U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History

[AuraChannelerChris]

While I wouldn't want this happening, what do you think the reaction would be if Donald Trump dies of a heart attack?

We'd have to deal with Mike Pence, who is said to be much worse than him.

 

[Pikachu52]

About two years ago in this thread we discussed Chelsea Manning sentence commutation by then President Obama. Since her release she's become a high profile speaker and an activist.

Manning was due to commence a speaking tour here in Australia, but the Department of Home Affairs has served her notice of intention to "consider refusal" pursuant to the character grounds under section 501 of the Migration Act:

https://theconversation.com/explain...-play-in-the-chelsea-manning-visa-case-102397
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s501.html

 

[Scammel]

While I wouldn't want this happening, what do you think the reaction would be if Donald Trump dies of a heart attack?

I think it would be extremely unhealthy for America. The Trump mythology will persist unabated if he doesn't lose an election - he needs to be discreetly hooked off stage as part of the normal process. The ultimate victory will be to hear his voice become progressively quieter as the wheels of democracy churn onwards.

 

[The Admiral]

To be fair, if he were to be abruptly struck deathly ill or something to that effect, all the screaming babies on the far right would start talking about how Russia killed him on behalf of Hillary Clinton, because the Putin regime has disposed of a lot of people in various... interesting ways... and we know how much that kind likes to I'm-rubber-you're-glue everything bad related to Trump onto Clinton.

Basically, it would be all bad news all around because we'd have to weather another load of tinfoil hat bullshit and have President Mike Pence, a sentence that kinda makes me want to puke.

 

[bobjr]

Trump wouldn't even get impeached unless you get 66 Senators, and good luck convincing at least 15 GOP Senators when the party is trying their best to burn everything down around them to help themselves.

But hey, Ted Cruz actually might lose now thanks to Beto O'Rourke running a good campaign. Almost makes up for us trying our best to destroy our relationship with Canada.

 

[The Admiral]

Oh, yeah, an impeachment would never happen, and would still be subjected to aforementioned tinfoil haberdashery. Because that's the kind of disaster area that America is.

 

[Power Up]

I’ve become more conservative so my opinion on Trump has changed

I still don’t like him and Hillary was still the better candidate, but actively wanting the pres to fail is basically just shooting ourself in the foot

 

[bobjr]

It's not about wanting him to fail, it's how what he's doing is counterproductive to the right thing. A tax bill that only benefited the rich, and holding a party after taking healthcare away from people are his only major accomplishments that don't involve racism or transphobia of some kind.

His ramblings have actually had him be right for the wrong reasons more than a few times. If he wants to work towards progressive policies and actually try and help all Americans good for him, it's just he won't.

 

[Power Up]

It's not about wanting him to fail, it's how what he's doing is counterproductive to the right thing. A tax bill that only benefited the rich, and holding a party after taking healthcare away from people are his only major accomplishments that don't involve racism or transphobia of some kind.

His ramblings have actually had him be right for the wrong reasons more than a few times. If he wants to work towards progressive policies and actually try and help all Americans good for him, it's just he won't.

I feel like people need to understand why people voted for him.

That tax bill? It definitely helped some people. My high school world history teacher I’m friends with on Facebook, he’s benefitting from the tax bill. Hell, my family is benefitting from the tax bill.

People love to hate on his climate policies and his stance towards coal and stuff(I hate him vehemently anything related to climate, nature, etc), but for coal miners this is there livelihood. It’s what they’ve been doing forever. And in comes a guy who has done stuff to help them. Dems love to preach that they help the little guy, but what about the coal miners? Do they not count just because what they’re doing is detrimental to the environment? Should we just ruin their lives?

Stuff like that.

 

[bobjr]

Coal is literally the worst form of energy, the solution is take the decade and build on more effective energy like wind and solar energy because it's already there. The problem is we have a bunch of coal and oil barons in the White House now, and while they could retire now with millions they'll stop it. If they don't want to change and make the world better they deserve to be left behind honestly.

Also the tax bill is going to give minor benefits right now for more major downsides later on, in the form of a lot of money being added to the deficit, which the GOP is going to use as a "Well we just need to cut Healthcare/Social Security/Education/whatever" to justify. That and all the tariffs and trade deals are making things more expensive anyway.

People voted for Trump because of a few reasons. There's the basic "Economic Anxiety"/Racism line, the weird projecting where they seem to think he's whatever qualities that think is best despite being a smoothbrained Narcissist, and because decades of messaging have taught GOP voters to vote for people who will literally do anything to ruin their lives, but as long as it's "owning the libs" it's worth it.

