America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,010 comments
  • 1,484,902 views
prisonermonkeys
So you're afraid that if you speak up, you could be subject to physical harm?
Click to expand...
Did you not see me say the following:
Obelisk
Don't bother answering me, PM. I'm adding you to my ignore list by midnight.
Click to expand...
Or did you specifically ignore it in order to ask a stupid question when the answer should be plenty obvious already?

When I say I value my life, I mean I value my life. What more is there to say about that?

By the way, where the 🤬 did you get "speak up" from? What I said:

Obelisk
that making even an innocent comment of disagreement
Click to expand...

Which could be something as simple as "I don't agree with this little thing". I'm not afraid of speaking up on anything else, I just don't like messing with the rotten mess that is politics.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Now leave alone. I mean it. The next time you try to put words in my mouth, I'm going to have a word with the staff about your behavior.

Edit: How convenient of you to ignore everyone else addressing you.
 
Obelisk
I value my life more than my political views,
Click to expand...
The obvious implication of this is that if you share your political views, something will happen to your life. Combined the the violent imagery of "shreddee to pieces", the obvious implication is that if you speak up in a political discussion, you risk beimg assaulted.

Now, you could have meant that if you spoke up, the debate could be drawn out for so long that it would take over everything in your life that you would have no time for anything else, and thus it would not be worth your while. But if that was the case, why didn't you say that? You took the time to point out the intense partisan political climate, implied the threat of physical violence for speaking up and then insisted that you meant something else instead.

The irony of all of this is that you pointed out that innocuous comments could be fundamentally misinterpreted, then complained that your innocuous comment was fundamentally misinterpreted.

Northstar
Surely an English teacher would know a figure of speech when he sees one? :odd:
Click to expand...
I do. But like I said, Obelisk took the time to point out that the current political climate is very sensitive, that innocent comments could be misinterpreted and has since gotten upset about people misinterpreting his comments. So I took his post literally rather than figuratively.
 
So the staff have had to delete a string of posts that became little more than insults (and the associated fallout). It can't be stressed enough: whether or not you agree with someone or their opinions, resorting to insults is wrong.

With that out of the way, I believe something needs to be addressed:

prisonermonkeys
By staying silent, you condone it.
Click to expand...

Sticking with this train of thought, it's worth pointing out to all involved in this thread, that a Staff Emeritus badge has been pulled. Which, if my memory serves, has only ever happened one other time in the site's history: April Fools.

Your hypocritical, trolling antics are not acceptable. It's quite simple: shape up, or ship out.

...

So, how about them Russian meetings?
 
SlipZtrEm
So the staff have had to delete a string of posts that became little more than insults (and the associated fallout). It can't be stressed enough: whether or not you agree with someone or their opinions, resorting to insults is wrong.
Click to expand...
I do genuinely want to apologize for this. I've had a crappy day at work today (incompetent coworker) and it bled into my personal life. Lesson learned, time to move on.

SlipZtrEm
So, how about them Russian meetings?
Click to expand...
I don't follow much on this...Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember this right, Trump Jr was approached by a Russian who had compromising info on the Clinton campaign?
 
Last edited:
Imari
Accepting the information is not the same as bringing it to the American public. You note that information that we're discussing wasn't available before the election.

If the Russians have information of wrongdoing that they wish to see a candidate investigated or prosecuted for, they can present it to the appropriate US authorities. If a political party is offered information of wrongdoing that they wish to see a candidate investigated or prosecuted for, they can present it to the appropriate US authorities.

If your goal is transparency and justice, then the first thing to do is get in touch with the FBI or appropriate enforcement agency. They will then advise you on how to proceed. It may be that you should continue to make the contact and report back to them, or they may wish to take matters into their own hands. You do not simply offer the information to the party with the biggest stake in discrediting the accused.

By not engaging the authorities, Trump's campaign is denying the American people the ability to have their investigative agencies look into the matter. The American people also don't get to make an informed decision, as the Trump campaign is under no onus to present all the information (safety of the country notwithstanding).

By keeping the meetings and information to themselves rather than reporting to the authorities, that is undermining the correct process and giving the Trump campaign the ability to decide information what should and shouldn't be made available to the American people. That's not their call, not when we're talking about potential crimes by candidates for the highest office in the land. And that's not the sort of behaviour that shows a great deal of adherence to the traditional American values of freedom and transparency.



I agree, and the appropriate agency to handle that is the government authorities. Not an opposing political party. My problem is not that the information came from the Russians. The problem is how the Trump campaign chose to handle it afterwards.



So would I. If ISIS came forward during the election with dirt on Trump and handed it to Hillary, I'd want it reported to the government as soon as possible. Preferably so that the professionals can investigate and verify it. No offense, but I trust the FBI to do the verification a lot more than I trust Eric Trump. The US government has a lot of people whose job is specifically to deal with this sort of stuff. That the Trump campaign would not simply handball this to them makes me very wary.

If someone sends me an email claiming that they're the Russian government and that they're offering information that will discredit the current Australian government, I don't run along with it until I can see how much it would benefit me, regardless of whether or not I might dislike the people affected. I report it to the people who are trained and employed to handle security and justice in my country and allow them to do their job.

