Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Murika, Aug 3, 2016.
Kind of all falls apart when you consider he's not really a grown up.
But he is a grown up. A grown up who wants to **** his daughter, nuke the bad guys, and build a big wall. No biggy. Its not really any different than 80% of the US population
id say its hugely important, because if they dont support trump they dont have a candidate on their side. They are essentially throwing the election. Do you think thats something a political party takes lightly?
Unrelated, here is a video from the NY Times
Unfiltered Voices From Donald Trump's Crowds
Yeah people can be dicks.
What I meant by my comment is that the fact he has a republican background doesn't mean he's automatically pro-Trump. That in this discussion we had about Scarborough's position, that it isn't very valuable information imho. Of course it's telling in general that people supporting a party, prominents, don't support their GOP-candidate.
My post was fine imho, but I'm not sure if there's an english synonym of the latin audi alteram partem, so let me try to explain it by giving an example:
About 2 weeks ago, ex-racedriver and now mostly knowing for being the father of Max: Jos Verstappen, had been accused of beating up his father (Max' grandfather) after an argument. It was a big national newspaper (De Telegraaf) who had a full article on it. People took it as truth, especially as Jos had a bit of a violent record already with his ex-wife, it made it very easy to assume it's probably true. But all they had was one unanymous anonymous source who claimed his father went to the police about it. Ever since, Jos has the name he beat up his father over an argument and this was all possible because they didn't apply audi alteram partem. Which means giving the accused means of defense or at least hear about the matter from any of the involved parties.
So a radio channel (Radio 538, the Netherlands' most popular channel, highest amount of listeners) called him (Jos' father) up for a live interview who was absolutely furious about the bullshit De Telegraaf wrote about him and Jos and that he didn't even touch him with one finger. He did admit discussions could sometimes get heated, but hitting each other never. So that's what I meant by that. The 3rd option I was talking about is Scarborough having a role like De Telegraaf had in this matter. Somebody said something and nobody checks shit.
As for your questions: of course partisanship does that, or rather, that's what partisanship is. And I would be lying if I wasn't prejudiced myself about both candidates. I'm also not an American citizen, but a concerned European, so my point of view might differ as only some points of view of both candidates would affect my life, rather than their entire programs. I also haven't been exposed to Trump as much as you may have been (I didn't even watch the apprentice for that matter, well, only the UK version a couple of episodes), so I don't know how that would've affected me if I had been.
I hope my post clarifies things a bit. It's Scarborough's position I have an issue with mostly in this thread.
Bergdahl was a traitor and he should have died in Afghanistan, because of him six men died
I have two uncles who served in Nam , one cousin who served in Desert Shield and another in Bosnian Conflict, and also other friends of them who were in the Bosnian Conflict as well as in the second gulf war. All of them were shocked to hear about this swap. But seriously what kind of fucking idiot would swap a traitor for 5 djihadists???? I am sure that Mc Griffin or Longshoremen who was a soldier and a member of this site for quite some time, would seriously disapprove this swap. Normally, you don't let a traitor live, you just kill him, same with a djihadist. You never let a brother in arms behind, never.
Other things that baffles me is that The Obama administration secretly arranged a plane delivery of $400 million in cash on the same day Iran released four American prisoners and formally implemented the nuclear deal, US officials confirmed Wednesday.
Since when Iran has been an ally of the US??? Since Obama took office?
