US Election 2020 - Pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
buka001 said:
"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Click to expand...
What's this for even? Are you arguing for antifas right to burn and loot?
 
TysonRoux said:
www.nytimes.com

Ivanka Trump Says Her Private Email Use Has ‘No Equivalency’ With Hillary Clinton’s (Published 2018)

“People who want to see it as the same, see it as the same,” Ivanka Trump said, defending her use of a private email account for government business.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Ivanka Trump responds to personal email use questions, border crisis and her father
Click to expand...
Former White House Ethics Chief Reveals ‘Disturbing’ Ivanka Trump Emails
Old messages by the president’s daughter come back to haunt her in the wake of John Bolton’s book.

www.huffpost.com

'Disturbing’ Ivanka Trump Emails Resurface In Wake Of Bolton Book

Messages obtained by American Oversight get new attention after being highlighted on social media by former White House ethics chief Walter Shaub.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com

Ivanka Trump, President Donald Trump’s daughter and adviser, was conducting government business from a private email account before she was employed by the government, according to records getting new attention this week.
Walter Shaub, former head of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, highlighted two messages uncovered by the nonpartisan watchdog group American Oversight. He served in the ethics office for six months under then-President Barack Obama and resigned six months into the Trump presidency.
One of the messages Shaub shared on Twitter appeared to show Ivanka Trump conducting business with Education Secretary Betsy DeVos almost a month before she had an official role:

Well now, this is disturbing. Ivanka Trump didn’t become a government employee until March 29, 2017. This email is dated four weeks earlier than that. Why is she appearing to conduct government business in this email she sent while still a private citizen? https://t.co/D5a4sD0Jr8 pic.twitter.com/jhodKdySy7
— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) June 17, 2020​
Click to expand...
Another, which was from several days earlier, referred to a government official as her “chief of staff.”
 
SoldierMan said:
Well how about you hold yourself to those same standards, how is Trump a traitor?
Click to expand...
Of course, no problem sir. It was covered in detail from posts 339 (https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/threads/us-election-2020-pt-2.1088645/page-17#post-25626647) until about post 360 (https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/threads/us-election-2020-pt-2.1088645/page-18#post-25627045)

And there have been a few more drips and drabs since then.

If you really want the answer to your question, you're going to have to go and read the excerpts of Bolton's book yourself.

The reasoning for my assertion that Trump is a traitor:
If what Bolton says is true, then it means that Trump put his own personal and family interests ahead of the the national interest. I interpret that to be a traitor to your country.

EDIT:
If what Bolton says is true, then it means that Trump put his own personal and family interests ahead of the the national interest while being elected to the position of President of the USA which carries an oath of office to specifically not do that. I interpret that to be a traitor to your country.
 
Last edited:
rietrot said:
What's this for even? Are you arguing for antifas right to burn and loot?
Click to expand...
Lol.

I am asking why are they using Nazi symbols?

If it is a threat to violent extremists, then where is the same threat to the other violent extremists who have actually killed people?
 
SoldierMan said:
Well how about you hold yourself to those same standards, how is Trump a traitor?
Click to expand...

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted." - Article 3 of the Constitution.

Let's review that "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" bit, shall we?

Begging - like a dog I might add - China to help him win reelection and okaying their Uighur concentration camps.

Offering to kill investigations on behalf of Turkey... In fact, his entire foreign police was for personal gain.


"adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" seems to fit the bill to me.
 
rietrot said:
Lol. We've discussed the book months ago already in the previous Trump thread. It's most likely BS.

Further than that I can't really comment without reading it, and I highly doubt I'm going to read it.
Click to expand...
Why is Trump not suing for defamation then? That is what you do when people put up false information

Why is he trying to classify it? He said the matters are confidential National Security related.
 
My man Andrew with the goods!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1273578966465552384

Here, let me unroll "the sort of deliberately time-wasting contemptuous, bad-faith interaction that almost all right-wing “debate” rests upon" for ya.

