US & NA Politics Thread

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.

**Ustrello**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Is this actually happening?

Honestly after the last page or so we just need to put rosebuddy in the bad faith poster pile and be done with him

**Formosa**

skyth wrote:
Formosa wrote:
they claim oppression while oppressing, they claim victimhood while attacking, they deny science and reason in favour of “feelings”

They also have full support of the media (as I found out recently) most of the movie industry in the U.K. and US and universities, yet still claim oppression, they are openly racist, bigoted and sexist and STILL claim oppression.

Good description of Trump supporters there...

Absolutely, just because one side does it doesn’t mean it’s ok for the other side to do it, I’ve seem plenty of videos of them playing the victim card too.

**Disciple of Fate**

Formosa wrote:
Feeder I can show you a video of your president playing the identity politics game, it’s not just the extremists, it’s become mainstream in several counties and IS mainstream in US universities, even the U.K. is starting to suffer the same kind of insanity, it’s extremists here, it’s the norm in your country.

It was always mainstream. Identity politics are inherent to politics. Trump is just the most obvious one. The dog whistle that has been in use since before Reagan, which is just identity politics by another name. The same can be said for identity politics at university. What can say is that in current times the more extreme elements have a reach they didn't have before social media (more extreme positions in the 1980's-90's had less of a platform) but it isn't exactly new. Both political wings more than happily engage in it.

**Formosa**

Rosebuddy wrote:
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Rose buddy, bubbe, please stop using a narrow definition of a word that has a different, obvious, and intuitive meaning outside of academic circles. You are sowing confusion and hurting your cause, and by extension the vulnerable in society.

I use a definition of racism that I consider to be the more useful one in identifying what the actual problem is. By removing the material factors and saying that racism is using mean words based on someone's skin colour you coincidentally leave the gates open for whites to complain endlessly about racism against whites. That accomplishes nothing. It doesn't get to the core of inequality. It doesn't help you in any way to formulate how to end inequality.

Formosa wrote:
Mate you have it spot on, these far left extremists are completely ruining the reputation of the entire left, their entire ideology is so steeped in extremes that anyone that is slightly less extreme is called alt right, as if they actually know what that is, they claim oppression while oppressing, they claim victimhood while attacking, they deny science and reason in favour of “feelings”

They also have full support of the media (as I found out recently) most of the movie industry in the U.K. and US and universities, yet still claim oppression, they are openly racist, bigoted and sexist and STILL claim oppression.

And because of them the right is continuing to gain ground and they have even legitimised the far right (not alt right), they are the reason for the rise of the right across the West in political parties.

I wish they would just grow up...

Oh look, it's the literal neo-nazi propaganda again.

Spoiler:

Yet again you show that you are not and have never been a leftist. The reason the far right is on the rise is that material conditions are deteriorating as capitalism grinds to a halt in the face of gutted purchasing power, saturated markets and now increasing climate change, and the middle class is becoming more and more accepting of violence as a means of keeping what they have and getting what they feel they're being robbed of. The notion that leftists are to blame for state power looking the other way as fascism grows is not simply wrong, it's an obvious lie. Nobody genuinely believes it. It's a propaganda trick meant to scapegoat leftists and mobilise reactionaries against them.

I can also guarantee to anyone here that the corporate mass media does, in fact, not remotely support leftism. You're thinking of liberals trying to put a nice face on capitalism but having it all ring hollow because they can't do anything about the core of the system.

Just presenting the evidence I have seen, come out of your bubble and take even a cursory glance around and you can see it too, I used to believe in what you believe, I don’t anymore, I’m not going to apologise for looking at the way the left has changed during my life time and it’s turned me away from what I now consider extreme ideology.

Claiming that I have never been a leftist because I have adapted my views based on new information just shows me how little you actually bring to the conversation, you are so hide bound by your ideology you refuse and cannot even consider that a person who shared your ideals could change, Rosebuddy... I feel sorry for you, I really do.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and Rosebuddy, re posting that clear propaganda piece again doesn’t help your stance, it weakens it.

**LordofHats**

I real tired to this stupid identity politics shtick.

All politics are identity politics. Politics exist because identity exists and vice versa.

You might as well complain that water is wet.

**Formosa**

LordofHats wrote:
I real tired to this stupid identity politics shtick.