At last but not least, The Muslim who attacked Donald Trump, Khizr Muazzam Khan, is a Muslim Brotherhood agent, working to bring Muslims into the United States. You can read it here http://freedomoutpost.com/what-the-...u-about-the-muslim-who-attacked-donald-trump/
Have you forgotten how much attacks and gruesome murders are linked to the religion fo peace whether in Europe or in the US??? It seems the case for you but not for me. Sadly the more we go in time, the more we see that some cultures and religions are incompatible with others. In Japan and in Switzerland, Muslims are a minority and are closley watched and monitored for several reasons. On the other hand in France, Germany, Sweden, England and Netherlands, the muslim population is important and a lot people who are incarcerated in the prisons of these countries are generally muslims, it is an undeniable fact. Check the links:
Reagan was a true leader and three if not four steps way ahead Bush Sr,Clinton the Blowjobber and liar under Oath, Bush Jr and Obama. He had stance, charisma and natural leadership http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/04/bennett.reagan.optimism/
Very few presidents in today modern times can be compared to Reagan, he was a league of his own. I remember vividly his speech of the 11th January 1989 which was his farewell message : “As long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours. And something else we learned: Once you begin a great movement, there’s no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world.” You can't have someone who has a weakminded policy when it comes to terrorism, the president must be unforgiving and ruthless with terrorists, see what the Israelis do with djihadists terrorists, they kill them and they blow them up. This is how things should be done when you deal with a djihadist.
Until the '79 Revolution they were a very strong ally in fact. It was around this time, also when the Afghan war started (even though that's an entirely different topic), that Islamist imperialism (and anti-westernization) revived on a world scale. I don't think Obama sees Iran as an ally (gut feeling, I don't know) and I believe Hillary already stated in an interview she'd respond with violence (among the ways she listed she mentioned nuclear as well if I'm not mistaken) if they'd attack Israel, so whoever gets chosen, for current Iran it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Whatever Bergdhal is accused of he deserves his day in court, and under the US Constitution he's presumed innocent until he's found guilty. In other words you don't just leave an American soldier in the hands of the enemy because you think he's probably guilty of something. Especially the someone like the Taliban.
Big whoop we gave back five. Even with a huge troop draw-down Taliban are still dying by the tens and hundreds.
That "freedom outpost" claim is completely unproven.
I have forgotten nothing, but every Muslim I know are fine people, as was CPT Khan, who gave his life for America. And I'm not going to allow terrorists turn me into a bigot or a xenophobe. And I'm sure as hell not going to let terrorists cause America as a whole to abandon American values.
I find it interesting you love that Reagan speech: "As long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours." Having a religious litmus test to enter America is abandoning our principles.
BTW, the Israelis still get attacked on a regular basis.
Do you find it normal that some immigrants trind to impose their religions as well as their customs and habits in the country where they migrated in? I find it unacceptable.
Do you find it also normal that some migrants who never worked nor contributed to the economy of a country get free healthcare, free housing and social helps (it is mostly related to europe's social system but it can be now more or less related to America's social system because of Obama)? I don't find it normal.
The list of terrorist attacks comitted by Muslims is very long https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
A priest in my country was killed because of a fucktard from the religion of peace, is this the kind of respectable people you appreciate?
Bergdahl was a traitor, a traitors deserve to die, end of story.
You can portray Khan as a respectable person like Farrakhan or like the Black Panther Leaders, fact is that he is a dirtbag and a douche that has nothing to do on the American soil. If moderate Muslims were really involved to fight by all means against radical islamism, they would have voiced their opinion loud enough and done something quickly. Unfortunately, they remained silent after the attacks in my country, so that means there is a guilt somewhere.
I know also some decent and very hardworking muslims who have a very well paid job and who are well integrated in my country, but I have seen and knew others who were just taking the advantage to leech off the social system.
Would you call the Swiss bigots? They banned minarets for a good reason and they are a country that never had islamic terrorist attacks.
"Patriotism is when love of your own people come first, nationalism is when hate for other people than your own comes first" a famous quote from General De Gaulle. You and I will probably never agree, you are on the liberal socialist spectrum where as I am in the conservative republican spectrum. You will note that I have almost never changed my politicial opinions since I am on sc net on 2002.I am a Gaullist before all and believe in the values of Gaullism.
I personally know many Muslim immigrants and I disagree with the premise of your question.
No, I don't believe anybody should attempt to impose their religious beliefs on others. My opinion is the same for immigrants of any religion, and it's the same for elected officials who pander to the religious right.
