Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
From my viewpoint it might appear that Cohen's law firm (that is to say, who are representing him) have dropped the case because after lokoing at the documents they have realised he is clearly guilty and they don't have any chance of a successful defence. This may be completely wrong on several points, of course.

Are your lawyers allowed to dump you under such circumstance if it was actually true?

Lawyers will defend you even if you're clearly guilty. You still deserve legal representation.

The guys Cohen hired were rumoured to cost several hundred thousand a week, and that money was all poured in to fighting over every single bit of correspondence the FBI had captured, claiming it was protected under attorney/client privilege. That strategy went nowhere, almost nothing was deemed protected, because Cohen was doing almost no work for Trump as a lawyer.

In the wake of that, it makes sense to fire you're insanely expensive legal outfit, and get one costing 1/50 as much as you move to the next stage.

As to whether this means Cohen is flipping, I doubt it. I mean, I have no idea if Cohen is flipping or not, but him firing his legal staff isn't a sign he is. Other guys who've turned state's did change lawyers, but the immediately hired specialist lawyers who negotiate deals with the feds. There is no way Cohen is going to negotiate a deal like that without a specialist lawyer.

So I think the most likely thing at this point is Cohen has no idea what his next step is, so he's cut the lawyers he can't afford, and is fumbling for a new plan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Asking for details on North Korean denuclearization verification beyond "The President Said So" is a ridiculous and insulting question.

This is the pattern with almost all the Trump administration officials today - they make an absurd claim, and when the obvious question comes they make a big show of being angry that the question is even being asked, just so they can avoid having to answer the question.

But the Iran deal was just unworkable and unverifiable...

There is no possible way anyone can honestly reach the point where the Iran deal was bad, but this debacle with NK is promising. It is not possible. But almost all of the right keeps claiming, which tells you everything you need to know about the state of intellectual honesty on the US right wing today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
When you see NK and SK leaders meeting on camera shaking hands in front of the rest of the world? You don't see progress? Mind boggling.That is due to Trump BTW.

A South Korean ran for the presidency committing to friendlier terms with North Korea, the South Koreans elected him, that South Korean pursued negotiations with the North, and then took the terms of those talks to Trump.

And according to SickSix that is all due to Trump. This is ridiculous.

While the summit didn't produce anything substantial - I am sure their next meeting will.

And I am sure when the next stage of negotiations falls apart, or ends with NK still not committing to anything of substance, you will simply drop away from dakka from the politics thread for a month or two.

This is actually a very standard way to open up diplomatic talks with a nation - the criticism of it is totally unjustified. He is talking it up a little to much but it's Trump - hes not going to stop being a loud mouth.

Absolute balderdash. I challenge you to provide a single negotiation in the history of the US where they started by making concessions in exchange for a nothing. You must be able to provide a single deal with the US president heaping praise on a tyrant guilty of mass human rights abuses.

I mean, for you to know this NK deal is normal, you must know of lots of other deals which began exactly the same way. And if you can't list even a single deal that was similarly began, well...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Humm - sounds like BS. I've watched several docs on NK/SK relations and this was never mentioned. Never with the current Kim Jong anyways.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. In 2000 the SK president met with Kim Jong-il. In 2007 Kim Jong-il met with the next SK president.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
More likely Kim is completely out of money to run his regime and needs access to foreign capital and/or critical food/resource imports. That's typically what drives NK reproachment.

The NK economy has actually been doing pretty well lately. It's growing at about 4%, and while its base is so low it is not going to catch up in real terms to SK or anyone else any time soon, it would be helping the NK coffers quite nicely.

I think its more likely that NK, having reached a stage where it can semi-reliably fire a nuke armed missile quite a long way, is now looking to transform that power in to legitimacy and concessions from the US. And while they've got an easy mark like Trump on the other side, what better time to come to the table?

 Vulcan wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

But that was forty years ago. I'd be willing to let bygones be bygones, IF the current government were to apologize for it. If they did, I'd certainly be willing to apologize for the overthrow of the pre-Shah elected government in return. That was a truly thing for America to have done, regardless of our concern about potential communist nations being founded in the mideast. Indeed, HAD they apologized for the hostages, I'd bet either Clinton or Obama would have apologized for overthrowing the pre-Shah government.

