American Politics

[EihTooms]

Since everybody has an opinion on the recent indictment of the former guy, let's take a vote.

The vote has three parts. The first part is for you to state your political leanings. The second part is your opinion of the former guy's guilt or innocence of the charges against him The third part is actually in three parts also. If Hilary, Obama or Biden had been indicted with the same charges that the Feds indicted the former guy with, would your opinion be that they were guilty or innocent.

Yes, I realize that "guilt" or "innocence" is what is decided during a trial. This is about your opinion.

Ill go first. 1. I am a Democrat; 2. My opinion is that the former guy is guilty of some or all of the charges; 3 a. Hilary: She would be guilty; 3 b. Obama: he would be guilty; 3 c. Biden: he would be guilty.

1. My political leaning is to vote for the member of the Party that legislated and produced every major economic expansion and historic job gains and none of the Great Depressions, Great Recessions and Massive Jobs Losses since at least the late 1920's and avoid voting in any way that might help a member of the party that has legislated and produced the exact opposite of those positive results during the same timeframe. Consequently, I have voted for Dems and NO Repubs in every election since I knew what the fuck I was doing with my vote, essentially since the middle of Reagan's 1st term as so-called potus.

2. My opinion is Trump is quilty of what he has proudly and repeatedly admitted he did while lying about his having the "right" to do it. That would be most or all of every count of every crime for which he has been indicted.

3. If anyone else on the planet had as proudly and repeatedly admitted to committing the crimes for which Trump has been indicted as Trump has over the past several months, there is no way anyone with at least 2 working brain cells wouldn't hold the opinion that they were guilty.

[JustTK]

Superb discussion on why Ivermectin and natural immunity do not work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umLgGcmm7ac

Answer. Bcos they do work but they are not owned by Big Pharma.

[Elvis 2008]

You are reading far too much into my question and attributing to me things I did not say. I used the word consider in my question, which was "If Biden or Obama or Hillary had done the things that the OTTIASAFG is charged with, would you consider them to be guilty? A simple "yes" or "no" will be sufficient. "..

No, you and Tooms are brain dead when it comes to the law. I do not know what Obama did but vote to indict Hilary and Biden? Fuck yeah! Find them guilty before a trial? No, I am not a douche. Unlike you and Tooms, I do not consider people guilty before a trial.

As far as all your other dumb ranting on what Trump may have done, that has NOTHING to do with an indictment. If he is found guilty and if what he does is worse than the others, then you sentence him more harshly.

But what else is new? The only thing you Democratic douches think is anyone who votes Republican should be locked up.

[EihTooms]

That's irrelevant. The issue is whether Trump was taking actions contrary to the best interests of Putin, not whether they succeeded. I actually disagreed with Trump's sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and agreed with Biden's move to lift them.

That said, I can find just as many links, that tell a completely different story from yours.

Trump blocks Putins pipeline with US sanctions
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...tins-pipeline/

The Atlantic Council article says the pipeline was weeks away from completion when the US imposed sanctions, on December 20, 2019. And it still hadn't been completed when Biden waived sanctions in May of 2021:

U.S. waives sanctions on Nord Stream 2 as Biden seeks to mend Europe ties
https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...ce-2021-05-19/

And as to NATO spending,

NATO Members Ramp Up Defense Spending After Pressure From Trump
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ure-from-trump

NATO Allies Now Spend $50 Billion More on Defense Than in 2016
https://www.heritage.org/defense/com...e-defense-2016

In gesture to Trump, US allies close to deal to pay more for NATO running costs
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...-idUSKBN1Y01WY

Your Atlantic Council link repeats the same "Trump did too little too late, so the Russians will complete it anyway" point my links made. I would say delaying any response for months and only doing too little too late to change the outcome is pretty much the definition of an empty political show while serving Putin's interests.

And none of your NATO funding links refute the reality that the increase in their contribution was pushed for and began before Trump became so-called president. Nothing new happened after he made a speech about it. That trend had already been set in motion by Obama.