On Bergdhal, the US Constitution says:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
I am of the mind that the US Constitution should be followed. Apparently, in your opinion it should not. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that.
Additionally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to which the United States is a signatory) states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
The US military follows a strict code of "leave no man behind." Being suspected of a crime of which he has not been proven guilty in a court of law does not make that go away.
I will presume Khan to be a decent person until someone proves otherwise, which nobody has. I think it's disgusting the way Trump and some right wing blogs have attempted to smear a Gold Star family simply because they spoke out about their political opinions.
General De Gaulle was right. And I would argue that in the case of Trump and many of his followers, hate for others has come before love of country.
Hope Hicks (campaign spokeswoman) said to TIME there's no truth to it, same thing she said to The Hill and Manafort apparently was at this particular meeting Scarborough's on about, he said on FOX, and denies it as well.
So I really do strongly feel like it's what I wrote earlier about my analogy about De Telegraaf.
lol Hope Hicks also said Obama and Clinton's policies killed CPT Khan. CPT Khan died in 2004.
Why on earth would you take the word of Trumps own campaign spokesperson?
If someone going he-said-he-said is more credible to you than actual people making official statements, good for you. This is really where the discussion ends for me if I can't get basic journalistic ethics through to you
Journalistic ethics also include the credibility of a source.
Is the source biased? Litetally the only person in the entire world who would be more biased than Trump's campaign spokesperson is Donald Trump himself.
Does the source have a reason to lie? Obviously!
Does the source have a history of lying? Long and extensive.
Anonymous sources have long been a universally accepted component of journalism at the highest levels.
I'll take an anonymous source over a known-to-be NOT credible source any day.
So I presented 2 different sources (actual people) and you have your he-said-he-said guy. And while anonymous sources are an accepted component, the ethics issue I'm on about (how do I reach these kiiiids...) is that no research was applied AT ALL with any of the involved parties. It's a disgrace OTHER media outlets had to do that (re: Telegraaf-Radio 538 argument). Not even a Trump wasn't available to comment or something like that fromt he channel he actually works for, which is the usual media way to cover up things, just nothing whatsoever. Joe literally just said something someone apparently said to him off the record (and as former lawyer, he knows how to), nobody even prompted him to, and you don't even feel like questioning why he would say such thing. I'm in utter disbelief that people swallow things like these so easily from someone who's only a talkshow host for the past 6 or7 years.
And what would the reason be to lie? Shouldn't the nuclear threat be kept alive? Do you want other countries to perceive the USA to have nukes merely as decoration?
Seriously this is becoming so frustrating
Shit, he even left out the context in which these questions were presumably asked. Could it be ISIS retaliation like Trump has said already he'd consider, or on Europe in his not taking cards off the table interview, or the Japanese-North Korean ordeal? That Trump isn't against having the nuke card we already know, but this attitude of Joe as if he doesn't know why you have them (by leaving out context) has absolutely nothing to do with journalism, no matter how you'd like to twist or turn it.
In other news, I heard from someone who had a meeting with Obama, that Obama is a cannibal necrophile.
Members of Donald Trumps own staff aren't reliable sources.
The man thought some dude who charged the podium while he was giving a speech at a rally was an ISIS member. Why? Because he read it on the Internet. I shit you not that was his answer.
He also thought Ted Cruz's father was involved in the JFK assassination. Why? Because he read it in the national Inquirer.
Donald Trump is a conspiracy theorist who would believe every ridiculous thing based on a chain email or Facebook meme.
Given that, his incredibly poor grasp of foreign affairs, and his bombastic behavior I find it exceedingly likely he did ask those questions about using nukes.
Anything that comes from his own campaign staff should be taken with a grain of salt, not only because of their obvious incentive to lie, but also because of the mountain of falsehoods that of come out of his campaign.
