Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 05-03-2019, 10:03 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,704
Sometimes presidential misdeeds actually call for impeachment; witness Nixon. And Trump's misdeeds are far greater than Nixon's. The political part of Trump not being impeached is Trump not being impeached mostly for partisan purposes.
  #102  
Old 05-03-2019, 10:18 AM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I think the only legitimate debate about DJT should be whether he deserves death or life in prison.
We don't execute our political opponents in this country.
  #103  
Old 05-03-2019, 10:19 AM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 7,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sure, but that illustrates perfectly that impeachment is just a political machination, having very little to do with the actual guilt or innocence of the person being impeached. It would be an exercise of political power, not a fact-finding effort
You use the word 'political', add 'machination' to ensure it becomes pejorative, and conclude it has 'very little to do with the actual guilt or innocence'. Well done. You have made a fine showing of interpreting the Constitution as 'political' when it suits you.

Can we now have an example of an appeal to the Constitution that serves your purpose? Maybe something about the 2nd Amendment?

Last edited by KarlGauss; 05-03-2019 at 10:20 AM.
  #104  
Old 05-03-2019, 10:20 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
We don't execute our political opponents in this country.
I don't believe in capital punishment and I don't think that he deserves the martyr status that would follow, but his punishment wouldn't be for being a political enemy, it would be for being a criminal and a traitor.
  #105  
Old 05-03-2019, 10:25 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
We don't execute our political opponents in this country.
What about criminals?
  #106  
Old 05-03-2019, 10:32 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,502
Impeachment is undeniably a political act. It certainly has been since the nineties, and arguably earlier. No less an authority than Gerald Ford said that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the house deems it to be at the time.

But it hardly constitutes a defense of trump to say that the Republican disgust threshold is much higher now than it was when Nixon or Clinton was in office.
  #107  
Old 05-03-2019, 10:37 AM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 7,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
Impeachment is undeniably a political act.
Yes, but more than that it is a Constitutional prerogative. Invoking that prerogative may be political but the process is Constitutional.

It is more than simply political. To label it otherwise is to be political.
  #108  
Old 05-03-2019, 12:05 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
So if there's authentic, videotaped evidence of Trump raping and murdering someone and the congress decides that it's time to impeach him, impeachment in such a case is nothing more than a political machination?

FTR, I'm not saying that there is such evidence or that even as odious as Trump he is that he's capable of such a crime - just a hypothetical.
I can certainly imagine hypotheticals wherein the decision to impeach was not the subject of political machinations, but those hypotheticals have nothing to do with the current reality. The current reality is that the primary driver of the Dems decision to impeach or not is how it might affect their chances in the 2020 election. If they think it will help, they're going to impeach, and if they think it's going to hurt the Party's chances (which seems to be the more popular viewpoint currently), they're not going to impeach. It's an almost-entirely-politicized decision-making process (with a lot of echoes of "party over country" IMHO).

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-03-2019 at 12:10 PM.
  #109  
Old 05-03-2019, 12:11 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Putin was worried that Hillary Clinton would succeed in strengthening NATO alliances and pulling Ukraine and other traditionally Eastern Bloc states away from Russia. More specifically, he was worried that Clinton would succeed in leading global efforts to sanction Russia's kleptocratic oligarchs through the enforcement and spread of Magnitsky Act type laws around the world, which would effective limit the oligarchs' ability to stash money away in other countries. A related concern is that American influence could reach the Russian street and lead to an anti-Putin uprising.

Putin's response has been to reassert Russian power and disrupt American influence abroad, but he has also dared to do what other competitors, including China, haven't dared to: he has openly tried to destabilize the United States internally. I mean, one could argue that China has but not to the extent or so brazenly as Russia has; the Chinese have been more subtle. But Putin's attempt to tilt the election was its way of sowing discord, which was really the true goal. Most Russians, like most Americans, were expecting Hillary to win the election. They realistically hoped that they could make it so that Hillary was so politically poisoned that she couldn't accomplish anything, and that Americans would spend more time fighting itself than fighting Russia. When Trump actually won the election, Putin succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.

But understand something: Russian involvement in American politics is far deeper than what has been acknowledged to this point. They clearly formed a trans-Atlantic oligarchal/plutocratic alliance and the Republican party and conservative grassroots organizations are effectively their political partners. We knew that Russian oligarchs didn't like working with Obama and didn't want to work with Hillary Clinton for the same reason, but they assumed they would have to. Particularly over the past decade, the Russian oligarchs, like the American oligarchs, have seen any democratic-type party as a threat to their interests. They have a mutual interest in crushing institutionalized democracy, and that is why their partnership will only grow stronger.
China doesn’t need to interfere as much to weaken the US to gain relative strength. China can play the long game. They don’t have the weakness that classically liberal democracies have. As long as they economically colonize carefully they should have the resources they need to outproduce anyone. IP advantages? Like the US can keep a secret.