All politics are identity politics. Politics exist because identity exists and vice versa.

You might as well complain that water is wet.

With all due respect I disagree, the problem is when you reduce the argument down to “you are white, Male and are privileged, therefore you don’t have an opinion that is valid”

Or

“All black people need help as they are repressed”

All you end up doing is divide people along racial, sexual and gender lines, sowing discord, politics is complicated and rightly so, people are so varied and a lot smarter than they are given credit for and identity politics reduces any discourse to its basest level.

You need to win arguments based on merits, you can’t just throw the race, gender, sexuality card in and expect your opponent to shut up.

**Kilkrazy**

Ustrello wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Is this actually happening?

Honestly after the last page or so we just need to put rosebuddy in the bad faith poster pile and be done with him

I mean is it really true that there are prominent black news commentators like the stature of Alex Jones who are dissing Jewish people?

**Disciple of Fate**

But that's pretending other forms of identity politics weren't already dividing people along those lines for decades before the above described form got some traction. Its been used to put down others since time immemorial.

**Ustrello**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Is this actually happening?

Honestly after the last page or so we just need to put rosebuddy in the bad faith poster pile and be done with him

I mean is it really true that there are prominent black news commentators like the stature of Alex Jones who are dissing Jewish people?

I mean I am sure you have heard of Louis Farrakhan right? While not a news commentator he has the same if not a larger stature than jones

**LordofHats**

Formosa wrote:

With all due respect I disagree, the problem is when you reduce the argument down to “you are white, Male and are privileged, therefore you don’t have an opinion that is valid”

“All black people need help as they are repressed”

So long as the status quo consists of a perceived white majority that votes against relief of perceived disenfranchisement of repressed groups you're going to have a political rhetoric that dismisses the white majority's opposition as invalid and that presents the repressed groups as repressed. It's a complete stereotype, and about as bad as any stereotype, but getting rid of that involves changing status quo perceptions. Know what doesn't do that? A political party predominantly made of white judeo-christians complaining about identity politics, as if white judeo-christians all agreeing that identity politics suck isn't identity politics itself.

**Asherian Command**

Some interesting news:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/400936-trumps-lawyers-reject-muellers-latest-terms-for-interview-report

President Trump’s legal team in the Russia investigation reportedly rebuffed special counsel Robert Mueller’s conditions for an interview on Wednesday, instead suggesting a more limited line of questioning.

The New York Times reported that attorneys Jay Sekulow and Rudy Giuliani did not completely reject an interview, but instead countered Mueller’s offer with another one of their own. The lawyers did not comment on the specifics of their proposal, but sources told the newspaper that it rules out potential questions about obstruction of justice.

“We’re restating what we have been saying for months: It is time for the Office of the Special Counsel to conclude its inquiry without further delay,” Giuliani told The New York Times.

The response is the latest gesture in a long-running back-and-forth between Trump’s legal team and Mueller’s team in an effort to establish ground rules for a presidential interview.

The Washington Post reported last week that Mueller was contemplating reducing the number of questions he planned to ask about obstruction of justice during a sit-down interview. He would instead allow Trump to submit some of his responses on that topic in writing.

The New York Times recently reported that Mueller's team is looking at Trump's tweets about former FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Jeff Sessions as part of a broader investigation into whether the president obstructed justice.

Trump has insisted publicly that he wants to speak with Mueller, as he maintains he did not collude with Russia in the 2016 election. He has simultaneously blasted the special counsel’s investigation as a “witch hunt,” and called Russian interference a “hoax.”

His legal team has consistently cautioned against Trump sitting down with Mueller, warning that investigators could catch Trump perjuring himself if he contradicts other witnesses.

Even so, Giuliani has at various times in recent months indicated the two sides continued to negotiate on an interview, blowing through multiple self-imposed deadlines for when he expected to have a firm answer on the matter.

The former New York City mayor told The Hill on Tuesday that there was no self-imposed deadline to cut off negotiations on an interview, but said “it feels like” it is getting close to a conclusion.

Soon, Giuliani said, “we’re going to find out who is going to give on the things that are important.”

If the two sides cannot come to an agreement, it sets up the possibility that Mueller could subpoena the president. Giuliani has vowed to take the special counsel to court over a subpoena.

