claimed that Hillary is so stupid, as to use the money of a foundation which has so much spotlight on it for her campaign. Such a gaffe would be more in line with Trump's clumsy way of handling things.
If I wanted to underline her lack of intelligence, I could comment on how she used her e-mail account.

Completely agree. If you're looking for corruption in the Clinton camp or even the Democratic Party, you don't have to look far. There's evidence everywhere. But the Clinton Foundation is one of the least efficient ways of backing up the argument that Hilary was corrupt, and really lacks evidence other than association with individuals that work in the foundation. They do publish how they spend their money publicly. I get the argument being made, that foreign powers giving money to the organization can be seen as political influence. HOWEVER, it is not against the law, and Clinton doesn't see any political power come directly from that organization. I see the foundation as more of a bargaining chip. Something the Clintons can use to influence things outside the US as much as it allows influence in.

Copy/Paste my first answer. BTW, you contradict yourself in just one post by saying that she "doesn't see any political power" and admitting that it is a "bargaining chip for political influence".

Sorry to be mean to some people here (this includes the Trump supporters, not just the left) but most of you seem to be desperately trying to defend some of the most corrupt people on the face of the planet. I understand hating one candidate more than the other and feeling that your country would be better off with someone else, but they do not need your help to survive, nor were you appointed their lawyer, they have the money and the influence to carry on with their careers just fine.

BTW, thank you to the poster who called me a Cynic, I am too tired to scroll back and find him/her, it is one of the best compliments I receive. I am a follower of the Cynic Philosophical school, not of the militant ones like Diogenes who was half crazy but more to the side of Zenon of Kition who lived in my country in ancient times.



There is a huge difference between seeing the ugliness of the world as it is and fighting against it for virtue (the Cynic's approach) and being passive because of helplessness because you deem that corruption is overwhelming. There is nothing wrong with being realistic and formulating a plan to deal with the wrongs of the planet. It is certainly better than wearing pink-tinted glasses and making excuses for some of the most corrupt people around, because they are the "lesser of two evils"...

Do you really think it's completely benign, normal people stuff? I highly doubt it's just copies of his PornHub search history.

Threesome with Stormy Daniels and Ivanka Trump? The skin crawls!