LOL, how many times I have to explain you what every reasonable person understands immediately, namely that such a remark is a rhetorical prediction about the future, and not a claim about the actual situation? The actual situation is already horrible enough for politically incorrect people, given that they risk penalties of order of 100 000 dollars for refusing to make contracts for politically incorrect reasons. But, of course, I know that indefinite incarceration without violating a law covers today only small groups of the US population like "pedofiles" and "terrorists". I do not. But I defend my own answers, given to joepistole, once they have been appropriate answers in a context defined by joepistole's claim. As long as I do not have any evidence about something different, I assume people behave in a rational way. This is, in itself, a rational strategy. Up to know, I have not seen evidence that Trump is really stupid. All the evidence I have seen tells me only that he follows a quite reasonable strategy in the election campaign, namely, to intentionally violate all the "political correctness" restrictions he can find. This is a strategy which makes sense. Because there are a lot of people who are f...... .. by political correctness, hate it. People who have, in fact, no problem acknowledging that a lot of such politically incorrect speech is simple BS, but care about their freedom to say such things even if it is BS. This is a quite subtle point you seem not to understand. I have defended here the joke about asking Putin about Clinton's email in a rational way. But this is not what matters. What matters for the people is that one is allowed to make jokes. Even if they do not make much sense. Not exactly. Given that I do not evaluate his speeches myself, I follow the evaluation of his speeches made by people which I consider as reliable sources. Their claims go, of course, also through some crosscheck with my personal common sense. I know. But there was some conflict, with the deep state. But, of course, only horribly stupid people, with some mental illness, think that this conflict may have something to do with some events. Sorry. American politicians. Those who rule the deep state. His plan is simply stability. So, ok, if NATO is in his way given he wants stability, ... Of course, they have to legitimate their own crimes, their support for terrorists, headcutters of children, which fight against the Syrian goverment. No necessity. I defend my arguments against arguments. Joepistole has no arguments. This is simply common knowledge. Feel free to believe otherwise, nobody cares.
You attempt to defend your answers. LOL....unfortunately for you comrade denial of reality doesn't make reality go away. Where is it common knowledge exactly? The fact is, it isn't common knowledge because its not true. The only country who is playing a zero sum game here is your beloved Mother Russia. The only one here who is illegally invading, occupying, and annexing the lands of its neighbors is your beloved Mother Russia i.e. Putina. The fact is your beloved Mother Putina i.e. Russia is supporting a tyrant who has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He along with your beloved Mother Putina have bombed and gassed civilians and deliberately attacked hospitals. Unfortunately for you and your beloved Mother Putina you cannot control the Western press as you do in your Mother Russia.
While we are on the subject. Does anyone in here think that the Russians, Chinese, Israelis, ... etc... copied and kept the infamous missing e-mails? If so, do you think that whomever has them will use them or release them? ..................................... Long ago, I had a ts+++ clearance. After some time doing background checks, the fbi and mi guys questioned me for 3 days. (they seemed to know more about my past than I did myself---when asked, they kept refreshing my memories) After the dust settled, it dawned on me that all they really wanted to know was whether or not I had done anything that I wanted to hide. .......... What, if anything, does Ms. Clinton think that she has to hide. Can foreign powers use any of this to coerce her into doing anything contrary to the best interests of the USA??
That depends. At this point it is not known if Hillary's private email servers were ever hacked. But if they were, I doubt they would want it known and disclosing them would be an admission. So I doubt her private emails will not be released if someone has them. It would invite US retribution. The power plants in Russia might suddenly self destruct. I don't think the value benefit equations works for disclosing them. And I don't think there's anything scandalous in the emails.
And once foreign powers help Trump get elected, how many US interests will he give up to them in gratitude?