**Formosa**

LordofHats wrote:
Formosa wrote:

With all due respect I disagree, the problem is when you reduce the argument down to “you are white, Male and are privileged, therefore you don’t have an opinion that is valid”

“All black people need help as they are repressed”

So long as the status quo consists of a perceived white majority that votes against relief of perceived disenfranchisement of repressed groups you're going to have a political rhetoric that dismisses the white majority's opposition as invalid and that presents the repressed groups as repressed. It's a complete stereotype, and about as bad as any stereotype, but getting rid of that involves changing status quo perceptions. Know what doesn't do that? A political party predominantly made of white judeo-christians complaining about identity politics, as if white judeo-christians all agreeing that identity politics suck isn't identity politics itself.

So all that being said, what would your solution be ?

**LordofHats**

Formosa wrote:

So all that being said, what would your solution be ?

Solution to what? You can't make water not wet, and maybe you can make it less polarizing but that's gonna take effort that I doubt either party will make since those issues are a big party of their identity and they'll ride those horses until it stops working and even then they'll probably just keep paying lip service to their respective ideologies like they do on foreign policy most of the time.

**whembly**

Asherian Command wrote:
Some interesting news:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/400936-trumps-lawyers-reject-muellers-latest-terms-for-interview-report

President Trump’s legal team in the Russia investigation reportedly rebuffed special counsel Robert Mueller’s conditions for an interview on Wednesday, instead suggesting a more limited line of questioning.

The New York Times reported that attorneys Jay Sekulow and Rudy Giuliani did not completely reject an interview, but instead countered Mueller’s offer with another one of their own. The lawyers did not comment on the specifics of their proposal, but sources told the newspaper that it rules out potential questions about obstruction of justice.

“We’re restating what we have been saying for months: It is time for the Office of the Special Counsel to conclude its inquiry without further delay,” Giuliani told The New York Times.

The response is the latest gesture in a long-running back-and-forth between Trump’s legal team and Mueller’s team in an effort to establish ground rules for a presidential interview.

The Washington Post reported last week that Mueller was contemplating reducing the number of questions he planned to ask about obstruction of justice during a sit-down interview. He would instead allow Trump to submit some of his responses on that topic in writing.

The New York Times recently reported that Mueller's team is looking at Trump's tweets about former FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Jeff Sessions as part of a broader investigation into whether the president obstructed justice.

Trump has insisted publicly that he wants to speak with Mueller, as he maintains he did not collude with Russia in the 2016 election. He has simultaneously blasted the special counsel’s investigation as a “witch hunt,” and called Russian interference a “hoax.”

His legal team has consistently cautioned against Trump sitting down with Mueller, warning that investigators could catch Trump perjuring himself if he contradicts other witnesses.

Even so, Giuliani has at various times in recent months indicated the two sides continued to negotiate on an interview, blowing through multiple self-imposed deadlines for when he expected to have a firm answer on the matter.

The former New York City mayor told The Hill on Tuesday that there was no self-imposed deadline to cut off negotiations on an interview, but said “it feels like” it is getting close to a conclusion.

Soon, Giuliani said, “we’re going to find out who is going to give on the things that are important.”

If the two sides cannot come to an agreement, it sets up the possibility that Mueller could subpoena the president. Giuliani has vowed to take the special counsel to court over a subpoena.

They were always going to reject any "obstruction" question...when the potus' Article II power is plenty plain that potus had the power to sack Comey.

If the questions pertains to his actions during the campaign? I think questioning those would be kosher...

**Formosa**

LordofHats wrote:
Formosa wrote:

So all that being said, what would your solution be ?

Solution to what? You can't make water not wet, and maybe you can make it less polarizing but that's gonna take effort that I doubt either party will make since those issues are a big party of their identity and they'll ride those horses until it stops working and even then they'll probably just keep paying lip service to their respective ideologies like they do on foreign policy most of the time.

I disagree with your central premise, it seems like you have reduced the extremely complicated and dificult nature of politics to the overly simplified “identity” politics, so you say that you can not make water less wet, I’m saying it’s not water In the first place, part of the reason I am disagreeing is due to a possible misunderstanding, it looks like you are talking about party identity politics, this is not what I am referring to.

