Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

 
 
 
 
 
 
4
12 hours ago, downzy said:
 
 
 
 
2
12 hours ago, downzy said:

You obviously don't care what I say or what the FEC and USC says, so perhaps this will help you understand the law:

https://www.justsecurity.org/66277/the-quid-is-a-crime-no-need-to-prove-pro-quo-in-ukrainegate/

Again, a contribution isn't limited to a monetary contribution. An in-kind contribution can be anything of value.  No one in their right mind would argue that dirt on a political rival isn't a thing of value.  

To quote the linked article:

 on defines “solicit” to mean “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.”

And that’s all the law requires. Whether or not Ukraine came through, whether or not the communications involved a quid pro quo, the solicitation of a thing of value from the Ukraine President in connection with a U.S. election could be a federal crime."

The article then demonstrates why Trump's actions demonstrate that in this case, it is a crime.  

Again, you repeatedly argue a point in which you know very little about.

This again is what frustrates me about most people try to defend Trump.  They either don't know what you're talking about or you're being disingenuous.  

 For the millionth time, the article is talking about FINANCIAL crimes I understand perfectly what you are saying . For example if I asked you to lend me a couch or to help me to do my tax forms for like  4 days.  The Statute you described is directly describing goods or services that are worth money. The crime you are trying to describe is Bribery Trump asking the Ukrainians to investigate Biden in exchange for aid is called Bribery, not an in-kind contribution. 

Here is the definition of an in-kind contribution  Now tell me in what way is asking a foreign government for an investigation that never even happened is a violation of that specific statute. You are trying to describe bribery

https://www.tfff.org/how-we-work/grants/how-apply-grant/how-calculate-kind-contributions

  • Professional services (legal, architectural, engineering, accounting, medical) at a customary hourly rate for your area.
  • Other services (printing, site preparation, fabricating, sub-contractors, publicity) at customary rate for time and materials.
  • Costs for use of machinery (heavy equipment) at customary hourly rate.
  • Volunteer time actually involved in project implementation.
  • Furnishings, food, landscape or construction materials (appliances, furniture, trees, plants, wood, plumbing, hardware etc.) donated by a business or an individual either directly or indirectly.
  • Hours spent in the actual project (for instance, volunteers constructing a playground), does count as in-kind. Non-skilled volunteer labor such as this would be calculated at the Oregon/California minimum wage.
  • Labor donated for fundraising activities does not count towards in-kind.
Edited by Gibsonfender2323

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

 No Attempted murder is a crime :facepalm: 

So is attempted bribery or extortion.

That's the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

 For the millionth time, the article is talking about FINANCIAL crimes I understand perfectly what you are saying . For example if I asked you to lend me a couch or to help me to do my tax forms for like  4 days.  The Statute you described is directly describing goods or services that are worth money. The crime you are trying to describe is Bribery Trump asking the Ukrainians to investigate Biden in exchange for aid is called Bribery, not an in-kind contribution. 

Here is the definition of an in-kind contribution  Now tell me in what way is asking a foreign government for an investigation that never even happened is a violation of that specific statute. You are trying to describe bribery

https://www.tfff.org/how-we-work/grants/how-apply-grant/how-calculate-kind-contributions

  • Professional services (legal, architectural, engineering, accounting, medical) at a customary hourly rate for your area.
  • Other services (printing, site preparation, fabricating, sub-contractors, publicity) at customary rate for time and materials.
  • Costs for use of machinery (heavy equipment) at customary hourly rate.
  • Volunteer time actually involved in project implementation.
  • Furnishings, food, landscape or construction materials (appliances, furniture, trees, plants, wood, plumbing, hardware etc.) donated by a business or an individual either directly or indirectly.
  • Hours spent in the actual project (for instance, volunteers constructing a playground), does count as in-kind. Non-skilled volunteer labor such as this would be calculated at the Oregon/California minimum wage.
  • Labor donated for fundraising activities does not count towards in-kind.

Again: "contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” in connection with a U.S. election, and prohibits a person from soliciting, accepting or receiving such a contribution or donation from a foreign national.

Political dirt on an opponent is something of value.   The list you provide are just a few examples.  It's not a comprehensive or definitive list.  

Solicitation of a thing of value is a crime.

It's the same reason men get charged for asking a prostitute for sex.  The sex doesn't have to happen in order for there to be a crime.  