The prediction reveals your fundamental ignorance regarding the current situation. You lack information about context, in this case American political history and current state. No American citizen may be indefinitely incarcerated without violating a law. Not true of them either. And since you refuse to gather information about situations, you have no idea what "rational" behavior for Trump or Clinton would look like - in fact, you have very little idea how they are actually behaving, let alone how they would behave if "rational" in your view. So you are free to make even very silly assumptions and assertions regarding people and things you know nothing about in complete confidence. But you are unlikely to be correct, or even close. Of course. Trump is very intelligent, almost everyone (certainly me) knows that. What you are missing there is that your determination of "political correctness" is something you were conned into - hypnotized, by purposeful and deliberate media manipulation based in the US, which you were and are unable to resist. So you are prey for the likes of Trump - a sucker, set up by sophisticated media manipulation familiar to Americans and being taken advantage of by a very intelligent con man of a type familiar to almost everybody. This is a completely familiar situation in the US - it's an entire faction of the electorate, with roots going back to the Civil War. Look at a map of the voters in the US who agree with you about Trump. You've joined a Tribe You have no such capability. You can't tell which sources are reliable (look at the ones you've posted here), and you don't have enough information to employ "common sense" even if you had any, which you don't seem to. If you had enough information to evaluate your sources, you could easily evaluate Trump's speeches for yourself. They are not complex, or subtle, or in need of deep analysis. Actually, even mere common sense would do - braggarts and bullies should be familiar to adults with common sense. Yours has been hypnotized. Have you ever seen a hypnotist show? They are not simply fraudulent - it really is possible to gently persuade some people, by manipulating their perception of context, to imitate a chicken in public on stage. That's what you are doing here, on this forum. You said he was an example of the danger of cutting the military budget. He wasn't. No, it isn't. Not in Ukraine, for example, where he destabilized the situation. Or in his actions regarding NATO. And not in his relations with the Trump campaign. His plan is to expand Russian territory, power, and influence, under his control. His idea of stability is furthered by killing journalists, for example - that's not "simple stability", but a particular variety of "stability". Mob bosses always want "stability". Of a kind. It's wrong. In error. And you can discover that by reading the posts of Americans on this forum.
I agree. Of course, there's zero evidence Putin and Trump are colluding to get Trump elected. LOL Welcome Grade 6 reading level America where to get elected you have to talk to them as if you were a 4 year old (see Idiocracy for a pretty accurate portrait of modern day America - thank you Government Schools). While no evidence exists whereby "Putin is helping Trump get elected" there is evidence of foreign powers helping other people financially. Politifact: Fact-checking donations to the Clinton Foundation. "Crooked Hillary says we must call on Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding hate," Trump wrote on June 13, 2016. "I am calling on her to immediately return the $25 million plus she got from them for the Clinton Foundation!" About 300,000 people responded to that post, and it was shared more than 56,000 times. We wanted to know if Trump’s $25 million figure was correct. We soon found that independently confirming information about the Clinton foundation is challenging at best. Nonprofits, such as the Clinton Foundation, have nearly no obligation to publicly reveal who gives them money. They might need to tell a government agency, but the details remain confidential. . John Wonderlich, head of the Sunlight Foundation, a group that advocates for greater transparency in government, told PolitiFact, "The Clinton Foundation’s work, by its nature, blurs the lines between charity, business, politics, and public service, making it very difficult to evaluate in a traditional way." . It’s now possible to look up donation amounts on the Clinton Foundation’s website. Using Trump’s Saudi Arabia example, Saudi Arabia shows up as having given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation started. --o-- Makes you wonder. Incidentally, since we're talking political gossip, a DNC staffer who had access to their computer servers was shot in the head last week. Not robbed. Just shot twice in the head while walking alone and left dead on the sidewalk - money, valuables, credit cards, all left in his wallet. Police said they have no suspects, witnesses or motive. A few shots to the head and one in the back. You know, just because.
I think you should read your own references, because if you had you would know Trump has no evidence to support his allegations. And of course, we all know Trump never lies. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You are trolling again Michael.
Including Trump, by Russians. A whole slew of Republicans from the White House on down, by Saudis. And so forth. It's a bad scene, and the various Court and Justice department measures involved, including the Citizen's United ruling that brought it full shovel into US politics, should be examined carefully as a guide to who we want appointing the next Court justices.
PolitiFact: It’s now possible to look up donation amounts on the Clinton Foundation’s website. Using Trump’s Saudi Arabia example, Saudi Arabia shows up as having given between 10 and 25 million since the foundation started. --o-- You know, because, when they're not forcing women to wear a burka, chopping off the heads of homosexuals and atheists and wipping political prisoners, they're really a charitable group of guys those Saudis.... LOL
If my understanding is correct: Charity is required in the Quran Charity, for which the expression used in the Holy Quran is "spending out of what God has given you", means using your energy, talent, resources, money, possessions, or whatever else, to help and do good to those in need-------------Whatever their reason for giving to the Clinton foundation was---------I doubt that it qualifies as "Quranic/Muslim "charity". So we must needs look elsewhere for another reason.
Maybe Clinton will get us into a war with the Martians or maybe the Canadians. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The Saudis spent the Reagan and Bush and W years camped in the White House, their ambassadors enjoying closer relations with the US President than any other single country afaik. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan They fell on harder times with Obama https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/prince-bandar-saudi-intelligence-syria , and may have been buying their way back into the inner circle with the Clintons. Or maybe just preparing for a rough political battle after this came out: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/07/15/bandar-bush-named-as-911-planner-in-28-pages/ In any event, we see the effects of a miserably damaged Supreme Court and Justice Department, largely as a result of Republican mismanagement and poor quality appointments.