So when I say what is your solution, I am asking how you would resolve the very apparent problem that this kind of politics has caused, as you say to make it less polarising.

**whembly**

Whoa:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-administration-hit-russia-new-sanctions-skripal-poisoning-n898856

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-new-sanctions-on-russia-for-nerve-agent-attack-in-england/2018/08/08/7c66b45e-9b3e-11e8-b60b-1c897f17e185_story.html?utm_term=.c03b5c4da59d

That's a pretty dang harsh response...that will almost certainly cause more diplomatic expulsions and a shutdown in trade between RU and US.

**Ustrello**

whembly wrote:
Whoa:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-administration-hit-russia-new-sanctions-skripal-poisoning-n898856

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-new-sanctions-on-russia-for-nerve-agent-attack-in-england/2018/08/08/7c66b45e-9b3e-11e8-b60b-1c897f17e185_story.html?utm_term=.c03b5c4da59d

That's a pretty dang harsh response...that will almost certainly cause more diplomatic expulsions and a shutdown in trade between RU and US.

Reading what we import from Russia, it honest is all stuff we can get elsewhere

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
Some interesting news:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/400936-trumps-lawyers-reject-muellers-latest-terms-for-interview-report

President Trump’s legal team in the Russia investigation reportedly rebuffed special counsel Robert Mueller’s conditions for an interview on Wednesday, instead suggesting a more limited line of questioning.

The New York Times reported that attorneys Jay Sekulow and Rudy Giuliani did not completely reject an interview, but instead countered Mueller’s offer with another one of their own. The lawyers did not comment on the specifics of their proposal, but sources told the newspaper that it rules out potential questions about obstruction of justice.

“We’re restating what we have been saying for months: It is time for the Office of the Special Counsel to conclude its inquiry without further delay,” Giuliani told The New York Times.

The response is the latest gesture in a long-running back-and-forth between Trump’s legal team and Mueller’s team in an effort to establish ground rules for a presidential interview.

The Washington Post reported last week that Mueller was contemplating reducing the number of questions he planned to ask about obstruction of justice during a sit-down interview. He would instead allow Trump to submit some of his responses on that topic in writing.

The New York Times recently reported that Mueller's team is looking at Trump's tweets about former FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Jeff Sessions as part of a broader investigation into whether the president obstructed justice.

Trump has insisted publicly that he wants to speak with Mueller, as he maintains he did not collude with Russia in the 2016 election. He has simultaneously blasted the special counsel’s investigation as a “witch hunt,” and called Russian interference a “hoax.”

His legal team has consistently cautioned against Trump sitting down with Mueller, warning that investigators could catch Trump perjuring himself if he contradicts other witnesses.

Even so, Giuliani has at various times in recent months indicated the two sides continued to negotiate on an interview, blowing through multiple self-imposed deadlines for when he expected to have a firm answer on the matter.

The former New York City mayor told The Hill on Tuesday that there was no self-imposed deadline to cut off negotiations on an interview, but said “it feels like” it is getting close to a conclusion.

Soon, Giuliani said, “we’re going to find out who is going to give on the things that are important.”

If the two sides cannot come to an agreement, it sets up the possibility that Mueller could subpoena the president. Giuliani has vowed to take the special counsel to court over a subpoena.

They were always going to reject any "obstruction" question...when the potus' Article II power is plenty plain that potus had the power to sack Comey.

If the questions pertains to his actions during the campaign? I think questioning those would be kosher...

Sure he has the power, but if he is doing it for reasons because Comey would not take a loyalty pledge or investigate him then no the protection from article two becomes more shaky

**Iron_Captain**

Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Whoa:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-administration-hit-russia-new-sanctions-skripal-poisoning-n898856

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-new-sanctions-on-russia-for-nerve-agent-attack-in-england/2018/08/08/7c66b45e-9b3e-11e8-b60b-1c897f17e185_story.html?utm_term=.c03b5c4da59d

That's a pretty dang harsh response...that will almost certainly cause more diplomatic expulsions and a shutdown in trade between RU and US.

Reading what we import from Russia, it honest is all stuff we can get elsewhere

Except for asbestos and enriched uranium apparently. And spaceships.
But yeah, for the most part trade between Russia and the US is non-existent, which is why sanctions on exports/imports have had little and will continue to have little to no impact. This new round of sanctions is just for show, so that Trump can pretend that he is though on Russia and definitely not a Kremlin puppet.