I don't know how this can be made any clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheSeeker said:

 

Anyone who actually believes that the Democrat establishment is gonna let Bernie is going to be the nominee is a fool. Plus he is like polling 3rd 

Edited by Gibsonfender2323

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadian Public Broadcaster, CBC (like BBC), aired Home Alone 2 over Christmas. The 7 second Trump cameo was cut for time back in the 2014 screening and the same edit was screened this year. That didnt stop roving packs of drooling minions from freaking out about alleged 'liberal propaganda' :lol::jerkoff:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/cbc-trump-scene-home-alone-2-1.5408809

 

Naturally, Trump had to tweet about it. Suggesting that Prime Minstrel Trudeau had made the change himself! :rofl-lol:

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/cbc-screening-of-home-alone-2-is-missing-its-trump-scene-twitter-loses-its-mind

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The antisemitic smears are starting against Bernie Sanders.... yeah that Jewish guy, Bernie Sanders. :lol:

The Brits were so easily duped that they seem to figure someone being Jewish wont hinder their propaganda at all. :shrugs:

Great debunk which follows the antisemitic smear to foreign actors associated with Israeli/US govt relations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soon said:

The antisemitic smears are starting against Bernie Sanders.... yeah that Jewish guy, Bernie Sanders. :lol:

The Brits were so easily duped that they seem to figure someone being Jewish wont hinder their propaganda at all. :shrugs:

Great debunk which follows the antisemitic smear to foreign actors associated with Israeli/US govt relations.

 

Democrats against antisemitism is the most laughable thing in the world.  Anti Semitism runs rampant in their party

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalists on both sides hate minorities. Liberals, however, found out how to leverage them for political gain. Although it doesn't actually work when the right dominates public discourse and the left keeps losing elections.

A bunch of rich people calling each other racist while the poor get even poorer. Bring on the uprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Democrats against antisemitism is the most laughable thing in the world.  Anti Semitism runs rampant in their party

How so? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

It's All About The Benjamins and Accusing Jews of dual loyalty for starters in addition here is a good article from the New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/opinion/ilhan-omar-anti-semitism.html

"runs rampant in the party" and you post an example of one house representative? Come on. And equating criticism of Israel with anti Semitism is simply disingenuous. I might agree with you that Ilhan Omar's comments border on being anti Semitic but even if they are (an argument I do find plausible but highly debatable) then you've only shown that one house rep might be anti Semitic. There are plenty of valid criticisms to make about Israel that have no connection to one's feelings about Jewish people. The only time that connection is made, honestly, is when Republicans want to play the race card against Democrats like they do against the Republicans. And it's a really, really weak argument.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Jakey Styley said:

"runs rampant in the party" and you post an example of one house representative? Come on. And equating criticism of Israel with anti Semitism is simply disingenuous. I might agree with you that Ilhan Omar's comments border on being anti Semitic but even if they are (an argument I do find plausible but highly debatable) then you've only shown that one house rep might be anti Semitic. There are plenty of valid criticisms to make about Israel that have no connection to one's feelings about Jewish people. The only time that connection is made, honestly, is when Republicans want to play the race card against Democrats like they do against the Republicans. And it's a really, really weak argument.

 The Democrats have refused to condemn the comments by some o the f 2 most prominent members of their party who have repeatedly made ant Semitic comments and shared a cartoon made by the Holocaust Deniers.   

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and the middle eastern theocracies hate it and want to destroy it and  BDS is an anti-Semitic organization. 

 https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ilhan-omar-and-rashida-tlaib-partnered-with-vicious-anti-semites-to-plan-their-trip-to-israel/

Louis Farhaken is a prominent Democratic donor with major ties to the party. and is a  raging antisemite and has compared Jews to termites. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/politics/louis-farrakhan-speech/index.html

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/democratic-party-tolerance-anti-semitism-exposes-intolerance/

The Jewish people are the number one targeted groups for hate crimes.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/open-season-on-jews-reports-of-anti-semitic-attacks-during-hanukkah-cause-for-concern/2250584/

Edited by Gibsonfender2323

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Yes, antisemitism is one of the ugliest and tragic things humanity faces. Which is why you shouldn't attempt to evoke it to level tacky, disingenuous and baseless claims about it in attempt to score cheap political points.