Hopefully Chinese and Russian meddling combined with the rise of China knocks us off our perch of complacency. Maybe we’ll, as a nation, start remembering the world is a competitive place. Or maybe the Russians will exploit secessionist movements and other ignorant/stupid factions in the US and Europe and leave the west divided and neutered.
  #110  
Old 05-03-2019, 12:14 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
You use the word 'political', add 'machination' to ensure it becomes pejorative, and conclude it has 'very little to do with the actual guilt or innocence'. Well done. You have made a fine showing of interpreting the Constitution as 'political' when it suits you.

Can we now have an example of an appeal to the Constitution that serves your purpose? Maybe something about the 2nd Amendment?
When the word “is” is up for debate due to politics is it surprising sentences in the constitution are?
  #111  
Old 05-03-2019, 12:21 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I can certainly imagine hypotheticals wherein the decision to impeach was not the subject of political machinations, but those hypotheticals have nothing to do with the current reality. The current reality is that the primary driver of the Dems decision to impeach or not is how it might affect their chances in the 2020 election. If they think it will help, they're going to impeach, and if they think it's going to hurt the Party's chances (which seems to be the more popular viewpoint currently), they're not going to impeach. It's an almost-entirely-politicized decision-making process (with a lot of echoes of "party over country" IMHO).
There's no question that Democrats see a political opportunity in exposing what they see as Donald Trump's corruption - I don't think anyone here is going to argue to the contrary.

However, it is simultaneously true that many Democrats are gravely concerned about the future of a country in which the president of the United States can effectively, with the help of people who were hired to be objective enforcers of the law, declare himself to be above the law. Indeed I think even a fair number of Republicans are seriously concerned about that as well, but for personal reasons have been more reserved in their opposition to Trump.

Both can be true at the same, though. Democrats saw opportunity in exposing Nixon, but that doesn't mean that they didn't also have serious reservations about boundless presidential power.
  #112  
Old 05-03-2019, 12:23 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
When the word “is” is up for debate due to politics is it surprising sentences in the constitution are?
It was the right that politicized that ancient action. Got any points pertinent to this century?
  #113  
Old 05-03-2019, 12:43 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I can certainly imagine hypotheticals wherein the decision to impeach was not the subject of political machinations, but those hypotheticals have nothing to do with the current reality. The current reality is that the primary driver of the Dems decision to impeach or not is how it might affect their chances in the 2020 election. If they think it will help, they're going to impeach, and if they think it's going to hurt the Party's chances (which seems to be the more popular viewpoint currently), they're not going to impeach. It's an almost-entirely-politicized decision-making process (with a lot of echoes of "party over country" IMHO).
It is my opinion that Trump has committed actual crimes. As in, he's actually broken the law of the united states. If it's okay to impeach him over murder, it's okay to impeach him over the crimes he has committed. Any impeachment process carried out now would be no more political than if he mowed down a crowd of nuns and orphans with a machine gun on the national news. If he was subsequently incarcerated or even executed for his crimes (for obstruction of justice? Hardly), that too would be non-political.

The reason we're not impeaching him isn't because he's innocent of the crimes he's committed. It's because the republicans in the senate think that crime and criminals are okay if condoning crime and criminals helps them politically. House democrats refraining from impeaching him is a politically motivated act, in a way that actually impeaching him wouldn't be.
  #114  
Old 05-03-2019, 03:20 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
It is my opinion that Trump has committed actual crimes. As in, he's actually broken the law of the united states. ...
Which "actual crimes" do you opine that he has committed?
  #115  
Old 05-03-2019, 03:26 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I don't believe in capital punishment and I don't think that he deserves the martyr status that would follow, but his punishment wouldn't be for being a political enemy, it would be for being a criminal and a traitor.
There is no evidence, *none*, that President committed a capital offense.
  #116  
Old 05-03-2019, 03:40 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
This was claimed up thread. What evidence do you have that the US is taking a massive hit wrt international relations? We have taken something of a hit wrt China, but our relations with them have been rocky. In practical terms, how has our relations with Europe actually changed? What about our Asian partners? Has that changed? Australia? Canada? I'm not seeing any sort of practical, real world change to be honest. Several world leaders have TALKED about pivoting to other partners and away from the US, but where is the evidence they actually are doing it? Are the Europeans building up their own military in anticipation of going it alone, without the US? How about Japan? South Korea? Are they talking about snuggling up to the other up and coming superpower, China? Doesn't seem likely, though some European countries do seem to be toying with the idea (Italy and Greece spring to mind).