**thekingofkings**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Whoa:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-administration-hit-russia-new-sanctions-skripal-poisoning-n898856

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-new-sanctions-on-russia-for-nerve-agent-attack-in-england/2018/08/08/7c66b45e-9b3e-11e8-b60b-1c897f17e185_story.html?utm_term=.c03b5c4da59d

That's a pretty dang harsh response...that will almost certainly cause more diplomatic expulsions and a shutdown in trade between RU and US.

Reading what we import from Russia, it honest is all stuff we can get elsewhere

Except for asbestos and enriched uranium apparently. And spaceships.
But yeah, for the most part trade between Russia and the US is non-existent, which is why sanctions on exports/imports have had little and will continue to have little to no impact. This new round of sanctions is just for show, so that Trump can pretend that he is though on Russia and definitely not a Kremlin puppet.

for us gamers, ring of rule.

**Prestor Jon**

Vaktathi wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

There's a lot of narcissism inherent in social media. People really don't need a window into your stream of consciousness and most likely your tweets are oversharing. So many tweets that get people in trouble come across like the people who tweeted them thought that twitter was just like a group text with their friends. DM that joke to your friends or make that comment as a text to your buddy but don't just put it on Facebook or Twitter to be judged by the world.
Aye, a lot of people dont get that. In some ways I find these platforms to be something of a great social filter, weeding out those who lack judgement and foresight. It's one thing to make an offensive joke or statement in private company in a specific context, its another to shout it out to the world emblazoned with your name and face.

Twitter is especially bad, as that entire platform is basically set up to literally just shout into cyberspace. It's a terrible, nonfunctional platform for actual meaningful dialogue, it's really mostly a platform for ranting almost more than anything else, little of value would be lost if it disappeared entirely tomorrow

LordofHats wrote:
I think there's a lot of narcissism inherent in people. Social media just makes it obvious.

Formosa wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Formosa wrote:

So all that being said, what would your solution be ?

Solution to what? You can't make water not wet, and maybe you can make it less polarizing but that's gonna take effort that I doubt either party will make since those issues are a big party of their identity and they'll ride those horses until it stops working and even then they'll probably just keep paying lip service to their respective ideologies like they do on foreign policy most of the time.

I disagree with your central premise, it seems like you have reduced the extremely complicated and dificult nature of politics to the overly simplified “identity” politics, so you say that you can not make water less wet, I’m saying it’s not water In the first place, part of the reason I am disagreeing is due to a possible misunderstanding, it looks like you are talking about party identity politics, this is not what I am referring to.

So when I say what is your solution, I am asking how you would resolve the very apparent problem that this kind of politics has caused, as you say to make it less polarising.

This seems relevant because it’s a good point that humanity and politics really hasn’t changed but that the internet/social media exacerbated our flaws that we’ve known about forever and like most things we really don’t put much thought into mitigating the problem.

https://youtu.be/Rf2pqa-tbm4

**Ensis Ferrae**

Formosa wrote:

So when I say what is your solution, I am asking how you would resolve the very apparent problem that this kind of politics has caused, as you say to make it less polarising.

The way to fix it would be a sure way to be a one term congress-person. . . Fact based policy.

By this I mean if you are presented with an issue, say. . . Tribbles are eating all the produce. In today's political landscape, you have too many politicians in the pocket of the Tribble lobby and anti-tribble lobby. The way you "fix" it, is to look at the problem, look at testable solutions, and make decisions that will net the greatest positive result for the greatest number of the population. Right now, we very clearly have politics of the benefits going to a select few at the expense of the many.

**LordofHats**

Formosa wrote:
I disagree with your central premise, it seems like you have reduced the extremely complicated and dificult nature of politics to the overly simplified “identity”

There's nothing simple about identity. It's one of the most complex subjects in sociology and the reason you see politicians poking the identity bear so much is because it works. I don't see how it will ever not work.

party identity politics, this is not what I am referring to.

Seriously. It's obvious you don't even understand the premise. Political party identity is just the amalgamation of a whole bunch of identities into a broader scope. You might as well argue that macro-evolution exists but micro-evolution doesn't. One is the other. The other is the one. The difference is of scale not of substance.