[Xpartan]

You didn't exactly answer the question I intended to pose, which was would you put them in jail for the confidential documents. You provided a much broader answer. I'm no lawyer, but would suspect the alternate sets of electors and pressure on people like Raffensperger, Pence and Rusty Bowers are much more problematic than the confidential documents at Mar a Lago.

Do I think Trump grabbed the documents to give to Russia? No. I believe it's some combination of the following,

1. He was too lazy to go through the boxes and pull out confidential documents, to turn over to the DOJ. And also documents of whatsoever nature that would reflect badly on him or provide evidence for a prosecution totally unrelated to his record keeping. If you read the indictment you'll see he gave a nonverbal cue to his attorney to pluck out any problematic documents instead of turning them over to the DOJ. He theoretically could have delegated the work. But what if there were potentially incriminating documents, for example related to his post election shenanigans, in the boxes?

2. He's a narcissist and doesn't believe the rules apply to him. Most likely he's gotten away with this kind of behavior during his business career and it hadn't previously come back to haunt him.

3. He thought it would be nice to have the mementos. Or to show them off.

4. He believes some of the documents have value, and would like to sell them someday or pass them onto his grandkids. Or put them in a Donald Trump theme park somewhere near Orlando.

OK, so far so good.

As to your allegation, it's unlikely in my opinion that he was a Russian plant. He's actually a Democratic Party plant, the Democrat's best friend. He almost singlehandedly lost the last three elections for the Republicans, although they did manage to eke out a small majority in the House in 2022. He was a card carrying member of the Democratic Party, at which time he favored a Bernie Sanders wealth tax, had no problem with partial birth abortion, and contributed generously to some Democratic candidates' campaigns.

I'm sure you don't really mean that. You can't possibly believe he was a Democratic Party plant. He left the Democrats because he knew they wouldn't let him run amok. Did he help the Democrats on his way out? Sure, but that's because he doesn't have an ideology. If the Republicans weren't complete and utter cowards, they would've moved heaven and earth to stop him.

Trump notoriously does not like having people take notes. He also doesn't write emails or send texts. So I'm not sure his behavior with Putin was that out of the ordinary. I do believe he was trying to build a rapport and trust with Putin and thought not having his interpreter around might help. He's not the best example, but Nixon was known to do this. And there are many instances when a USA president took a private walk in the rose garden or wherever with another foreign leader. I think this approach, relationship building, is a great idea. Obama, Hillary Clinton and Biden were too sanctimonious and morally arrogant to do the same thing with people like Putin, Ji and Kim.

Um, no, Putin was the only non-English speaking world leader Trump talked to without an interpreter (at least, I've never heard about any other occasions). And to add insult to injury, he's our main adversary. All of this is very out of the ordinary, methinks.

And yes, if you believe scum sucking neocon John Bolton, Trump asked Ji to help him in his election. If you believe that, then you should also believe it's very possible Trump asked Putin for help in the 2020 election and so didn't want a U.S. interpreter around. I do believe Trump, like Biden, puts his own interests above the country's.

Thank you.

Regardless, in my opinion Trump did not go easy on Russia, as evidenced by his pressure on NATO members to spend more on defense, and his sanctions on Nord Stream 2.

By the time he imposed the sanctions on NS2 they were irrelevant. His pressure on NATO members amounted to nothing more than his attempts to destroy the alliance. That would've been Putin's wet dream. Four more years in office and he would've succeeded.

Trump Discussed Pulling USA From NATO, Aides Say Amid New Concerns Over Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/u...ent-trump.html

Of course, Trump had to keep some appearances. It's like his bombing a Syrian base -- after telling the Russians the coordinates, LOL.

When the former president Trump called Putin's invasion of Ukraine "genius" was he still trying to "build rapport"?

I think not.

Which brings us back to the classified documents and your pointers. Russia would probably pay good money for some of them, don't you think?

And do you know for sure they haven't?

I don't.

[PVMonger]

Since everybody has an opinion on the recent indictment of the former guy, let's take a vote.

The vote has three parts. The first part is for you to state your political leanings. The second part is your opinion of the former guy's guilt or innocence of the charges against him The third part is actually in three parts also. If Hilary, Obama or Biden had been indicted with the same charges that the Feds indicted the former guy with, would your opinion be that they were guilty or innocent.

