US politics general thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sad to see some think this represents a change in position..


Lol. Sure buddy.

:erm: :wtf: her job at the UN is to represent the US government, she's not there in her personal capacity.

Notice how the narrative changes so quickly ;) First she has no credibility because she sings the US agenda, now she has no credibility because she's not singing the US agenda :D

Is it her fault Trump changed his mind and didn't communicate it properly?


Haha have you not been paying attention? Of course it is, it's never the Lord God Emperor's fault.
 
Notice how the narrative changes so quickly ;) First she has no credibility because she sings the US agenda, now she has no credibility because she's not singing the US agenda :D

If you read properly you'd see the narrative didn't change in the least, I said she has no credibility as she has no moral compass.

Singing a morally incorrect US agenda like a canary = no moral compass.
Lying about sanctions = no moral compass.

Perfectly consistent on the lack of a moral compass.
 
Announcing that a decision has been made and is to be officially communicated is a fabrication, nothing in your source proves that a decision had indeed been made and approved for official announcement.
Nothing in your source... oh wait you have no source, nm... nothing you've said proves (or provides any evidence whatsoever) that Nikki Haley just made up her statements for no reason, rather than doing her job and communicating the US governments intentions at the time. Seems unlikely she would say something that hadn't been communicated to her at that point for no reason.
 
Nothing in your source... oh wait you have no source, nm... nothing you've said proves (or provides any evidence whatsoever) that Nikki Haley just made up her statements for no reason, rather than doing her job and communicating the US governments intentions at the time. Seems unlikely she would say something that hadn't been communicated to her at that point for no reason.

The official communication from the administration is that there are no new sanctions, Haley is the only individual on record saying there is going to be.

So you can believe she is telling the truth or you can believe everyone else is telling the truth, but you won't find hard evidence either way.
 
You guys have got it all wrong, Nikki Haley has no credibility because she says mean things about darling Russia. The rest is irrelevant.
 
You guys have got it all wrong, Nikki Haley has no credibility because she says mean things about darling Russia. The rest is irrelevant.

She had plenty of credibility and authority before she preempted Trump's backpedaling on Russia. But suddenly they're scraping the barrel to find reasons to discount her. What a joke.
 
She had plenty of credibility and authority before she preempted Trump's backpedaling on Russia. But suddenly they're scraping the barrel to find reasons to discount her. What a joke.

"No credibility-Nikki Halley was never my pick for UN ambassador, easily confused and week! Sanctions against Mr Putin are never going to be on the table, MAGA!"
-4933 Trumpite likes
 
Three Kansas men convicted over mass 'slaughter' plot targeting Muslims


Three members of a Kansas militia with a hatred of Muslim immigrants have been found guilty of plotting to blow up a mosque and apartment complex that housed Somali refugees in order to “wake people up”.

A federal jury in Wichita convicted Patrick Stein, Gavin Wright and Curtis Allen on charges of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and conspiracy against civil rights.

Wright was also convicted of lying to the FBI. The men, who pleaded not guilty, face up to life in prison when they are sentenced on 27 June.

Their plot developed against a backdrop of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim rhetoric as Donald Trump’s presidential campaign intensified ahead of the November 2016 election.

“Their ultimate goal was to wake people up and to slaughter every man, woman and child in the building,” the assistant US attorney Anthony Mattivi said in his closing argument in federal court in Wichita on Tuesday.

Authorities said the bombing was to have been timed for the day after the election because the conspirators feared that an attack before the vote would boost turnout for Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

“We cannot let Hillary back into the White House,” Stein allegedly said in text messages to an undercover agent. “If she was to be elected, it would be very soon after the election, ‘game on.’”

In an apparent echo of Trump’s pre-election claim that the vote was being “rigged” against him, a lawyer for Stein said in 2017 that his client believed that Barack Obama would have declared the outcome invalid and introduced martial law if the Republican candidate won, and so was preparing to “defend” himself for a period of social unrest.

Does this sound like anyone we know?
 
"No credibility-Nikki Halley was never my pick for UN ambassador, easily confused and week! Sanctions against daddy are never going to be on the table, MAGA!"
-4933 Trumpite likes

Ftfy :p
 
Why don't Trump's friends and associates pretend to think everything he did with Michael Cohen was above board?

The headline in Politico is “Trump allies worry Cohen will flip.”

And the story supports the headline. It’s full of quotes from advisers to President Donald Trump – some anonymous, but several on the record – discussing two possibilities: that Michael Cohen will remain “loyal” to Trump, or that the threat of criminal prosecution will cause Cohen to “flip” and cooperate with federal prosecutors against Trump.

“They’re going to threaten him with a long prison term and try to turn him into a canary that sings,” the Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz said.

But what if Cohen doesn’t know the words?

That feels like the third possibility we should be discussing: that Cohen has nothing of value to tell federal prosecutors about Trump, because they never engaged in criminal wrongdoing together.

Of course, that’s not my working theory of the case. But isn’t that a possibility the president’s advocates and defenders should want to pretend is plausible?

Yet they don’t. And it reflects a weird, unspoken assumption in discussing the president’s legal troubles, going back at least to the president’s declaration that his personal business interests outside Russia are a “red line” the special counsel Robert Mueller must not cross.

Why must an investigation into the president’s family business be prevented? Because everyone assumes there were crimes there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X