As usual, a cheap personal accusation, not supported with any evidence. You could have, instead, written something like "You know, for example, that '......', see http....". If this would be really new for me, and contradicting what I think, I would probably change my position. But with such meaningless accusation you obviously cannot reach anything. About Guantanamo you know? It is the very point of Guantanamo to incarcerate suspects of terrorism for as long as one likes. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/26/civil-commitment-sex-offenders shows that you can remain imprisoned indefinitely, after you have finished your sentence. And to fake a sex offense to make some unwanted person a sex offender is easy enough, given that it is sufficient to hack the computer and to put some illegal porn on it. Even to send it to him by spam mail would do it. So you repeat your defamatory claims about the insanity of your opponents? Ok, here it is simple despicable defamation, nothing more. But in a land where https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/26/civil-commitment-sex-offenders is already the actual situation, it is quite obvious what will be, in some nearby future, the consequence of such defamations. Ok, I will modify my to No, he stabilized the situation. It was destabilized by the US supporting the coup against Janukovic. With the coup, the Ukraine was in danger of a civil war, there have been already hundreds of murdered people and a progrom. The greatest civil war danger was in Crimea - and the Russian support has prevented civil war there completely. With only two people dead by an Ukrainian sniper. Then the Bandera gangs started a civil war in the Donbass. The results of Russian influence have been two ceasefires, Minsk I and Minsk II.
I'm glad you regard the observation of your hypnotized state as defamatory - there is hope, there. But your projection of clinical insanity, re-education camps, and similar nonsense, is part of that - not part of anything real in American politics. You have projected the leftwing authoritarianism of your experience unto the American situation, which is quite different in way - fascism - you cannot seem to recognize. It's not "obvious", it's delusional. Your link is to the dubious treatment of people convicted of crimes in a court of law. It is disturbing, and currently controversial, and being fought in the courts (as are many such issues, from capital punishment to solitary confinement) - but it is nothing like your fantasy of defamations leading to detentions and re-education camps. Sex offenders in the US are not incarcerated because they have been defamed by somebody, but because they have committed crimes and been convicted in a court of law - personally, one by one, not as members of some class or group. It isn't stable. And it is now more heavily armed, and incorporating wider confrontation among other armed factions. And Putin looks forward to preventing civil wars elsewhere, by similar conquest. But he needs to weaken NATO, first. Trump is a good bet for him.
Maybe a moment of entertainment is apropos at this time. While following a story about Boehmermann and his juvenile satire, I cam upon this silliness: Perspective matters. Keep a light heart and upon occasion reference the thoughts of Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr.
It is not yet. But is clearly has this potential. What is possible today is: A hacks the computer of B and locates there N horrible child porn pictures. Then he sends an anonymous email to the FBI that he has received from B child porn, in particular (copies of the pictures) . What would be the upper bound of the time B has to spend in jail, say, in the limit $N\to \infty$? And, please, don't forget: In a state of law somebody who has served is term is a free man. So, there is not much difference between you can be hold in prison forever, even after you have finished your term, and you can simply imprisoned forever. About Donbass: Indeed. But you can be sure that the third round will (as the first and the second) not be started by the Novorossian side. I agree that for preventing civil wars in the Russian neighborhood it is important to weaken NATO. Else, Putin will have civil wars everywhere in the environment, and at home too.
Böhmermann's thing was in fact not as juvenile as usually presented. It was, in full context, an application of Zinoviev's theorem of impossibility of censorship http://ilja-schmelzer.de/agora/Zinoviev.php The context was the following. There was some information about another, quite civilized but Erdogan-critical thing, which Erdogan did not like at all. Böhmermann then simply explained the difference between what is legal in Germany - the other Erdogan-critical thing - and what would be illegal in Germany. For example, the following would be illegal in Germany: What followed was what you have named "juvenile satire". What has been reported about this in the media was, of course, only the juvenile part, without the context. Modern media ...