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 hours ago, soon said:

The antisemitic smears are starting against Bernie Sanders.... yeah that Jewish guy, Bernie Sanders. :lol:

The Brits were so easily duped that they seem to figure someone being Jewish wont hinder their propaganda at all. :shrugs:

Great debunk which follows the antisemitic smear to foreign actors associated with Israeli/US govt relations.

 

I've got to say that as much as the Labour antisemitism thing is a real issue I honestly think that it made fuck all difference in the election. The northern working classes (as bad as it  may sound) frankly couldn't give a shit about antisemitism. Corbyn and McDonnell, whatever your opinion of them were objectively NOT good leaders because good leaders by definition don't lead their parties to their worst defeat in 84 years. :lol: It wasn't even as if this was in question over the past few years. Polls routinely showed that Corbyn was incredibly unpopular yet he put his fingers in his ears and carried on marching his followers over the cliff. That utter lack of self awareness is what doomed the Labour Party. It had fuck all to do with antisemitism.

The election was about two things in the public's eyes as sad as that may be. They hated Corbyn and wanted Brexit. Northern heartlands such as @DieselDaisy's constituency voted for the same party that destroyed their communities in the 80's and 90's. Labour's Brexit policy varied from inconsistent to just plain non-existent and while the popular vote in the Brexit referendum was only 52:48% our electoral system, much like yours (I think) is of the "first past the post" variety and by constituency the UK voted 406:224 to leave. As much as that sucks, any party that didn't at least have a policy on the issue was fucked from the start.

I know that you're a student of international politics @soon so for additional context have a look at this and consider that this is the same party that just won a landslide in the region.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22124996

The Tories were responsible for the death of the mining industry in the 80's. 

A lot of these communities also just voted for Boris Johnson so ask yourself whether these places really gave a shit about Corbyn's opinion on the state of Israel. :) 

Edited by Dazey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dazey said:

 

I've got to say that as much as the Labour antisemitism thing is a real issue I honestly think that it made fuck all difference in the election. The northern working classes (as bad as that may sound) frankly couldn't give a shit about antisemitism. Corbyn and McDonnell, whatever your opinion of them were objectively not good leaders because good leaders by definition don't lead their parties to their worst defeat in 84 years. :lol: It wasn't even as if this was in question over the past few years. Polls routinely showed that Corbyn was incredibly unpopular yet he put his fingers in his ears and carried on marching his followers over the cliff. That utter lack of self awareness is what doomed the Labour Party. It had fuck all to do with antisemitism.

The election was about two things in the public's eyes as sad as that may be. They hated Corbyn and wanted Brexit. Northern heartlands such as @DieselDaisy's constituency voted for the same party that destroyed their communities in the 80's and 90's. Labour's Brexit policy varied from inconsistent to just plain non-existent and while the popular vote in the Brexit referendum was only 52:48% our electoral system, much like yours (I think) is of the "first past the post" variety and by constituency the UK voted 406:224 to leave. As much as that sucks, any party that didn't at least have a policy on the issue was fucked from the start.

I know that you're a student of international politics @soon so for additional context have a look at this and consider that this is the same party that just won a landslide in the region.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22124996

The Tories were also responsible for the death of the mining industry in the 80's. 

A lot of these communities also just voted for Boris Johnson so ask yourself whether these places really gave a shit about Corbyn's opinion on the state of Israel. :) 

Oh, for sure. Neither I nor the video I posted have suggested that the smear was what decided the vote :)

Yes, in the video I posted they do acknowledge right off the top that the intense antisemitic smear campaign was only a small factor in the defeat. But that we need to learn from it because it will be far more effective in the US this time round. They unmask that this twitter account, Democrats Against Antisemitism, is run by foreign actors. And the name of that account is of course nearly identical to Labour Councillors Against Antisemitism. So we need to dig into this to be as strong as possible. 

From over here, the general analysis is that Brexit itself was a social-media-lies phenomenon. And that, like here with Bernie, the mainstream media had extreme bias against Corbynism - not only the Brexit file mismanagement - but against social dem approaches to addressing the Climate Crisis. And then the aforementioned smear campaign.

Both Britain and US are fading world powers whose populations are struggling to come to terms with the current realities and as a result have manifest rather similar, imho, panicked reactions to their plight. So we can learn from one situation and apply it to the other is the thinking.