But darn it, Iran needs to acknowledge THEY screwed up too, in a very diplomacy-breaking manner.

On the other hand the US has done some gakky things it never apologized for either. Supporting Iraq, shooting down a civilian airliner, indeed the whole CIA debacle.

Take it on a global level, the US has done a lot of very undiplomatic things it never apologized for. Its a bit odd to expect everyone to start apologizing before you can make progress. Its entirely unrelated to the type of progress you want to make as well, its a step you take after the initial agreement goes well. To drag it to NK, NK has killed multiple US soldiers in violation of the ceasefire, but NK has never really been requested to apologize for it. Now if an agreement comes out of this, then you can start looking at apologies.

The problem is you're overlooking Iran's GROSS breech of diplomatic procedure.

Ever wonder why diplomats are immune to prosecution - the famed 'diplomatic immunity'? It's to keep the government of a nation from trumping up charges and imprisoning accredited diplomatic officials to extort concessions from the nation they represent. Diplomats need to be free to act on behalf of their nation in a diplomatic role. If you can't trust the government you're talking to to NOT kill, torment, or imprison your diplomats, how do you talk to them? That's why diplomatic immunity exists, and why for hundreds of years here in the west only the most uncivilized nations would attack an accredited diplomat.

I can accept that students on a rampage might have started things. I can see the Marines on guard not being willing (or ordered not to) shoot a horde of unarmed, ununiformed people. But when we did get our people back, their reports CLEARLY told us that they were held by the Iranian military for virtually their entire captivity... and they were not treated well, either.

Let's go over that again. The Iranian military - an agency of the Iranian government - held our accredited diplomats in violation of all international law and tradition, and tormented if not tortured them. The U.S.S.R. never went that far. Heck, even NORTH KOREA never went that far. It's pretty much a declaration of unrestricted war. "We're so against you we don't even care to talk to you anymore" is what they said when they did that. The only thing that kept America from wiping Iran off the map at that point was the certainty of Soviet intervention once Iran was on the ropes, and America's overall preoccupation with the Soviets in the first place.

The dick moves you point out afterwards - supporting Iraq, the downing of the airliner, the sanctions - all were in response to that violation of international law and tradition and undeclared war.

I never said America shouldn't apologize for it's dick moves. But Iran HAS TO make the first move to rehabilitate that quintessentially uncivilized act to reopen formal communications with America. It HAS TO apologize for what it did, and promise not to do it again. Only then can diplomatic process begin again.

It was a gross breach of diplomatic procedure. But diplomatic immunity is only one part of international law. Its important sure, but nowhere does it say its a crime trumping shooting down a civilian airliner or organizing a coup. A declaration of unrestricted war makes little sense either. The downing of the airliner is a clear breach of international law too, one that could be considered a war crime. North Korea has comitted acts just as terrible, even if it didn't fall under the diplomatic immunity aspect of international law.

Now that doesn't mean Iran shouldn't apologize, but setting it as a prerequisite for restarting the diplomatic process is a bit much. With it, we would have never gotten the Iran deal. And it damages long term prospects of rebuilding relations with Iran. A lot of the younger people aren't anti Western, but treating them by the standards of 40 years ago is steadily pushing them towards it. You have to be pragmatic in your approach, the US isn't averse to being pragmatic over the morally superior road either.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The sooner imagined racism like this disappears the sooner humanity can move forward in social harmony.

When he attempted to defend the FEMA performance in PR, Trump said the issue was lazy Puerto Ricans who wanted everything done for them.

So no, there is nothing imagined about the racial element to the Trump administration's pathetic FEMA response. However, in this case the racism isn't just on the part of Trump and his supporters. There is racism throughout this. The news media barely covered the build up to Maria in PR, despite clear signs it was going to be vastly bigger than the heavily covered incidents in Texas etc. And in the wake of the failed FEMA response, as the bodies piled up, coverage remained almost nil, a tiny fraction of the New Orleans disaster. When it was covered, it was almost always done as a means to attack Trump, not out of actual concern for people being denied basic services.

So yeah, racism is a big part of why a whole lot of people in PR have died. But this time it is way to easy to say it was just Trump and call it a day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
"A.G. Eric Schneiderman, are doing everything they can to sue me on a foundation that took in $18,800,000 and gave out to charity more money than it took in, $19,200,000. I won’t settle this case!"
#Trump
Hummm....that is interesting. I'd start with trying to disprove that statement.