So when I say what is your solution, I am asking how you would resolve the very apparent problem that this kind of politics has caused, as you say to make it less polarising.

Maybe stop treating some people like scum of the earth in national rhetoric for starters. The polarization comes from the situation in a lot of ways. People with problems going unaddressed, in no small part because it is a central position of national politics in part to not address the issue and even deny it's existence. It's amazing how much simple lip service and patronizing calms gak down and as insulting as lip service and patronizing can be at least it doesn't involve the President of the United States blatantly insulting people in really asinine ways. Trump might be the king, but Obama and Bush also had their flubs, and that's not even going into some of the gak that comes out of Congress and state Legislatures.

**Tannhauser42**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Whoa:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-administration-hit-russia-new-sanctions-skripal-poisoning-n898856

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-new-sanctions-on-russia-for-nerve-agent-attack-in-england/2018/08/08/7c66b45e-9b3e-11e8-b60b-1c897f17e185_story.html?utm_term=.c03b5c4da59d

That's a pretty dang harsh response...that will almost certainly cause more diplomatic expulsions and a shutdown in trade between RU and US.

Reading what we import from Russia, it honest is all stuff we can get elsewhere

Except for asbestos and enriched uranium apparently. And spaceships.
But yeah, for the most part trade between Russia and the US is non-existent, which is why sanctions on exports/imports have had little and will continue to have little to no impact. This new round of sanctions is just for show, so that Trump can pretend that he is though on Russia and definitely not a Kremlin puppet.

At the rate things are going, the US isn't going to have much trade with any countries at all.

And, sorry if I missed it, did anybody else read that the FCC's website problems during the Net Neutrality debate was apparently John Oliver's fault? That gave me the giggles.

**Asherian Command**

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/08/99-year-old-nuremberg-prosecutor-calls-trumps-detention-children-crime-against

This surprises no one.

The last surviving prosecutor at the Nazi Nuremberg trials just offered harsh criticism for the Trump administration's family separation crisis resulting from its cruel immigration policies, calling it "a crime against humanity."

Ninety-nine year old Ben Ferencz made the comments in a recent lengthy interview with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, which was posted online Tuesday.

When he learned of the family separations, "it was very painful for me," Ferencz told Zeid. "I knew the Statue of Liberty. I came under the Statue of Liberty as an immigrant." Ferencz was a baby when his family came to the United States from Romania.

He referenced lines from Emma Lazarus's poem inscribed at the base of the monument, including its ending: "I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

But "the lamp went out when [Trump] said no immigrants allowed unless they meet the rules that we laid down," Ferencz said. "It was outrageous. I was furious that anybody would think that it's permissible to take young children—5, 4, 3 years of age—and take them away from their parents and say the parents go to another country and the children go to another country, and we'll get you together, maybe, at some later date."

"It's a crime against humanity. We list crimes against humanity in the Statute of the International Criminal Court. We have 'other inhumane acts designed to cause great suffering.' What could cause more great suffering than what they did in the name of immigration law? It's ridiculous. We have to change the law if it's the law," he said.

Ferencz also denounced the ongoing "glorification of war-making." He said, "The capacity to kill human beings has grown faster than our capacity to meet their vital and justified needs," noting, "Nobody wins in war; the only winner is death."

He's still expresses optimism, however, about the state of the world. But he said that hope lies not with diplomats or national leaders. Rather, "the students are with us, and I think the future lies with them." Some young people, he said, "are thoughtful enough to realize they're in great danger."

Ferencz was just 27 years old when he was chief prosecutor at the Einsatzgruppen trial, at which 22 Nazi officials were convicted of murdering more than 1 million people.

**Asherian Command**

New Republician Strategy :

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/secret-recording-shows-gop-s-nunes-saying-rosenstein-impeachment-would-n899031

Hard-line conservative Republicans in the House recently hit a roadblock in their effort to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein when Speaker Paul Ryan opposed the move. But one of those conservatives, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., gave a different explanation to donors recently when asked why the impeachment effort had stalled.

He said it's because an impeachment would delay the Senate's confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, made the statement in an audio recording surreptitiously made by a member of a progressive group who attended a Republican fundraiser on July 30 in Spokane, Washington. The recording was obtained by The Rachel Maddow Show and was played on MSNBC on Wednesday night.