Now, all that said, Im naturally with Nandy on this when she critiqued Corbyn's Leadership in saying 'we should have nationalized rail, that is good. But we cant run a campaign centred on that to people in the North whose needs dont seem to connect with that. (paraphrased)' As an outsider, who focuses most of my attention on Canada, US and developing nations I can also still see what you are saying about how Corbyn's leadership approach and campaign style was tone deaf and misguided. From the little insight that I do have about it, it seems quite sad really. He was up against the entire capitalist establishment and its media, tactical operators and Brexiteers and yet, he may have still managed to be his own worst enemy?

But we can at least, as a movement, learn from the Corbyn antisemitism smears. I do believe that the propagandists have been emboldened in their antisemitic tactic based on how easily the British public bought into it. To the extent that they are now accusing a Jewish person of antisemitism. Dont matter if that wasn't the battle that won the war, the tactic still had teeth. Its proven itself.

Social Dems being smeared as being antisemitic is fairly common place given Israels atrocities and de facto apartheid state situation would naturally be called out by progressives (as should all thinking people). But its an even more perfect storm in the US given that Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem (an act that drove Canada to change its vote in the UN to be more pro-Palastinian, which was shocking and ground breaking). The devastating irony of course being that Trumps White Nationalist base often carry antisemitic views! :facepalm:

Its interesting that you mention the first passed the post. Yes, we do have that despite the fact that changing to a Proportional Representation model was a central campaign promise when we first elected the fuck boy. He promptly abandoned that promise after elected. However when we had our most recent Quebec separation referendum, the gov said that 50+1 would not be sufficient to split the country. So its easy to assume that your referendums results would not have lead to Quebec Separation. As far as I understand, they didnt even give a threshold or a guarantee theyd act on results. 

Looking forward to watching this vid and diving into the article, thanks! The film that topped my best of the decade list is based on a true story about the social aspects of the miners strikes, as chance would have it. Pride, its called. But its not a doc so this is a great chance to do a deep dive. :headbang:

(sorry for long winded, cant be concise before coffee. Especially early on Sunday morning, :lol:)

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, soon said:

Oh, for sure. Yes, in the video I posted they do acknowledge right off the top that the intense antisemitic smear campaign was only a small factor in the defeat. But that we need to learn from it because it will be far more effective in the US this time round. They unmask that this twitter account, Democrats Against Antisemitism, is run by foreign actors. And the name of that account is of course nearly identical to Labour Councillors Against Antisemitism. So we need to dig into this to be as strong as possible.

From over here, the general analysis is that Brexit itself was a social-media-lies phenomenon. And that, like here with Bernie, the mainstream media had extreme bias against Corbynism - not only the Brexit file mismanagement - but against social dem approaches to addressing the Climate Crisis. And then the aforementioned smear campaign.

Both Britain and US are fading world powers whose populations are struggling to come to terms with the current realities and as a result have manifest rather similar, imho, panicked reactions to their plight. So we can learn from one situation and apply it to the other is the thinking.

Now, all that said, Im naturally with Nandy on this when she critiqued Corbyn's Leadership in saying 'we should have nationalized rail, that is good. But we cant run a campaign centred on that to people in the North whose needs dont seem to connect with that. (paraphrased)' As an outsider, who focuses most of my attention on Canada, US and developing nations I can also still see what you are saying about how Corbyn's leadership approach and campaign style was tone deaf and misguided. From the little insight that I do have about it, it seems quite sad really. He was up against the entire capitalist establishment and its media, tactical operators and Brexiteers and yet, he may have still managed to be his own worst enemy?

But we can at least, as a movement, learn from the Corbyn antisemitism smears. I do believe that the propagandists have been emboldened in their antisemitic tactic based on how easily the British public bought into it. To the extent that they are now accusing a Jewish person of antisemitism. Dont matter if that wasn't the battle that won the war, the tactic still had teeth. Its proven itself.

Social Dems being smeared as being antisemitic is fairly common place given Israels atrocities and de facto apartheid state situation would naturally be called out by progressives. But its an even more perfect storm in the US given that Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem (an act that drove Canada to change its vote in the UN to be more pro-Palastinian, which was shocking and ground breaking). The devastating irony of course being that Trumps White Nationalist base often carry antisemitic views! :facepalm:

Its interesting that you mention the first passed the post. Yes, we do have that despite the fact that changing to a Proportional Representation model was a central campaign promise when we first elected the fuck boy. He promptly abandoned that promise after elected. However when we had our most recent Quebec separation referendum, the gov said that 50+1 would not be sufficient to split the country. So its easy to assume that your referendums results would not have lead to Quebec Separation. As far as I understand, they didnt even give a threshold or a guarantee theyd act on results. 