That's bonkers. The requirements of a charity don't begin and end with getting rid of the money. What the money is spent on and why it is spent there matters.

Here's Lewandowski, then Trump campaign manager, straight up telling the foundation he wants disbursements to Iowa groups to come out before the Iowa caucus.


Here's Trump campaign staff, with explicit approval from Trump, dictating to the Foundation where to spend the cash.


And here's a Foundation staffer asking the Trump campaign which organisations should receive money, and how much each should get.


You know when people went looking in to the Clinton Foundation for criminal activity, and the right wingers were all certain there would be this vast treasure trove of illegality. It is stuff like those three instances that was being looked for. They found nothing of the sort with the Clinton Foundation, but here with Trump we've have it, plain as day, in the most brazen form you can imagine, Trump campaign staff directing the Trump Foundation to make disbursements clearly intended to benefit the Trump campaign.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The Clintons are in the league of their own of liars and con men (woman).

25 years of right wingers searching for anything they can get on the Clintons, including many years of Republicans using government powers to investigate. In the end the grand total of criminal activity ever found against either Clinton was Bill lying about an affair.

But you continue to believe they're corrupt despite nothing but accusations and no evidence for 25 years. It isn't even politics any more, it's an article of blind faith. It's like the holy trinity, the Bill, the Hillary and the immaculate corruption.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Funnily enough, Sarah Sanders defends the Trump Foundation by saying "The foundation raised $18 million and gave nearly $19 million to charity while having virtually zero in expenses."

As it happens, that's exactly the defense offered by supporters of the Clinton Foundation.

No, it's not, that's completely false.

It was pointed out that the Clinton Foundation had low overheads, but that was in response to the specific, dishonest charge that only a small percentage of Foundation activity was spent on organisational goals.

The defense of the Clinton Foundation against charges of criminality was that there was not a single instance of Foundation funds being motivated by political motives.

Whereas with the Trump administation, it is absolutely clear funds were paid for political ends, as directed by the Trump campaign.

I am just going to repeat/paraphrase this;

------------------------------------------------------

We are dealing with people that uncritically accepts any statement (no matter how ridiculous), and completely blocks out when the statement is disproven or no evidence is presented in support of the statement.
We are talking about people who says; "Democrats are criminals", and in the back of their heads, they go;

- Hillary knowingly and deceitfully mishandled 30.000 Top Secret e-mails
- Hillary sold 20% of US' uranium to Russia
- Obama wiretapped Trump in Trump Tower
- Hillary was the cause of Benghazi
- A lot of Democrats are pedophiles, that had secret meetings in a pizza parlour
- Barack Obama isn't an American
- The Nunes Memo proves that the DOJ abused FISA warrants
- The Steele Dossier has been completely disproven
- Obama is the father of ISIS
- Hillary would have started WW3 with Russia over Syria
- Democrats wants to allow everybody (and especially "Muslim terrorists") into the US - with no vetting whatsoever.
- Obama gave millions to Iran to support terrorism
- CNN was raided by the FCC for deceiving the American public
- Hillary has had several people killed because they "knew too much"
- Nancy Pelosi was arrested by the Secret Service for an attempted coup against the US President.

Facts do not matter to these people. It doesn't matter if the ridiculous statements are later shown to be misleading or plain wrong.
The damage has been done, and the statements have already taken part in forming the opinions of these people.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I guess that can be summarised with; "publicly marinated in corruption for 25 years and under a thoroughly justified FBI investigation in 2016".

 whembly wrote:
Um... that was an article seb, I didn't write.

I know you didn't write it. I also know you didn't put it there because you know it was junk nonsense.

Pick up a mirror buddy. We're all cheering for our team. Own it.

You realise you just admitted you're on team Trump. I mean, we all know you've been flirting with it for a while, but I think the announcement should have been a little more special than this.

It's like a couple who've dating for ages and we're all waiting for them to announce the engagement, and they think they're playing it cool by just dropping it to a lull in the conversation one night.

Shout it from the rooftops, whembly. You and Trump are finally hitched.

So much for "Never Trump".

So, who won the bet from the US election thread on how long it would take Whembly to join the Trumptrain?