 

[Power Up]

Coal is literally the worst form of energy, the solution is take the decade and build on more effective energy like wind and solar energy because it's already there. The problem is we have a bunch of coal and oil barons in the White House now, and while they could retire now with millions they'll stop it. If they don't want to change and make the world better they deserve to be left behind honestly.

Also the tax bill is going to give minor benefits right now for more major downsides later on, in the form of a lot of money being added to the deficit, which the GOP is going to use as a "Well we just need to cut Healthcare/Social Security/Education/whatever" to justify. That and all the tariffs and trade deals are making things more expensive anyway.

People voted for Trump because of a few reasons. There's the basic "Economic Anxiety"/Racism line, the weird projecting where they seem to think he's whatever qualities that think is best despite being a smoothbrained Narcissist, and because decades of messaging have taught GOP voters to vote for people who will literally do anything to ruin their lives, but as long as it's "owning the libs" it's worth it.

I’m not disagreeing with you. But that’s pretty harsh. What are you going to say to the coal miners? Better luck next time? Screw you, you’re not important?

Once again, not disagreeing, but people will see the short term gain right in their pockets. The long term is correct yes, but hey more money in the pocket.

So you’re basically with Hillary in saying most Trump supporters are deplorable? Ye, if that language keeps up, Trump is getting a second term and Repubs are keeping the House and the Senate. You can’t generalize. You have to understand the people in the other end of the aisle. Trump won because he appealed to people who thought that America left them behind. And he still has the core base. How are you going to peel me off? It’s already been proven that Dems need to win some red votes if they what to win back the House and Senate. They can’t just rely on a blue wave.

So maybe a moderate tone would be nice.

 

[bobjr]

You set up programs so the coal miners can learn new skills to work and develop alternate energy, or another skill if they so choose. It was actually part of the 2016 Dem platform, but for some reason Coal Miners have some weird hangup where they refuse to work with anything but coal, despite living like 20 years less than average.

And yeah, screwing things over long term for the short term is bad way more often than not. If you're not literally seeing thousands of dollars a year you got screwed over in this tax bill flat out, so people with yachts that have garages for smaller yachts pay less taxes.

It's not that they're deplorable, they're looking for people to blame, and they do nothing but blame the wrong people. They blame immigrants, minorities, the poor, but really they need to look at whose really benefiting from this stuff and blame them. Look at CEO to worker balance to see how messed up this is.

And I'm someone who thinks running an Anti-Trump campaign is bad for 2020. A blue wave will happen in 2018 thanks to the GOP dropping the ball and messing up so badly, but they need truly progressive measures to succeed long term. Dem leadership is bad right now, but there are hundreds of good people out there who are determined to do the right path, and I hope they're the ones who can control the party the way it needs to be.

 

[The Admiral]

edit Here's a really good and cool article that everyone in this thread should read (even though it should have come up much sooner, but we can't blame the writers for that now can we).

I’ve become more conservative so my opinion on Trump has changed

I still don’t like him and Hillary was still the better candidate, but actively wanting the pres to fail is basically just shooting ourself in the foot

I think of it more as wanting to rip off the band-aid. The failure is an inevitability, so it may as well happen ASAP so we can begin cleaning up, right?

 

[Scammel]

edit Here's a really good and cool article that everyone in this thread should read (even though it should have come up much sooner, but we can't blame the writers for that now can we).

This is a disingenuous piece trying to defend racism - it ruthlessly eviscerates a point that absolutely no-one is trying to make (ie, that it's wrong to support the Palestinian cause) and proceeds to neatly sidestep the points everyone is trying to make, namely that Corbyn's long affiliation with and deeply uncritical approach towards obvious Jew-haters have left him with a more subtle more of middle-class antisemitism.

For a lifelong, ardent anti-racist, Corbyn:

- Doesn't believe Jews should define prejudice against them, unlike other minorities
- Supports racist depictions of Jews as large-nosed bankers
- Hosted an event drawing direct comparisons between Israel and the Nazis
- Lied to Parliament about meeting Holocaust deniers (asides from several we already know about, including blood-libellers)
- Took two years to do nothing about Ken 'Hitler was a zionist' Livingstone, but two days to bungle proceedings against a Jewish MP who was rude to him
- Celebrates and commemorates terrorists and murderers who target Jews
- Was a member of several organisations with anti-Semitic outputs, most notoriously the Stop the War Coalition, which he chaired
- Implied that Zionism (a mainstream belief broadly held in some form by most British Jews) was incompatible with being English
- Says that pieces calling him out on this are apparently 'utterly disgusting subliminal nastiness'

No wonder he enjoys David Duke's glowing recommendation.