Looking forward to watching this vid and diving into the article, thanks! The film that topped my best of the decade list is based on a true story about the social aspects of the miners strikes, as chance would have it. Pride, its called. But its not a doc so this is a great chance to do a deep dive. :headbang:

(sorry for long winded, cant be concise before coffee. Especially early on Sunday morning, :lol:)

Brassed Off is an absolute classic about that period. Note the massive difference in tone between the UK and US trailers. :lol: 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Brassed Off is an absolute classic about that period. Note the massive difference in tone between the UK and US trailers. :lol: 

 

 

That's odd. Granted, it's been over 20 years since I've watched it, but I remember finding it depressing. The tragic part of it must've made a bigger impression on me than the comedy. Bit like The Full Monty. Funny, yes, but ultimately sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dazey said:

Brassed Off is an absolute classic about that period. Note the massive difference in tone between the UK and US trailers. :lol: 

 

 

Thats fucking hilarious how different the trailers are! :lol: Like two movies, one about class, identity and modernity, and the other movie is a cookie cutter rom com.

Thanks, I will check this one out too :headbang:

I only first read this article yesterday, but it seems quite useful to me. It isnt exploring the way Id like the world to proceed, but is still interesting and informative. It shines light on Brexit by exploring similar authoritarian populist movements in the EU. It also voices a reminder that populism isnt necessarily an Authoritarian thing exclusively. 

Just speaking off the top of my head, but it would seem that Britain has twice opted into Authoritarian Populism, with Thatcher and Brexit? But the Democratic Populism of Corbyn's Labour was also on offer this time round. And Id doubt that is coincidental, Corbyn introduced democratic populist policy to Labours platform, right? Because populism was in the air. So the 'irony' you highlighted about Northern Mining towns voting for the Tories is especially interesting. The idea that liberal democracy is no longer an option was a consensus, but the democratic variant of the alternative was decimated. Scary, no?

.........

The two faces of populism: Between authoritarian and democratic populism

Abstract: Populism is Janus-faced; simultaneously facing different directions. There is not a single form of populism, but rather a variety of different forms, each with profoundly different political consequences. Despite the current hegemony of authoritarian populism, a much different sort of populism is also possible: Democratic and anti-establishment populism, which combines elements of liberal and democratic convic-tions. Without understanding the political economy of the populist revolt, it is difficult to understand the true roots of populism, and consequently, to devise an appropriate democratic alternative to populism.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/DE624D20B257C3862AEC1E9C2E8C0663/S2071832219000208a.pdf/div-class-title-the-two-faces-of-populism-between-authoritarian-and-democratic-populism-div.pdf

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is so ''authoritarian'' about Brexit? Brexit was a democratic nationwide referendum: it was the very antithesis of authoritarianism haha!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

What is so ''authoritarian'' about Brexit? Brexit was a democratic nationwide referendum: it was the very antithesis of authoritarianism haha!!!

Thatcher was elected, but you dont challenge that description.

You should read it. The only Authoritarian Populism the article discusses are all democratically elected/ running for election. So, no, democratic election and authoritarian populism are not mutually exclusive. Trump was elected too.

But, Im just familiarizing myself with the article and it would actually likely label Brexit as "Reactionary" and "Xenophobic" Populism. All of which are commonly referred to as Authoritarian. But I dont believe there is room for Brexit in this articles definition of "Democratic Populism." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, soon said:

Thatcher was elected, but you dont challenge that description.

You should read it. The only Authoritarian Populism the article discusses are all democratically elected/ running for election. So, no, democratic election and authoritarian populism are not mutually exclusive. Trump was elected too.

But, Im just familiarizing myself with the article and it would actually likely label Brexit as "Reactionary" and "Xenophobic" Populism. All of which are commonly referred to as Authoritarian. But I dont believe there is room for Brexit in this articles definition of "Democratic Populism." 

Thatcher wasn't authoritarian either you pillock. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Thatcher wasn't authoritarian either you pillock. 

I think you are confusing two separate terms.

1) Authoritarian Populism

2) Authoritarian Regimes

Youre welcome. :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×