Asked about the the impeachment plans, Nunes told a questioner that "it's a bit complicated" because "we only have so many months left."

"So if we actually vote to impeach, OK, what that does is that triggers the Senate then has to take it up," he said on the recording. "Well, and you have to decide what you want right now because the Senate only has so much time.”

He continued: "Do you want them to drop everything and not confirm the Supreme Court justice, the new Supreme Court justice?

The Senate would have to drop everything they're doing ... and start with impeachment on Rosenstein. And then take the risk of not getting Kavanaugh confirmed," Nunes said. "So it's not a matter that any of us like Rosenstein. It's a matter of, it's a matter of timing."

Conservative lawmakers have accused Rosenstein of trying to stymie congressional oversight of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of alleged interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

The audio of the Spokane fundraiser was obtained by the Maddow show from a member of the "Fuse Washington" progressive group who paid the $250 entry fee to attend the dinner. The event was a fundraiser for Republican Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers. A spokesperson for her campaign had no comment on the recording and Nunes' office didn't return calls for comment.

On the evening of July 25, House Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows, R-S.C., Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio; and nine co-sponsors introduced a resolution to impeach Rosenstein. It does not have the support of the House Republican leadership.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., commented a day after the resolution was introduced: "Do I support impeachment of Rosenstein? No, I do not.”

He also said at the time that if an impeachment resolution were to pass the House, it would "tie the Senate into knots," and could delay the confirmation of Kavanaugh.

According to the audio obtained by the show, Nunes said that "I've said publicly Rosenstein deserves to be impeached," but he also said, "the question is the timing of it right before the election."

Conservative lawmakers have accused the Justice Department of trying both to tar President Donald Trump with the Russia investigation and to downplay the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server when she was secretary of state.

The Senate has only a few months to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court if they want to do it before the November midterms.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from any probe of Russian election interference. Rosenstein appointed Mueller in May of 2017 to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 and other matters after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.

Nunes also said that "if Sessions won't unrecuse and Mueller won't clear the president, we're the only ones. Which is really the danger," according to the audio.

"I mean we have to keep all these seats. We have to keep the majority. If we do not keep the majority, all of this goes away," he added, apparently referring to keeping Republican control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections.

Nunes also appeared to say that if a campaign received and released stolen emails from a foreign government — he used a hypothetical example of McMorris Rodgers getting secret information from Portugal, where his ancestors are from — there would be a criminal element to that.

"But ultimately let's say the Portuguese came and brought her some stolen emails. And she decided to release those. Okay, now we have a problem, right?” Nunes said. "Because somebody stole the emails, gave 'em to Cathy, Cathy released 'em. Well, if that's the case, then that's criminal."

No information has been publicly released from the Mueller probe that anyone in the Trump campaign was involved in the dissemination of stolen Democratic emails during the presidential campaign. Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion took place with Russian operatives and has called the Mueller investigation a "witch hunt."

Another reason to vote Nunes out of office again!

**whembly**

Asherian Command wrote:
New Republician Strategy :

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/secret-recording-shows-gop-s-nunes-saying-rosenstein-impeachment-would-n899031

Hard-line conservative Republicans in the House recently hit a roadblock in their effort to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein when Speaker Paul Ryan opposed the move. But one of those conservatives, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., gave a different explanation to donors recently when asked why the impeachment effort had stalled.

He said it's because an impeachment would delay the Senate's confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, made the statement in an audio recording surreptitiously made by a member of a progressive group who attended a Republican fundraiser on July 30 in Spokane, Washington. The recording was obtained by The Rachel Maddow Show and was played on MSNBC on Wednesday night.

Asked about the the impeachment plans, Nunes told a questioner that "it's a bit complicated" because "we only have so many months left."

"So if we actually vote to impeach, OK, what that does is that triggers the Senate then has to take it up," he said on the recording. "Well, and you have to decide what you want right now because the Senate only has so much time.”

He continued: "Do you want them to drop everything and not confirm the Supreme Court justice, the new Supreme Court justice?