Steelmage99 wrote:
Facts do not matter to these people. It doesn't matter if the ridiculous statements are later shown to be misleading or plain wrong.
The damage has been done, and the statements have already taken part in forming the opinions of these people.

Yep, just look at this IG report that's just been released. Trump and his apparatchiks hyped this up, bigly. It was the report that was gonna throw a whole new light on the FBI and prove it's all a corrupt organisation pulling for Clinton. After the wire tap, the Nunes midnight run, unmasking, the Steele dossier, the Nunes memo, spygate and probably bunch of others I'm forgetting, Trump asked his supporters to believe that this time Trump's accusation is actually going to amount to something. And his supporters believed it, as they always did.

Then, today, the IG released the report and while it notes the FBI screwed up a bunch of processes, it plainly states there was not a single point of evidence suggesting political bias in the investigation.

Is there a single Trumper out there questioning whether Trump should be believed? Nope. And next month when some lunatic on reddit invests a new theory about discrediting the FBI that works its way through conservative media before Trump latches on to it, all those same true believers will be there, believing that this is the one.

The point is that Trump and the GOP are not genius mind-control fiends who have the power of brain-washing ordinary people to believe their claptrap.

The point is that a lot of people dislike the progressive movement in general for various reasons of identity insecurity, sexism. and similar biases. Not all of them of course, but a significant number.

These people want to hear messages that tell them the proggresive movement is wrong, bad, illegal, and thereby justify and confirm their emotional state, so they lap up Trump's lies and ignore the facts that contradict them.

It doesn't matter what the report says. All his supporters are going to home in on is Strzok(?) and Page from this report. That more wasn't uncovered is just through the efforts of more Clinton supporters in the deep state like them. Once Trump wakes up we can expect a tweet where he sees things in the report that aren't there. Just long enough to distract and obscure the facts until something else newsworthy happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well speaking of the other newsworthy thing, I forgot to mention that Trump is probably going to announce a new round of tariffs against China today, running in the tens of billions. Meanwhile China has already lined up countermeasures specifically to hit Trump's supporter base. This might hurt his base pretty badly once harvest season comes around.

Some people in this thread are really coming across as the Americans that the rest of the world hates. Not the forward thinkers, the idealists or the inventors that brought the rest of the world forward (at a profit), but seem to be the regressive cavemen that think the entire world revovles around America, and that the only positive change could possibly come about because an American president deigned it.

Trump supporters arent chanting for a Nobel anymore aftee he ripped up the Iran deal, at least. The idea of him winning one after that is pretty laughable.

The SK president though...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Meanwhile China has already lined up countermeasures specifically to hit Trump's supporter base. This might hurt his base pretty badly once harvest season comes around.

Don't worry.
They will blame it on the (supposedly) bad economy that President Obama left the country with (despite evidence to the contrary), and use it as an argument why they need four more years to "clear up the mess".
Unfortunately enough of Americans are ignorant and unintelligent enough to accept that as actually being the case.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point is that Trump and the GOP are not genius mind-control fiends who have the power of brain-washing ordinary people to believe their claptrap.

The point is that a lot of people dislike the progressive movement in general for various reasons of identity insecurity, sexism. and similar biases. Not all of them of course, but a significant number.

These people want to hear messages that tell them the proggresive movement is wrong, bad, illegal, and thereby justify and confirm their emotional state, so they lap up Trump's lies and ignore the facts that contradict them.

This post is exceedingly similar to the discussion that got this thread locked 2 weeks ago.

I mean, I totally agree! 100%, I think it should be fair to call the people who looked at a man with a strong history of racist comments and actions, who mocked a disabled reported live on TV, who bragged about sexual assault, attacked gold star families, mocked war heroes, and so on; and decided "yeah, I'm OK with this" on their bs. I think it's totally OK to speculate that they are largely sexist, just as you did above (and some, I presume, are good people). I think it's self evident, and I think it's a little intellectually dishonest that we should all pretend that's not the truth because maybe they see babies being taken away from immigrant mothers while breastfeeding and feel a tiny twinge of buyers remorse; because it makes them uncomfortable to be reminded of their moral flexibility and the completely foreseeable outcome.

I think it's OK to remind them that we got exactly what was advertised. So is that OK again? I am 100% ready to get on board that train.