Someone (actually, like 30 people in the last hour or two) told me they have to sit through an antiracist/diversity training for work tomorrow and asked for advice. Here's something you can really do that works: Ask calibrated questions.

Ask questions about the definitions. "So, when you say 'racist' and 'anti-racist,' you don't mean, like, the normal definition?" Sound confused. This is important. You're there to learn, after all. Don't fight back, just be a *really slow* learner and ask questions to expose.

Ask questions about the implications. Like, "So, if I become an 'anti-racist,' am I still a racist? How do I stop being racist? How does this program make me not racist?" Again, you're there to learn, so sound like it. SLOOOW learner. Try to see if they'll say you can't

And the contradictions. "Wait, so if colorblindness means not seeing race, and that makes me racist, does seeing race make me racist? Is race supposed to matter or not matter?" Slow learner mode, activate. Make them explain it, and make it look hard to learn.

If it's about implicit bias, learn to game the test (it's actually v. easy). Then report this. Sometimes you take it and it gives you a strong pro-black bias. Other times, strong pro-white. What gives? Demonstrate or provide receipts later. See if they admit that it's unreliable.

Ask them really obvious questions like, "doesn't making us focus on race more make the issue more sensitive, and doesn't a reporting system make it harder to work with people we don't trust?" Make them explain the practical failures away and look silly.

This isn't just a fun strategy that can work, especially on the people around you (derived from How to Have Impossible Conversations, btw). It's actually core to their literature. You could even mention it to show what a good, interested student you are.

For instance, Barbara Applebaum says in Being White, Being Good that the only legitimate way to "disagree" is by asking challenging questions to understand to eventually agree. So... do that. Take that vibe and approach. Be a slow learner and point subversively at the problems.

You should come off looking like you want to learn, but your real goals are to waste their time (they'll hold court anyway) and to get them to admit embarrassing stuff or to confuse themselves in front of people. Always sound like you're confused and trying to learn.

It actually takes very little effort to learn enough about this stuff (e.g., using resources I made for http://newdiscourses.com) to come up with a list of calibrated questions that you can spring at opportune moments to "learn" more while keeping them looking foolish.

Meanwhile, by the way, if you can pull it off, record it. Try to get them on audio saying reprehensible stuff (you don't have to force this; it comes out naturally) or caught up and confused in contradictions or nonsense. Don't get fired. Play along and subvert!

"Wait, so are we talking about real racism or systemic racism?" ... "Ok, if systemic racism is real racism, what do we call real racism so we don't get them confused?" ... "So we can all be racist because of systemic racism even if there's no real racism?" That's good subverting

"Let's say you say I have white fragility, and I disagree with that assessment. Now, just for the sake of argument, say I know for sure and am correct that my disagreement is not white fragility. Are you saying it still is white fragility even when I know it's not?"

"Since there's no such thing as not racist, if I take up anti-racism, I must still be a racist anti-racist, because there's no such thing as a not-racist anti-racist, right? So do I basically have to keep doing these trainings forever?" (Don't call it Race Scientology, tho!)

"This training is about helping diversity and hiring more diversity. So if we get a black lady as a boss and she thinks diversity trainings are making things worse and stops them, is that good or bad for diversity? Are black ladies allowed to think diversity trainings are bad?"

"So, it's always my responsibility to use my privileged status as a member of a dominant group to interrupt oppression, but it would be in my own self-interest as an anti-racist to do that, right? Is it always my responsibility to work in my own self-interest, or not to?"

By the way, this will probably infuriate the facilitators, so tread with caution. It's advice for people who aren't cowards and who want to do something but know that fighting it is a lost cause. If you don't, stay silent and hope against hope that it'll all just blow over.

Also, by the way, you can tell it will work based on how mad they are that someone would dare suggest being subversive against their attempted imposition of power, since that's the racket they're trying to run and you might just expose the lie.
Click to expand...

Fess up Trumpists, how many of you are following 'ol James already?
 