The Senate would have to drop everything they're doing ... and start with impeachment on Rosenstein. And then take the risk of not getting Kavanaugh confirmed," Nunes said. "So it's not a matter that any of us like Rosenstein. It's a matter of, it's a matter of timing."

Conservative lawmakers have accused Rosenstein of trying to stymie congressional oversight of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of alleged interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

The audio of the Spokane fundraiser was obtained by the Maddow show from a member of the "Fuse Washington" progressive group who paid the $250 entry fee to attend the dinner. The event was a fundraiser for Republican Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers. A spokesperson for her campaign had no comment on the recording and Nunes' office didn't return calls for comment.

On the evening of July 25, House Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows, R-S.C., Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio; and nine co-sponsors introduced a resolution to impeach Rosenstein. It does not have the support of the House Republican leadership.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., commented a day after the resolution was introduced: "Do I support impeachment of Rosenstein? No, I do not.”

He also said at the time that if an impeachment resolution were to pass the House, it would "tie the Senate into knots," and could delay the confirmation of Kavanaugh.

According to the audio obtained by the show, Nunes said that "I've said publicly Rosenstein deserves to be impeached," but he also said, "the question is the timing of it right before the election."

Conservative lawmakers have accused the Justice Department of trying both to tar President Donald Trump with the Russia investigation and to downplay the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server when she was secretary of state.

The Senate has only a few months to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court if they want to do it before the November midterms.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from any probe of Russian election interference. Rosenstein appointed Mueller in May of 2017 to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 and other matters after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.

Nunes also said that "if Sessions won't unrecuse and Mueller won't clear the president, we're the only ones. Which is really the danger," according to the audio.

"I mean we have to keep all these seats. We have to keep the majority. If we do not keep the majority, all of this goes away," he added, apparently referring to keeping Republican control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections.

Nunes also appeared to say that if a campaign received and released stolen emails from a foreign government — he used a hypothetical example of McMorris Rodgers getting secret information from Portugal, where his ancestors are from — there would be a criminal element to that.

"But ultimately let's say the Portuguese came and brought her some stolen emails. And she decided to release those. Okay, now we have a problem, right?” Nunes said. "Because somebody stole the emails, gave 'em to Cathy, Cathy released 'em. Well, if that's the case, then that's criminal."

No information has been publicly released from the Mueller probe that anyone in the Trump campaign was involved in the dissemination of stolen Democratic emails during the presidential campaign. Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion took place with Russian operatives and has called the Mueller investigation a "witch hunt."

Another reason to vote Nunes out of office again!

With respect to trying to impeach Rosenstein... Nunes... is not wrong here Ash.

It's actually a very pragmatic take.

**Asherian Command**

With respect to trying to impeach Rosenstein... Nunes... is not wrong here Ash.

It's actually a very pragmatic take.

What has Rosenstein done to warrant his impeachment that the president of the united states hasn't done? I know their strategy, but the idea they are even talking about it is just horrible. He hasn't done anything that warrant being wrong or unethical. Jeff Sessions or Trump on the other hand....

WHat about the ethical stealing of children from their parents... is that impeachable? Or is Nunes so far up his own arse that he can't be a decent human being?

**Wolfblade**

Asherian Command wrote:

With respect to trying to impeach Rosenstein... Nunes... is not wrong here Ash.

It's actually a very pragmatic take.

What has Rosenstein done to warrant his impeachment that the president of the united states hasn't done? I know their strategy, but the idea they are even talking about it is just horrible. He hasn't done anything that warrant being wrong or unethical. Jeff Sessions or Trump on the other hand....

WHat about the ethical stealing of children from their parents... is that impeachable? Or is Nunes so far up his own arse that he can't be a decent human being?

Rosenstein hasn't fallen in with the party line obviously, therefore he's part of the DEEP STATE!

**Vaktathi**

whembly wrote:

With respect to trying to impeach Rosenstein... Nunes... is not wrong here Ash.

It's actually a very pragmatic take.

Sure, but that's why it's called obstruction of justice and abuse of office

**LordofHats**

The impeachment didn't go through because you don't impeach a guy investigating accusations of obstruction of justice without a lot of evidence and really good reason, which the GOP obviously doesn't have. It didn't go through because it was never intended to in the first place. It was a stunt that didn't even have the backing of the party.

Nunes is once again spreading creative fiction.