Yes, I realize that "guilt" or "innocence" is what is decided during a trial. This is about your opinion.

Ill go first. 1. I am a Democrat; 2. My opinion is that the former guy is guilty of some or all of the charges; 3 a. Hilary: She would be guilty; 3 b. Obama: he would be guilty; 3 c. Biden: he would be guilty.

[PVMonger]

First, apologies. I phrased the question poorly, partly because I don't know what OTTIASAFG means. I meant to ask if you'd jail all three if they did what Trump did at Mar a Lago, with the documents.

I don't believe Trump loving Republicans are any more or less hypocritical than Progressive Democrats. Both want two sets of rules, one for Democrats and one for Republicans.

I wouldn't throw Trump, Clinton or Biden in jail, but then I might not vote to convict Julian Assange either if I figured they were going to lock him up for 20 years. Yeah, what Trump did in hiding documents and making false statements was more problematic. But Elvis has an excellent point. Maybe you do convict them all. Pence and Biden get misdemeanors and several hundred dollar fines. Hillary gets a ninety day probated sentence, to serve as deterrence to others against hubris and stupidity. And Trump gets several months at Mar a Lago with an ankle bracelet. That might be fair.

FYI, I answered your question but the response hasn't shown up yet. But, to reiterate, if any one of them had done a fraction of what the OTTIASAFG has been charged with, I would consider them guilty. Since sentencing guidelines have an impact on the sentence, I can't control that phase. But it I were a prosecutor, I would push for whatever the maximum sentence is. Plus, I would request that the sentences run consecutively.

And, for the record, OTTIASAFG stands for one-term, twice-impeached, adjudicated-sexual-assaulter, former guy.

[Tiny 12]

I am not talking about the policies of Sanders, Tiny but his character. Yes, some of his policies are insane and would lead us off a cliff. Others of them are not as kooky as you might think, but my point was I do not believe Sanders is a narcissist unlike so many others.

Point well taken Elvis. I recall Sanders telling people their health care would be worse under his socialized medicine plan, and their taxes would go up to pay for it. I don't think he's a narcissist, and he doesn't intentionally tell as many lies as your average politician.

[Tiny 12]

You mean this classic Repub move to, among other things, step in front of a trend to take credit for what had already been done by the Dem before him?

FACT CHECK: Trump's Claims On NATO Spending
July 11, 2018

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/11/62813...-nato-spending

And this showy bit of phony, empty political theater that accomplished nothing on behalf of America or our allies but managed, mysteriously, to still embolden and strenthened Russia's leverage in Europe?

Trump Imposes Sanctions To Stop Nord Stream 2 But Its Too late

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekea...-its-too-late/

That's irrelevant. The issue is whether Trump was taking actions contrary to the best interests of Putin, not whether they succeeded. I actually disagreed with Trump's sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and agreed with Biden's move to lift them.

That said, I can find just as many links, that tell a completely different story from yours.

Trump blocks Putins pipeline with US sanctions
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...tins-pipeline/

The Atlantic Council article says the pipeline was weeks away from completion when the US imposed sanctions, on December 20, 2019. And it still hadn't been completed when Biden waived sanctions in May of 2021:

U.S. waives sanctions on Nord Stream 2 as Biden seeks to mend Europe ties
https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...ce-2021-05-19/

And as to NATO spending,

NATO Members Ramp Up Defense Spending After Pressure From Trump
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ure-from-trump

NATO Allies Now Spend $50 Billion More on Defense Than in 2016
https://www.heritage.org/defense/com...e-defense-2016

In gesture to Trump, US allies close to deal to pay more for NATO running costs
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...-idUSKBN1Y01WY

[Tiny 12]

If they did a fraction of what the OTTIASAFG is charged with, I would definitely consider them guilty.

See, that's the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans consider the OTTIASAFG innocent but any Democrat charged with the same thing they would consider to be guilty. Democrats, on the other hand, would consider anybody who did even a fraction of what the OTTIASAFG is charged to be guilty.