 

[Pikachu52]

A lot seems to have happened this week; from the pending release of Bob Woodward's fear (can't wait), to the anonymous New York Times op-ed (guess who), to the sentencing of George Papodopolous to 14 days prison and a $10,000.00 fine (I'm guessing he cut a deal and is turning tricks for Robert Mueller).

Alex Jones finally got booted off twitter and, without any cyberspace to scream about "globalists" and smear the families of the victims of Sandy Hook, took his grievances and trolling directly to Capitol Hill where he ended up in a dust up with Marco Rubio:

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/05/alex-jones-marco-rubio-capitol-hill-sot-vpx.cnn

And of course, cue the usual rightwing chorus of "free speech" and "liberal censorship."

The CEO's of twitter and facebook testified before a congressional hearing on Thursday, with this surprise testimony from far right activist Laura Loomer:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...-testimony-by-speaking-like-auctioneer-2018-9

Loomer will be remembered for her starring role Shakespeare in the park's production of Julius Ceaser where was the crackpot who interrupts the play to rave about the Trump-like appearance of Ceaser in the play. Nice to see she's keeping busy since her own twitter ban.

This is what she had to say:

Please help us, Mr. President, before it is too late, because Jack Dorsey is trying to influence the election, to sway the election, so that Democrats can steal the election!....That is why he is censoring and shadow-banning conservatives!

It's somewhat, no entirely, ironic to hear a hardline trump worshipper (not just supporters at this point) complaining about social media being used to sway the election, since facebook's sale of data to Cambridge analytica and the proliferation of fake news and trolling on twitter and facebook by Russian trolls played a key roll in putting President "investigated-the-op-ed" in the White House in the first place.

Or did she just bluntly admit that republicans can only win elections if conservatives are permitted to troll, lie and spread hate speech and misinformation on twitter.

And of course, again, it needs to be restated that it is impossible for Dorsey to censor anyone. Censorship can only be done by the government. Your right to freedom of speech does not entitle you to a twitter account. Access to social media is not required for "free speech" - Americans enjoyed first amendment rights long before they even had electricity, let alone computers, twitter and facebook.

 

[Poke Trainer J]

The Australian Government has released a draft Bill known as the Assistance and Access Bill 2018, designed to compel device manufacturers and service providers to assist law enforcement in accessing encrypted information. Although apparently developed to allow government agencies access to criminals’ encrypted communications, the Bill also grants broad, sweeping powers to government agencies that will harm the security and stability of our communications and the internet at large.

This is a very dangerous slippery slope which is currently taking place in Australia right now but it will affect the UK, the United States, and potentially all other countries in terms of their own data and personal information security. In other words this essentially allows governments to get in touch with telecommunications companies to go in, read your data, and access it without a warrant and If people refuse to comply then there's going to be fines as big as $10 million including for people whistle blowing on this issue.

So here's everyone's top concerns with this bill:

1. It creates obligations on technology producers and communication providers, forcing them to work for law enforcement agencies;
2. Creates powers that would allow police to seize information directly from a device; and
3. Allows government operatives to access more data through current warrants.

To believe that, one would need a provide a very compelling reason as to why the DNC and Clinton would, hack their own server, steal their own damning emails, leak said emails to wikileaks at extremely damaging times for Clinton, essentially commit.

To believe this, one also has to ignore Putin himself:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-he-did/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8aea3ff8fe8a

I'm not saying that the DNC and Clinton did collude with Putin and Russia when it was just a hypothetical possibility that I wanted to point out in case the Mueller Investigation did turned out to be a hoax according to Trump which it isn't. The real question is what it's going to take to convince Trump's base and House Republicans that the President himself is a clear danger to our democracy and republic.

 

[Pikachu52]

The real question is what it's going to take to convince Trump's base and House Republicans that the President himself is a clear danger to our democracy and republic.

I don't feel Trump is a danger to democracy so much as he is a danger to civil rights. Thus far, America's civic institutions have more or less kept his worst instincts in check; His transgender military ban was blocked by the courts, his White House is leaking like a colander and his attempts to obstruct the Russia investigation by firing James Comey only landed him with the Mueller investigation that has resulted in his former campaign manger, personal lawyer, national security advisor and campaign staffer under indictment, revealed the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 election and could ultimately end his presidency.

Where Trump is at his worst he's implementing cruel policies like family separation, emboldening white supremacists and hate groups and is producing a toxic public discourse in which a small, but core part of the republican base is convinced of the existence of a "deep state" trying to thwart him and that the "mainstream media" is lying.