Taking for granted that Trump actually asked why the US doesn't use nuclear weapons as a matter of policy (although many nations, including the US, do reserve nuclear weapons for tactical and so-called "sub-strategic" use; we can ignore this as a muddying the waters for now), we don't know the context of any of it. By default, I'm worried he would ask such a thing - and we've all basically agreed that this is the case and as to why, despite what the ongoing argument would suggest. It would only add to incidents like when, early in the primaries, he was asked what he would do about the ongoing issues regarding triad refurbishment/replacement costs and timeline, and his answer basically showed that he had no idea what the triad even was. Indeed, Rubio ended up looking good by just defining the triad as a followup answer (which, if it were a high school essay problem, would barely constitute a passing grade). Or the hugely destabilizing suggestion that South Korea, Japan, and Saudi Arabia should all become nuclear weapons states.
That said, and with some reservation, Moo is absolutely correct: we don't know any of the context (and might debate even the veracity of the claim). In pretty much every venue, we accord people in this situation the benefit of the doubt, because assuming the worst is at best disrespectful, and at worst predatory. Many foreign policy and intelligence circles in many Western countries employ full-time staff whose only duties are coming up with contrarian, alternative analysis that challenges standard reasoning and practice, and standard interpretations of history. Such groups within the US intelligence community (especially the CIA Red Cell) have brought forth arguments that the United States is an exporter of terrorism. A novel, "Ghost Fleet", presented the idea that the technological advantage of the US military was a vulnerability, not an asset, that would be exploited by China in any potential conflict; the book made heavy rounds around the Pentagon, from the greenest Lieutenants up to flag officers (and especially in the Navy). Perhaps most relevant here, many people with extra letters behind their name and strong publication records have questioned the impact that nuclear weapons had on the surrender of Japan, even if it had an influence at all, and if the last 70 years of nuclear policy wasn't based on a lie.
These types of reports don't constitute an endorsement of the ideas, or any perceived weakness in the mainline analysis and consensus history. Sometimes it's hard to respond to why the status quo is the status quo, especially when you're talking about 70 year old policy decisions. By consuming and responding to alternative analysis, policy wonks have a chance to develop these answers before they need them, and by taking opposing views seriously you prove the veracity of mainline reasoning through its defense and resilience in debate, and sometimes identify and address policy weakness. These types of analysis have even started cropping up in businesses, which Trump may or may not be aware of. Trump might have asked a stupid question. In fact, I'm pretty sure he did. But we can't really hold it against him until we actually know, either.
I take my words back about Obama, I'm not American
"Private persons have privacy rights that must be balanced against the public interest in reporting information about them. Public figures have fewer privacy rights in U.S. law, where reporters are immune from a civil case if they have reported without malice. In Canada, there is no such immunity; reports on public figures must be backed by facts." from source
No wonder with that legal construction every election turns into a smear campaign over there
I like how you disqualify literally everyone from being truthful merely for being on his staff.
Why in the hell would you drop a nuke on ISIS?
Joe did what is perfectly acceptable in journalism, he cited an anonymous source.
It's theoretically possible to Joe Scarborough or his source are lying or twisting the facts, sure. But that's always the case when anonymous sources are used.
If neither Joe nor his source are beingdeceptive, then the foreign affairs advisor was concerned and so should we be.
Question one: Do members of his staff have an incentive to lie?
Question two: Do they have a history of lying to the media in the past?
Is this the questionnaire again that keeps you from responding to things that actually matter (such as ethics)?
1. Not necessarily, if it were true, they could provide the context in which these things were asked and it'd make more sense to us all. Maybe he asked about nukes in very specific situations while Joe made it seem very general as if he didn't get why not. Either way it wouldn't be such a biggie, would it?
2. Every person on his staff? Probably not. The one you fished out from the 2 sources I had probably had, I haven't read into that debacle.
Same could be asked of the accusers. The media doesn't fact check anymore.
That's another thing that's fucked our politics up. We need to be able to trust the news that's reported to us. But we see time after time, reports of heasay taken as fact and even outright fabricated stories from major news sources.