I get that. I just found: “: „Sod-dumb, cowardly and hesitant/ Is Erdogan the President/ His boner smells like Döner/ Even a pig's fart smells finer/ He's the man who punches girls/ while wearing a bloody rubber mask/ Things he loves the most/ is shagging goats/ and oppressing minorities This kind of criticism would be illegal! Kicking Kurds, beating up Christians/ while watching child porn/ And in the evening instead of a nap/ Fellatio with a hundred sheep/ Erdogan is all things considered/ a President with a tiny wang/ to be a tad on the juvenile side So, here's the bit in it's entirety. (well translated?) Beginning: Böhmermann: Welcome to Germany's comedy show NR. 1. It's us. We don't have anything to do with satire. What our colleagues of extra3 did... we're not as thorough as them. Respect to them, big thing they made. That's a different league, like heute-show as-well. I really, really like the heute-show. They're sooo brilliant. When I heard rumors in the past, we were looking for their spot or anything Olli Welke hosts... Noooo, not at all Olli! Best wishes to you! [blows kiss to camera] I am suuuch a big fan of yours, I always watch your show for... for... errr... „inspiration“. Also, the Satire by extra3 almost started the third world war. Big applause for that! Super-song. And apparently in Turkey every, even the smallest satire or comedy show is being watched. So presumably, you also watch our show. Dear Turks, hello, when you watch this here. Maybe we need to explain something to you...? What our colleagues from extra3 did, was to make fun of your politics, Mr. Erdogan. That's legal in Germany and Europe through freedom of arts, freedom of media and freedom of speech. Kabelka: „By Article 5!“ Böhmermann: Article 5 of our constitution! That's legal. Criticism of politicians is legal! You can't come here and tell the government to withdraw satire or delete it from the internet. This is completely legal here. And I really enjoyed, how civil society stood up this week. Beatrix von Storch, who wanted me shot, if I remember correctly, two weeks ago, because of the "Frühling for Frauke"-video. And now all of a sudden, she's in first row, when it's about to defend freedom of arts and speech. Everyone agrees, satire needs to be allowed. Je suis extra3! Mr. Erdogan, but there are of course examples, that aren't legal. On one side, there's justified criticism, satire and fun, which is legal. And on the other side there's „abusive criticism“, which is illegal. „Abusive criticism“, that's a juridical term. Kabelka: „If you plainly insult people, defame people in personal regards, degrade people just to degrade them.“ Böhmermann: To degrade someone is „abusive criticism“? And that's illegal? Kabelka: „Yes.“ Böhmermann: Did you understand that, Mr. Erdogan? Kabelka: „It can be prosecuted.“ Böhmermann: It can even be prosecuted? And then video can be withdrawn from the internet? Kabelka: „Yes, but only afterwards.“ Böhmermann: It may be a bit complicated for you, Mr. Erdogan. Maybe we'll explain it by a practical example. I've got this 'poem' here, it's named „abusive criticism“. May we have a Turkish styled version of a song by Nena? And may we have a Turkish flag in the background? Fine! What comes next would be illegal? Kabelka: „Would be illegal.“ Böhmermann: This would be considered illegal. The 'poem' is named „abusive criticism“: „Sod-dumb, cowardly and hesitant/ Is Erdogan the President/ His boner smells like Döner/ Even a pig's fart smells finer/ He's the man who punches girls/ while wearing a bloody rubber mask/ Things he loves the most/ is shagging goats/ and oppressing minorities This kind of criticism would be illegal! Kicking Kurds, beating up Christians/ while watching child porn/ And in the evening instead of a nap/ Fellatio with a hundred sheep/ Erdogan is all things considered/ a President with a tiny wang/ I repeat this is an example of what would be illegal! Kabelka: „One would not be allowed to say that“ Böhmermann: Every Turk can be heard whispering:/ This dumb pig has got shrivel-balls/ From Ankara to Istanbul/ Everyone knows this man is gay/ perverted and zoophil/ Recep Fritzl Priklopil/ His head as empty as his balls/ the star guest on every gang-bang party/ until his tiny wang starts to burn while having a piss/ That's Reccep Erdogan“ This is what would NOT be legal by freedom of arts! Hey, don't applaud! What would happen next? Kabelka: „It would be withdrawn from the mediathek, f.i..“ Böhmermann: So, Erdogan would need to take a lawyer!? I'll say Dr. Joke is a great lawyer. Kabelka: „Yes, he's the lawyer of the mayor of Berlin and others.“ Böhmermann: Mr. Erdogan, visit this lawyer, tell him you've watched something you don't like: „abusive criticism“. Then you'd visit a court. Get a restraining order there. Then we'd have a legal case. Does that become clear to you? I really enjoyed, as a citizen of Germany, now after months of disputes and arguments, we finally had a consensus again. When its' about despots, when it comes to politicians, who go against freedom, like only despots do: Erdogan, Victor Orban, Beata Shit-lo, Beata Shit-lo from the Piss-Party, the Prime Minister of great neighboring country Poland, Marine LePen from the [acts like vomiting] Front National, Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands [most likely confused him with Geert Wilders], HC Strache from the FPÖ. They're all authoritarian, nationalistic wannabe despots. Also Frauke Petry, here, of course. All these are people, who more people should go against. Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump. I really appreciate we resist these guys self-confidently. Who cuts the rights of other people, needs to get his own rights cut. END and, here is his referenced predecessor : which the wiki author likened to the post in #57