Everybody in the US has an opinion on whether or not the OTTIASAFG is guilty or innocent of some or all of the charges. The problem, though, is that most Republicans say that the OTTIASAFG is innocent of the charges but if Obama or Biden had been accused of doing the same thing, they would be guilty. Most Democrats consider the OTTIASAFG to be guilty of some or all of the charges but if Biden or Obama or any other Democrat was accused of doing the same thing as the OTTIASAFG, Obama or Biden would also be guilty.

First, apologies. I phrased the question poorly, partly because I don't know what OTTIASAFG means. I meant to ask if you'd jail all three if they did what Trump did at Mar a Lago, with the documents.

I don't believe Trump loving Republicans are any more or less hypocritical than Progressive Democrats. Both want two sets of rules, one for Democrats and one for Republicans.

I wouldn't throw Trump, Clinton or Biden in jail, but then I might not vote to convict Julian Assange either if I figured they were going to lock him up for 20 years. Yeah, what Trump did in hiding documents and making false statements was more problematic. But Elvis has an excellent point. Maybe you do convict them all. Pence and Biden get misdemeanors and several hundred dollar fines. Hillary gets a ninety day probated sentence, to serve as deterrence to others against hubris and stupidity. And Trump gets several months at Mar a Lago with an ankle bracelet. That might be fair.

[Tiny 12]

Lab leak is now confirmed from gain of function:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moVBjWk-Nww

More lies and cover ups by the world mafia leaders. USA Govt.

So USA and China caused the pandemic, caused the deaths of millions, ruined the lives of billions, and then thought the best action to take was to lie about it. I honestly don't expect anything else from USA Govt. What surprises and saddens me is that so many USAns are still so blinded by their propaganda and still beleive in their govt.

US Govt should pay reparations to everyone around the world that had their lives ruined by them. I am submitting my damaghes claim. USD 500.000.

This is old news. It has been known for a while that three researchers at the Wuhan lab had flu like illnesses back around the end of 2019 and were treated at a hospital. The Wall Street Journal broke the story over two years ago.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelli...in-11621796228

This doesn't prove COVID 19 came from a lab leak, although it certainly provides evidence it may have. It also doesn't prove it resulted from gain of function research. There are people who know a lot more than we do on both sides of the debate.

Respectfully JustTK, if your suspicions are true, I don't see why the USA should pay reparations instead of China. Or know if anybody should pay. Gain of function research was intended to protect us from the next pandemic, and sometimes shit happens.

[JustTK]

Lab leak is now confirmed from gain of function:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moVBjWk-Nww

More lies and cover ups by the world mafia leaders. USA Govt.

So USA and China caused the pandemic, caused the deaths of millions, ruined the lives of billions, and then thought the best action to take was to lie about it. I honestly don't expect anything else from USA Govt. What surprises and saddens me is that so many USAns are still so blinded by their propaganda and still beleive in their govt.

US Govt should pay reparations to everyone around the world that had their lives ruined by them. I am submitting my damaghes claim. USD 500.000.

[PVMonger]

Well would you consider them guilty PVMonger? And to make it more interesting, would you incarcerate him or her for a period of years?

If they did a fraction of what the OTTIASAFG is charged with, I would definitely consider them guilty.

See, that's the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans consider the OTTIASAFG innocent but any Democrat charged with the same thing they would consider to be guilty. Democrats, on the other hand, would consider anybody who did even a fraction of what the OTTIASAFG is charged to be guilty.

[PVMonger]

Typical Democratic douche. There is an allegation, indictment, and conviction of guilt. We are at the allegation / indictment stage not guilt. I find it hilarious that you are already declaring Trump guilty before he even has a defense.

And the other reason I call you douches is because you have no problem with the timing of the indictment and when the trial occurs. You are so dumb that you think this tactic of indicting your political opponent before an election will just be limited to Trump.

You are reading far too much into my question and attributing to me things I did not say. I used the word consider in my question, which was "If Biden or Obama or Hillary had done the things that the OTTIASAFG is charged with, would you consider them to be guilty? A simple "yes" or "no" will be sufficient. ".