It honestly does seem like an incredible claim to me as I don't see evidence of it actually happening...and this is WITH this orange haired idiot in charge. But, even with that, I don't see countries taking real, practical and visible steps away from the US and towards...something else. But if you have some evidence of this happening, I'm all ears.
The biggest problem is that the first thing the Trump did when entering office is to tear up NAFTA all of the treaties made under Obama purely out of spite. What this means is that the US can only be held to its word through the term of the current president. If we're lucky, future presidents may be able to claim Trump was an aberration and they can be trusted, but if this policy isn't heartily repudiated by both sides once Trump leaves office, we will be limited to treaties of four years or less.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 05-03-2019 at 03:44 PM.
  #117  
Old 05-03-2019, 03:47 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Hillary was a pretty hawkish person. Trump was much less savvy about geopolitics and possibly easier to take advantage of. Made sense for Moscow to favor Trump.

Incidentally, if future elections feature a hawkish Republican vs. a dovish Democrat, I'd expect Russia to back the Democrat.
Yes, true, the Kremlin was also backing Sanders.
  #118  
Old 05-03-2019, 03:48 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
The biggest problem is that the first thing the Trump did when entering office is to tear up NAFTA all of the treaties made under Obama purely out of spite. What this means is that the US can only be held to its word through the term of the current president. If we're lucky, future presidents may be able to claim Trump was an aberration and they can be trusted, but if this policy isn't heartily repudiated by both sides once Trump leaves office, we will be limited to treaties of four years or less.
Two things. First, this isn't actually true...there are binding and non-binding treaties. The US CAN be held to the binding ones but they have to be approved by Congress (advice and consent of the Senate or something along those lines). Secondly, again, what's the real world impact? Seems like we have basically the same treaty to me, with a few cosmetic changes that were more about Trump saving face and having something to go back to the uninformed that he's a great negotiator. There wasn't any actual change, before, during or after. Just a lot of smoke and mirrors.

But, certainly, countries negotiating with the US need to be aware of how we look at agreements verse treaties. My WAG is...they actually are aware of this distinction and know the risks of agreements that might be good for the current administration but not binding on the next one, who might overturn or do an about face. This has always been the case, however, and isn't anything new with Trump.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #119  
Old 05-03-2019, 03:51 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Which "actual crimes" do you opine that he has committed?
I mentioned obstruction of justice by name in a parenthetical comment about how the crimes he's committed almost certainly don't justify execution. You remember that one, the one that Mueller is giving every indication that he thinks Trump is guilty of but won't state officially because of current DoJ policy.

That's one crime I'm of the firm personal belief he's committed. There could be others that he's committed too, I don't know, I'm not his keeper, prosecutor, or evidence hider.
  #120  
Old 05-03-2019, 03:56 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
The biggest problem is that the first thing the Trump did when entering office is to tear up NAFTA all of the treaties made under Obama purely out of spite. What this means is that the US can only be held to its word through the term of the current president. If we're lucky, future presidents may be able to claim Trump was an aberration and they can be trusted, but if this policy isn't heartily repudiated by both sides once Trump leaves office, we will be limited to treaties of four years or less.
Treaties, approved by the Senate, are generally more enduring than a single presidential administration. When the "treaty" is really just an 'executive agreement' (I think that's the correct description of our position on the Paris Climate Accord) then no, people can't really expect that they'll remain in force beyond the current administration. I seem to remember writing about that here a while ago ... Yes, here it is:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I was writing a response to your long earlier post, but I've gotten sidetracked from that, and wanted to respond briefly to this:

There's a very good reason that the Constitution requires treaties be ratified by a super-majority of the Senate. It's so that before the US commits itself to some action on the international stage, we ensure that there's broad-based and durable domestic support for that action, so that it won't be undone next election and we won't look schizophrenic and our allies won't be left confused and unsure if the US is really committed to a course or action.

Obama short-circuited that process and committed us to an action that did not have a broad-based and durable base of support in this country. Do you, at least now, understand why that was not a good idea?
  #121  
Old 05-03-2019, 04:15 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
... Russia is illegally funding Republicans through the NRA, and who knows what other methods. Republicans were proudly posing with a Russian spy as part of that operation, and no one seems to give a shit. ....
That was a tiny amount of money and the Kremlin doesn't need the NRA to funnel funds to the GOP.
  #122  
Old 05-03-2019, 04:23 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That was a tiny amount of money and the Kremlin doesn't need the NRA to funnel funds to the GOP.
So being just a little bit traitorous is just peachy keen with you?
  #123  
Old 05-03-2019, 04:30 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
So being just a little bit traitorous is just peachy keen with you?
"Traitorous" is an interesting word choice for accepting donations from foreigners.
  #124  
Old 05-03-2019, 04:31 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Crime isn't crime unless you crime hard enough. How hard you have to crime to crime depends on your political party. Trump standing in the middle of fifth avenue and shooting somebody wouldn't be criming hard enough. Clinton breathing would be.
  #125  
Old 05-03-2019, 04:59 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
It was the right that politicized that ancient action. Got any points pertinent to this century?
There wouldn’t have been anything to “politicize” if Clinton didn’t make such a preposterous argument.