I was very careful to make the remarks as general as possible, avoid racism, and to point out that there are GOP supporters who aren't -ists.

Perhaps US social and political life is so fethed up that this thread should be locked in a dungeon and forgotten about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To get us back on safer ice, here is an article from arch-capitalist rag The Economist on Trump's Singapore Summit.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The USA invaded France, Holland, Italy, Germany, Japan and Tunisia in WW2, and maybe some others.

Is that part of your metrics for saying the USA is very agressive?

Leaving aside the invasion and near genocide of the Native Americans, there's Mexico, Cuba, the Philippines, (we'll call the WWII and Korean actions self-defense), Cuba again, Laos and Cambodia (during Vietnam), Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanstan, and Iraq again.

And I'm sure I've missed at least one that's hovering in the back of my mind.

Drop in the bucket compared to Italy, look at all those countries Rome invaded. Don't get me started on Mongolia.

...Or we can understand that it's unproductive to be bringing up things from over a century ago when trying to discuss how the US acts in the context of modern geopolitics. Further, what country in all of human history has not been aggressive when it is the dominant military power? If we look at the greater picture the US doesn't stand out.

Mongolia has never invaded anyone. Italy only exists as a country since 1861, it already has plenty of invasions to its name but not nearly as much as the US. You are referring to events that are so long ago that present-day peoples and countries did not even exist yet. That is a big difference from events that are only a century or just two centuries ago. That is recent history.
In modern times, the US definitely stands out. Other dominant military powers, notably the Soviet Union and China, have also been aggressive, but the US has taken aggression to entirely new levels. The US has invaded lots and lots of places in a very short timeframe. It really should not be surprise that that makes other countries see the US as overly militaristic and aggressive, and that it makes countries opposed to the US very, very nervous. Things that happened a century ago are most certainly not irrelevant in the context of modern geopolitics. Quite the contrary, past events usually have a very long-lasting impact on geopolitics and having an extensive knowledge of past events is key to understanding geopolitics.

The Bill The Hillary and the Immaculate Corruption might just be some of the funniest things to ever come out of a US politics thread and I think we should all just clap our hands for a moment cause damn DakkaDakka OT That’s fetching funny

 Vulcan wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Is it imagined though? Trump's campaign had very clear racist tones, along with him never really denouncing any of his racist supporters, and just the opposite in fact.

It is absolutely imagined. What are the racist tones you are speaking about? I assume you mean "Muslim ban" and the "fine people on both sides" issues?

Or the gakhole countries, the Mexicans are rapists, wanting more Norwegians etc.

So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.

You know how you look at Mexicans?

That's how Norwegians look at us, BECAUSE of how you look at Mexicans.

That is because they are snobs and havn't had the migration crisis we are having. Aprox 12 Million illegal immigrants over the last 2 decades. Nearly 3 times the population of Norway. Imagine if Norway had to take that on? Their tone would change quite quickly. It's rather absurd to want people to be nice to people literally invading your territory.

You haven't had a crisis.

12 million people over 20 years is 600,000 a year, which is about 0.2% of the resident US population per year (averaged).

If you got on a crowded train in New York, one out of all of the passengers might be an illegal immigrant.

You've had over 14 million legal immigrants in the same period.

Plus, you've been deporting about half the illegals per year.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I was very careful to make the remarks as general as possible, avoid racism, and to point out that there are GOP supporters who aren't -ists.

Perhaps US social and political life is so fethed up that this thread should be locked in a dungeon and forgotten about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To get us back on safer ice, here is an article from arch-capitalist rag The Economist on Trump's Singapore Summit.

So generalizing Trump supporters as racists is bad but generalizing a significant portion of Trump supporters/anti-Progressives whatever those are, as sexists is fine because sexism isn’t racism?

That kind of gross generalization of people is the same as before. Just like when Hillary blamed losing votes on women who were oppressed/intimidated by their husbands into voting for Trump. Sure it might have happened somewhere but there’s zero evidence that it happened for sure or that it happened frequently enough to have any significant impact.

Trump has said and done sexist things and it’s certainly possible/likely that some people who voted for Trump are sexist. However, it is a giant unfounded leap to say that a significant portion of the 62 million Trump voters are sexist. It smacks of I don’t like Trump, I don’t like Trump supporters, Trump supporters are sexist bad people.

OK, let's lock the thread.