Everybody in the US has an opinion on whether or not the OTTIASAFG is guilty or innocent of some or all of the charges. The problem, though, is that most Republicans say that the OTTIASAFG is innocent of the charges but if Obama or Biden had been accused of doing the same thing, they would be guilty. Most Democrats consider the OTTIASAFG to be guilty of some or all of the charges but if Biden or Obama or any other Democrat was accused of doing the same thing as the OTTIASAFG, Obama or Biden would also be guilty.

Now, before you go off on one of your world-class rants, the case against the OTTIASAFG and Biden and Pence are absolutely not the same. The OTTIASAFG willfully retained documents after he was asked to return them.

Here's a timeline of the OTTIASAFG's documents case. In May of 2021, NARA started to request that the OTTIASAFG turn over all missing presidential records. Eight months later, in January of 2022, the OTTIASAFG returned 15 boxes of records and NARA found classified documents in 14 of the 15 boxes. In March, 2022, the FBI opened up a criminal investigation and in May, 2022, a grand jury issued a subpoena requiring the OTTIASAFG to return all classified material in his possession. In June, 2022, the FBI goes to Mar-A-Lardo and retrieves 38 more classified documents as well as a letter from the OTTIASAFG's attorneys that said they did a diligent search and that there were no more documents. The FBI asked to look in the boxes in the storage room and were denied. In late June, the tRUMP Organization received a subpoena for Mar-A-Lardo security tapes. In August, after reviewing the tapes and finding that boxes were moved out of the storage room, the FBI applied for a search warrant and executed a search of Mar-A-Lardo. Lo and behold, they found more classified documents. The OTTOASAFG had over 300 classified documents in his possession when all was said and done. The OTTIASAFG, from January 20th, 2020 (when he left the White House) until August of 2022 (two-and-a-half-years), stalled and obstructed the government every step of the way. This is the willful retention part. In addition, during a meeting in Bedminster, NJ, the OTTIASAFG intimated that a document that he was waving around contained classified information and the people in the room did not have the required security clearances to view that information.

As to Biden, his lawyers / aides found some classified documents in Biden's old Penn Biden Center offices in November, 2022. Biden told them to contact NARA immediately and turn the documents over to the government. In December, a Biden lawyer found some additional documents in Biden's home. Biden had about a dozen classified documents when all was said and done and he cooperated with the government every step of the way.

Pence's document thingy was even less than Biden's.

But, coming full circle, I will ask you the same question that I posed earlier. "If Biden or Obama or Hillary had done the things that the OTTIASAFG is charged with, would you consider them to be guilty? A simple "yes" or "no" will be sufficient. ".

[EihTooms]

Then why did Trump push all NATO members hard to spend a minimum of 2% of GDP on defense? And why did Trump place sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline which made it difficult for Gazprom to complete the project? Sanctions which Biden promptly waived upon becoming president?

Do you think Trump would have done that if Putin really had "Kompromat" on him? For example, do you think Putin was using a videotape of Trump directing two hookers to urinate in Obama's bed to blackmail him?

You mean this classic Repub move to, among other things, step in front of a trend to take credit for what had already been done by the Dem before him?

FACT CHECK: Trump's Claims On NATO Spending
July 11, 2018

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/11/62813...-nato-spending

The Claim:
Trump sought to take credit in Brussels for NATO allies spending more:

"This year, since our last meeting, commitments have been made for over $40 billion more money spent by other countries."

Exaggeration:
NATO reported on July 10 that spending by European members increased from last fiscal year to the current fiscal year by about $35 billion.

The increased spending predates Trump.

And this showy bit of phony, empty political theater that accomplished nothing on behalf of America or our allies but managed, mysteriously, to still embolden and strenthened Russia's leverage in Europe?

Trump Imposes Sanctions To Stop Nord Stream 2 But Its Too late

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekea...-its-too-late/

Donald Trump last night signed into law sanctions from the U.S. Congress against companies involved in constructing a new gas pipeline between Russia and Germany. But analysts say the Trump administration dithered too long for these sanctions to stop the projects completion.