What we learned from bombshells in John Bolton's book on Trump

CNN obtained a copy of the book before its June 23 release. Here are some of the details

200617201134-bolton-trump-split-restricted-large-tease.jpg


www.cnn.com

What we learned from John Bolton's eye-popping tale of working with Trump

John Bolton details a troubling and shocking series of allegations in a new book about his tenure as President Donald Trump's national security adviser, alleging Trump requested Chinese help to win the 2020 election, that the President argued Venezuela is part of the US, that he casually offered...
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Trump asked Chinese President Xi Jinping for help in getting reelected


Trump had no problem with China's concentration camps


Pompeo, famously loyal to the President, may have trash-talked him


Trump offered to help Turkey's leader avoid a Justice Department probe


The Israeli prime minister didn't understand why Kushner led on Middle East peace


The White House decision-making process was like a 'food fight'


Trump didn't like sanctions on Russia


Trump's revealing questions: Is Finland a part of Russia?


Trump told people that Venezuela is 'really part of the US' and wanted to invade


Trump wanted Attorney General Bill Barr to make CNN reporters 'serve time in jail'
 
Moi said:
...and Bolton has been proven to be a prick...
Click to expand...

He proved that beyond any doubt when he refused to testify in front of the Senate - when he decided that the President's unenforceable interdict took precedence over Congress's lawful subpoena, and completely stymied the impeachment hearing.
 
Trump is trying to block publication of John Bolton's book. What's he scared of?

The memoir reportedly depicts Trump as caring more about re-election than US national security. No wonder he wants to quash it

www.theguardian.com

Trump is trying to block publication of John Bolton's book. What's he scared of? | Lloyd Green

The memoir reportedly depicts Trump as caring more about re-election than US national security. No wonder he wants to quash it
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

3342.jpg



On Tuesday, the Trump administration asked a federal judge to block publication of John Bolton’s The Room Where It Happened, the former national security adviser’s twice-delayed kiss-and-tell memoir of life in the Trump White House. Last week, Simon & Schuster, Bolton’s publisher, announced: “This is the book Donald Trump doesn’t want you to read.”

They got that one right. The book depicts “a president for whom getting re-elected was the only thing that mattered, even if it meant endangering or weakening the nation”. Let that sink in.

To be sure, the administration’s latest gambit should come as no surprise. Earlier in the year, when the president’s acquittal in the Senate was still fresh and he was blithely ignoring warnings about Covid-19, Trump was also demanding that Bolton be criminally investigated. Hillary Clinton was not alone. For good measure, Trump reportedly called Bolton a “traitor” to whoever would listen.


But beyond personal animus, this is the fight Trump has been itching for. It’s chance to silence his critics.

Two years ago, the president and his minions threatened to block publication of Fire and Fury, Michael Wolff’s scandalous account of the Trump White House, after the Guardian ran excerpts before the book’s drop date. Back then it was simply a brushback pitch, legal theatre of the absurd.

The warning carried no mention of national security. Unsurprising, since Wolff’s book was about Trump’s eco-system being a cross between the Lord of the Flies meets Gossip Girl – hurt feelings, not state secrets.

Indeed, publisher Henry Holt responded by bringing publication forward by four days. The book, it claimed, was “an extraordinary contribution to our national discourse”, which is highbrow speak for “shove it”.

No lawsuit followed; casualties were minimal. Steve Bannon, another Trump White House refugee, was served with a cease-and-desist letter warning him not to talk to the press.

Heh heh. The word on the street is that Bannon is now phoning in the plays to a beleaguered Trump campaign. This time as a coach from the sidelines, not as a quarterback on the field.

Cont....................
 
greg0205 said:
I wonder how Fox are covering Bolton's book?

EawyMPtWsAEeAjl


Oh...
Click to expand...
Proof that the book is true.

Instead of trying to provide reasons to why it could be fabricated they extract the smallest excerpt and spin it as a positive for Trump.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X