Concerning topicality, do you feel that way about statues from the last century?

Anyways I’m not expecting consistency in the expectation that history ceases being relevant because of some arbitrary number on a calendar.
  #126  
Old 05-03-2019, 05:03 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,234
Foreign aid to democrats, be it from nations or individuals, is for some reason never an issue.
  #127  
Old 05-03-2019, 05:50 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
There wouldn’t have been anything to “politicize” if Clinton didn’t make such a preposterous argument.

Concerning topicality, do you feel that way about statues from the last century?

Anyways I’m not expecting consistency in the expectation that history ceases being relevant because of some arbitrary number on a calendar.
Statues?
  #128  
Old 05-03-2019, 05:56 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Statues?
My guess is he's talking about how some confederate statues have been taken down because we've finally gotten around to deciding that racism isn't really that awesome. How this is supposed to relate to the current argument is unclear.
  #129  
Old 05-03-2019, 06:16 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
So if there's authentic, videotaped evidence of Trump raping and murdering someone and the congress decides that it's time to impeach him, impeachment in such a case is nothing more than a political machination?

FTR, I'm not saying that there is such evidence or that even as odious as Trump he is that he's capable of such a crime - just a hypothetical.
I don't think he has the stomach for murder. He'd have others do it in a second, sure, but with his own little dollhands? No way. He's on tape admitting that he's committed sexual assault several times, though.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #130  
Old 05-03-2019, 06:19 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
My guess is he's talking about how some confederate statues have been taken down because we've finally gotten around to deciding that racism isn't really that awesome. How this is supposed to relate to the current argument is unclear.
Aside from pandering, virtue signaling, and attempting to continue to push “that’s offensive and that’s traumatizing” why is it ok to politicize that stuff from the last century?
  #131  
Old 05-03-2019, 06:24 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Aside from pandering, virtue signaling, and attempting to continue to push “that’s offensive and that’s traumatizing” why is it ok to politicize that stuff from the last century?
I stand agog and reject this stupid hijack. At the same time! I'm doing two things at the same time. Admire me.
  #132  
Old 05-03-2019, 07:26 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Aside from pandering, virtue signaling, and attempting to continue to push “that’s offensive and that’s traumatizing” why is it ok to politicize that stuff from the last century?
Because it's the right thing to do.
  #133  
Old 05-03-2019, 10:40 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I stand agog and reject this stupid hijack. At the same time! I'm doing two things at the same time. Admire me.
Congratulations. But since when is answering someone’s question the so-called ‘hijack’?

Last edited by octopus; 05-03-2019 at 10:40 PM.
  #134  
Old 05-03-2019, 11:36 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
There is no evidence, *none*, that President committed a capital offense.
I predict this will be the motto of the Trump Presidential Library.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #135  
Old 05-04-2019, 07:33 AM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Aside from pandering, virtue signaling, and attempting to continue to push “that’s offensive and that’s traumatizing” why is it ok to politicize that stuff from the last century?
Because people in this century are using them as support to continue holding 19th century social ideas.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #136  
Old 05-04-2019, 08:38 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
There is no evidence, *none*, that President committed a capital offense.
How do you know this?
  #137  
Old 05-04-2019, 09:00 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I predict this will be the motto of the Trump Presidential Library.
Worst. Library. Evah.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #138  
Old 05-04-2019, 09:45 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Worst. Library. Evah.
But the only library with a scratch-and-sniff porn section.
  #139  
Old 05-04-2019, 09:59 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,653
... and a McDonald's.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #140  
Old 05-04-2019, 10:02 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Aside from pandering, virtue signaling, and attempting to continue to push “that’s offensive and that’s traumatizing” why is it ok to politicize that stuff from the last century?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius View Post
Because people in this century are using them as support to continue holding 19th century social ideas.
Er, you missed octopus' confession that the statues have nothing whatsoever to do with memorializing war heroes (in which case they would have been erected in the century before last), but rather were petulant tantrum totems in response to being made to respect the rights of melanin-enhanced citizens (starting around the middle of last century).
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 05-04-2019 at 10:04 AM.
  #141  
Old 05-04-2019, 10:12 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,209

Moderating


Unless it is directly related to Russia, or election tampering, drop it.

[/moderating]
  #142  
Old 05-07-2019, 02:01 AM
SOJA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 168
In 2010 or 2011, HRC while SoS took some time to demean Putin and Russia, and made vague references to his manhood or being a good man. My own experience with Russians, both socially and professionally, is like most cultures, they're very egotistical individuals. A minor squabble even with a well-educated Russian may end up with a call to fist-fight one another.

If you wanted to be racist about it, you could say they're not far off from neanderthals.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017