The sanctions, part of an overall defence bill, will allow the U.S. to deny visas and block the property of individuals and companies financing the project. The U.S. says the $11 billion Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russian oil giant Gazprom, which follows the route of the existing Nord Stream 1 pipeline under the Baltic Sea, would make the European Union even more dependent on Russian gas than it already is. It has been joined in these objections by Poland and other Eastern European countries. The bill describes the pipeline as a tool of coercion.

However the main countries involved in the pipelines construction, Russia and Germany, suspect the U.S. is using energy security concerns as a smokescreen for its own economic interests. Sitting on a glut of gas supply from the shale gas boom, the U.S. is eager to export the surplus to Europe on tankers in the form of liquified natural gas (LNG). It is believed the pipeline would dampen EU demand and make it less economically interesting to build the expensive LNG port terminals necessary to import American gas.

The European Union has identified overdependence on Russian gas as a security threat, with the country currently supplying about 40% of the EUs gas. Official approval of the pipeline at EU level has been blocked at EU level, but there is ongoing litigation over whether the EU could even block the pipeline if it wanted to. Energy sourcing is a national competence in the EU.

Though the pipeline project remains controversial and unpopular in Europe, Trumps attacks have only seemed to cause European leaders to rally around the project. The issue came to a head at a NATO summit in Brussels last year, where Trump attacked Germany for accepting the pipeline, while at the same time casting doubt on whether the U.S. would defend the country if it was attacked by Russia.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has condemned the U.S. sanctions, with her foreign minister Heiko Maas saying the sanctions amounted to "interference in autonomous decisions taken in Europe".

European energy policy is being decided in Europe, not in the US, he said.

An EU spokesperson told the AFP news agency that it opposes the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate business.

Too late

Opposition to the pipeline has been bipartisan in America, with both Republicans and Democrats saying it would have security implications for Europe. The fear is that Moscow can threaten Brussels with shutting off the taps unless the EU does what it says. They also believe the pipeline is an effort to bypass Ukraine, the country through which most Russian gas to the EU now flows. Eliminating this route would reduce Ukraines political leverage in its ongoing conflict with Russia.

But aside from the NATO summit outburst, the Trump administration has shown limited interest in Congresss objection to the pipeline over the past three years. In the mean time, construction has progressed at breakneck speed.

Already last year it was clear that the pipeline was probably unstoppable unless the U.S. took immediate action, which it did not. Since then, Denmark has given the last approval needed for the project. The company constructing Nord Stream 2 says it is now 83% finished, with 2,042 kilometers (1,270 miles) already laid at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. They say the last section through Danish territorial waters, approved after a long delay in October, can be constructed in just five weeks

The pipeline is expected to start pumping gas midway through next year.

Administration officials have told U.S. news outlets off the record that they know the sanctions are too late to stop Nord Stream 2, but adopting the sanctions now is intended as a shot across the bow to stop future projects. The sanctions also target Turkstream, a pipeline bringing gas from Russia to Turkey. However the move will also be too late to stop that pipeline.

The Trump administrations delay in taking meaningful action against Nord Stream has caused immense frustration in the U.S. Congress. However, observers say even the limited U.S. interference that did occur prompted a backlash in Europe that was not helpful to the cause of those against the pipeline an unlikely grouping of environmentalists, Atlanticists and Eastern European nationalists.

The Trump administration now has 60 days to identify companies and individuals providing services on the pipeline. Those targeted by the sanctions would then have 30 days to wind down their operations. Allseas, a Swiss-Dutch offshore energy company laying pipes for the project, said in a statement today it will proceed, consistent with the legislations wind down provision, and expect guidance comprising of the necessary regulatory, technical and environmental clarifications from the relevant U.S. authority.

While this could pose difficulties for the project in its final months, by the time the list-drafting process is complete, construction of the pipeline is expected to have been completed. By that point one of the only companies left to target may be Gazprom, which is already the subject of U.S. and EU sanctions.

Though the economic impact of the sanctions may be minimal, the political implications could be severe. The move has caused a further rift between the EU and U.S., at a time when European trust in the American government is already at an unprecedented low.