I think the bigger threat to democracy are the forces that put the idiot in the White House in the first place; Russian interference and cyber attacks, online trolls, fake news and an increasingly emboldened populist sentiment in 'western' countries promoting fear and hatred of immigrants and racial, religious and gender minorities. That's a bigger problem than president $@!%-for-brains and won't be solved simply by his removal.

If the New York Times Op-ed is to be believed, and really there's no reason for it not to be given Bob Woodward is writing the same things, then some in Trump's inner circle are acutely aware of the dangers posed by Trump and are trying to keep his worst instincts in check. That may explain why he hasn't been quite the unmitigated disaster he was feared to be.

 

[Gamzee Makara]

I am expecting Trump to come to North Carolina after the disaster...to brag....after bitching on Twitter..and blaming Obama/Clinton/The "Deep State"/Governor Cooper/Democrats/Hollywood/randoms...

He better not make the upcoming tragedy about himself.

But he will.

And his cult will give him thunderous applause for it.

If he comes to my neck of the woods, you bet I'll protest.

 

[Pikachu52]

“Nurse. The Sedatives!...Mrs. Bolton please try to keep your husband off the hard cheese.”

In a week marked by pure crazy, from an anonomous Op-ed from a staffer claiming Trump’s own staff were working to undermine him, and the President’s midnight twitter rants getting more and more deranged about the release of Bob Woodward’s book, National Security Advisor John Bolton’s threats to prosecute prosecutors from the ICC over alleged investigations of the conduct of the CIA in Afghanistan might just take the cake:

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-...al-criminal-court-judges-20180911-p502zb.html

Bolton threatened to bar ICC personnel from entering the United States and to freeze assets and prosecute them in US courts and called the ICC an “illegitimate court” that was “dead to the US”.

Why has nobody in this clown college of an administration said that of the Russian military officers and entities responsible for interference in the 2016 election - especially after Robert Mueller issued actual indictments against them. Rhetorical question as I suspect we all know the answer to that.

It is of course highly questionable whether existing US law would actually enable Bolton to carry out his threat. There is the “American Service-Members' Protection Act“ that allows the president to take action to protect service personnel detained at the request of the ICC. So really John Bolton hasn't really singled any chance in US policy towards the ICC. If anything he probably, to borrow a term from the right, "virtue signalling" to the base.

Personally, I think he's trying to out crazy his alter ego from The Late Show with Stephen Colbert:

The US was a signatory to the Rome Statute (the treaty that creates the ICC and defines its jurisdiction) but subsequently withdrew its signature after Bill Clinton, after singing the treaty in 2000, declined to submit it to the Sentate for consent. Other non-signatories include Israel, another former signatory whom withdrew in 2002 and Russia who withdrew in 2016 after it’s jurisdiction would have made Ukraine difficult for them. Many African states object to the ICC on the basis that it’s more European colonialism and an interference in their affairs.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sta...e_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court

This will of course be seen as an ideological fight - Trump supporters will see it as more “putting Amuricha first” as they do with every blunder their messiah makes on the world stage and undoubtably the buzzword “globalist” will be used repeatedly. But the actual issue is probably moot. Article 13 of the Rome Statute limits the courts jurisidction to cases referred to it by state parties or to cases referred to it by the UN Secuirty Council on which the US has a veto. The article does permit the prosecutor to begin investigations but the court is reliant on state parties for information.

Questions have been raised as to whether the ICC can survive, but if it can’t it didn’t have far to fall in the first place. The court has had significant problems exercising it’s jurisdiction over many alleged war criminals and many arrest warrants remain outstanding, notable indictments including Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony and current sudanese president Al Bashir. Al Bashir controls his country's military and police forces meaning for the indictment to be realized he would need to place himself under arrest, meaning there is as much chance of the indictment being realised than there was of Gary Johnson winning the presidency.

Utilmately without legitimate and authorative governance institutions the rule of law cannot exist and there simply is not an international rule of law to which the US can be constrained. And thus the man who advocated for the US to invade Iran and launch preliminary strikes against North Korea, both acts that would themselves violate international law and could be considered war crimes, questions the legitimacy of the body mainly responsible for war crimes.

 

[bobjr]

You're not going to convince a fairly involved Trump supporter to change their mind. Best you can do is make them apathetic enough to not vote. You'll see some people wise up and change their minds, but that's usually a minority. You saw this with Bush in 2006, where suddenly no one voted for him until Obama was elected.

Also it's revealed that Trump is moving FEMA money to ICE, so as much as people forgive GW Bush when they shouldn't he got really lucky the next GOP President was worse at Hurricanes.