I think we agree on what should happen; critical information should be made public, or at least passed to appropriate authorities. What I don't get is how you think that happened in this case.



Yeah...no. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you so late in life, but the world isn't actually all black and white.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you wrote there, but if that's how the Russians want to deliver the information then I'm still fine with him setting up a meeting, if for no other reason than to send information on whatever crimes it proves to the appropriate authorities, and whatever unethical behavior, even if it's not criminal, it uncovers, can be directly released - of course that assumes that it can be verified, which is not exactly easy.

Now imagine you're the Russians in this instance. You see Hillary clearly guilty of breaking US laws and yet the US government refuses to prosecute. You might think that your information also would be disregarded if it were given to the government that she is such a part of and which appears to be covering for her. So instead you give it to someone you're certain would make sure it got released.

I'm not in a big hurry to throw stones here. There is no putting the cat back in the bag when it comes to foreign governments digging up and releasing dirt on US presidential candidates - for whatever their reasons. All we can do here is be aware that one way or another all of the dirt is coming out.
 
Danoff
Now imagine you're the Russians in this instance. You see Hillary clearly guilty of breaking US laws and yet the US government refuses to prosecute. You might think that your information also would be disregarded if it were given to the government that she is such a part of and which appears to be covering for her. So instead you give it to someone you're certain would make sure it got released.
Click to expand...
I struggle to believe that the Russians did it for purely altruistic reasons in tgis scenario.
 
Liquid
And is it true that on that day Trump Sr first started his Twitter rants about CROOKED Hillary's eMails?
Click to expand...

Additionally has the Trump campaign narrative now changed from 'we never met the Russians' to 'we did meet the Russians but it was perfectly legal'?
 
So Republicans fail yet again to repeal Barry O Care and Trump signs off on the Iran deal Obama made.

So much winning, I can't handle it.

Own three branches, and choking like the Golden State Warriors last year.
 
sumbrownkid
So Republicans fail yet again to repeal Barry O Care and Trump signs off on the Iran deal Obama made.

So much winning, I can't handle it.

Own three branches, and choking like the Golden State Warriors last year.
Click to expand...

This should be a sign to finally give the 3rd parties a chance.
 
Dennisch
This should be a sign to finally give the 3rd parties a chance.
Click to expand...

I'm all for 3rd party candidates, but if they are clown shows like Jill Stein and that other guy who doesn't know where Syria is then it's not going to happen for awhile. That, and the level of funding the RNC and DNC get that can make an F1 team blush is going to make that even harder. Thanks Supreme Court.

With that said, Dave Chappelle 2020.
 
sumbrownkid
and that other guy who doesn't know where Syria is
Click to expand...

You mean the former republican governor of New Mexico, who balanced the state's budget, and who blanked during an in-person interview on the word Aleppo? That guy?

Yea, successful state governors are clowns. I wish those 3rd parties would nominate someone actually qualified... like a reality show host.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
You mean the former republican governor of New Mexico, who balanced the state's budget, and who blanked during an in-person interview on the word Aleppo? That guy?

Yea, successful state governors are clowns. I wish those 3rd parties would nominate someone actually qualified... like a reality show host.
Click to expand...

That's great for him, but he came off as bumbling and hardly had any presence. But that's more of the media trying to get ratings then focusing on the issues on hand.

Which returns to the point about funding. In today's political climate, if you ain't got the chedder then you ain't making that burger.
 
It was rather interesting listening to Bret Weinstein address the Board and describe the chaotic situation at Evergreen State College. Here is Progressive Liberal Biology professor that was forced to teach his class in a public park due to security concerns on the campus, all because he refused to participate in a day of absence for White people, an event which he rightly said was racist. He talks about roving gangs of armed students threatening fellow students, and protesters blocking the police from entering the campus not to mention what amounted to essentially holding the College President hostage in his office for several hours.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...he_campus_descended_into_literal_anarchy.html
 
Danoff
The post above appears to back pretty far away from the post below.



Clown is your word.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that's me backing away from my statement of me being fine with 3rd party candidates so long as they weren't clowns?

Gary Johnson may have been a fine Governor, but being President of the United States is a different beast altogether. You don't have one state to worry about, you have 50, and then stack on multiple branches, and international relations. He was much better than Jill Stein and Trump, but he didn't particularly impress or convey his platform well. But like I said, media had alot to do with it.
 
Last edited:
sumbrownkid
I'm not sure how that's me backing away from my statement of me being fine with 3rd party candidates so long as they weren't clowns?

Gary Johnson may have been a fine Governor, but being President of the United States is a different beast altogether. You don't have one state to worry about, you have 50, and then stack on multiple branches, and international relations. He was much better than Jill Stein and Trump, but he didn't particularly impress or convey his platform well. But like I said, media had alot to do with it.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's dig in then. What makes him a clown (other than not having an R or D next to his name while running for pres)?

BTW, Bush Jr. became president after being governor of Texas. Obama became president after being a Senator.
 

Latest Posts

Back