Trump -psykoosi

notareal

Luutnantti
Sanctuary city, siis. Selvä. S.C. jonka tiesin oli South Carolina.
Eikös nämä ole kaupunkeja/kuntia/what ever jotka haluavat vähentää riippuvuutta liittovaltiotason lainsäädännöstä ja päättää itse pakolaisten/siirtolaisten/yms asemasta tai jotain... kuulostaa eihan terveeltä. Kukapa vaikka meille ei haluaisi vähentää riippuvuutta EU direktiiveistä ja päättää itse ketä ruokkii tai saa asustella ;) Tai ehkä olen väärässä...
 

ILoveEU

Majuri
They expose a deeper pathology: the authoritarian mindset of Trump’s surrogates. In this cultish worldview, Trump’s personal interests are identical to the interests of the United States, and anyone who interferes with Trump is anti-American.'
Kyllä, Trumpin kannattajat ovatkin tuttuja mm. sellaisista kuin:

-"Hate speech is not free speech"
-Pään irtileikkausfantasioista televisiossa.
-Poliittisten vastustajien tappamisfantasioista uutislähetyksissä
-Sekä poliittisen vastustajan perheenjäsenten vangitsemis/tappamisfantasiasta, koska salaliittoteoria.

Helvetin iso /S

Jepjep. Taitaa vaan olla, että tuo autoritäärisyys jyllää erittäin vahvana vasemmistossa.

Edit:kirjoitusvirhe
 
Viimeksi muokattu:

ILoveEU

Majuri
Sanctuary city, siis. Selvä. S.C. jonka tiesin oli South Carolina.
Jos olet yhtään seurannut politiikkaa, niin satavarmasti tiedät nuo sc tappelut.

Juuri tuo tekopyhyys vaivaa länsimaita, mistä toisessa ketjussa jo puhuin; eli kuinka ilmapiiriä myrkytetään esim sillä, että EU hakee tuomion Puolalle, Tsekille ja Unkarille asiasta, jota kukaan muukaan ei noudata.

Tuo tietämättömyys on sitä samaa ilmapiirin myrkyttämistä.
 

Panssari Salama

Ylipäällikkö
Jos olet yhtään seurannut politiikkaa, niin satavarmasti tiedät nuo sc tappelut.

Juuri tuo tekopyhyys vaivaa länsimaita, mistä toisessa ketjussa jo puhuin; eli kuinka ilmapiiriä myrkytetään esim sillä, että EU hakee tuomion Puolalle, Tsekille ja Unkarille asiasta, jota kukaan muukaan ei noudata.

Tuo tietämättömyys on sitä samaa ilmapiirin myrkyttämistä.
SC lyhenteestä on kyse, jota käytit viestissäsi. En ollut ainoa joka kysyi mitä tarkoitat. Ei auennut minullekaan. Kysyin. Et halunnut kertoa.
 

ILoveEU

Majuri
SC lyhenteestä on kyse, jota käytit viestissäsi. En ollut ainoa joka kysyi mitä tarkoitat. Ei auennut minullekaan. Kysyin. Et halunnut kertoa.
Eli myönnät, että olet niin ulkona Yhdysvaltojen politiikasta, että et ikinä ole kuullut sanctuary kaupungeista tai asiasta yleensä?

Koska olisihan asiaa seuranneille pitänyt jo heti avautua, että Coloradon muuri puheet on pakko liittyä sanctuaryyn, vai mihin muuhun se olisi muka liittynyt?

Kaivat ihan ihmeellisiä twiittejä jostain vasemmiston suunnalta, mutta tämä asia on pahimmoilleen mennyt ohi, vaikka se on usein esillä ollut asia.
 

Panssari Salama

Ylipäällikkö
Eli myönnät, että olet niin ulkona Yhdysvaltojen politiikasta, että et ikinä ole kuullut sanctuary kaupungeista tai asiasta yleensä?

Koska olisihan asiaa seuranneille pitänyt jo heti avautua, että Coloradon muuri puheet on pakko liittyä sanctuaryyn, vai mihin muuhun se olisi muka liittynyt?

Kaivat ihan ihmeellisiä twiittejä jostain vasemmiston suunnalta, mutta tämä asia on pahimmoilleen mennyt ohi, vaikka se on usein esillä ollut asia.
Coloradon muuri liittyy siihen, että Donald J. Trump, tuo tampio jumalan armosta, ei osaa Yhdysvaltain maantiedettä(kään). "Rakennamme upean muurin Texasin, rakennamme upean muurin Coloradoon, mutta Kansasiin, sinne emme rakenna muuria, mutta he hyötyvät siitä muuten vaan." Tätä naureskelimme sivulla 768. Piti oikein käydä katsomassa vielä kerran.

Oli kyllä hyvä tuo Yhdysvaltain kartta tussilla täydennettynä edelleen :love: muoks olipa iso kuva, laitetaan twiitti sen tilalle


Sinä tulit siihen osavaltionaureskeluun S.C. lyhtenteesi kanssa, jota et suostunut avaamaan. Joskus vaan täytyy laskeutua meidän tavallisten kuolevaisten tasolle, ja vaikkapa vastata heidän kysymykseen, kun kysyvät mitä tarkotit. Säästyy monelta miellipahalta. Tai laita ignoreen. Ihan sama.
 
Viimeksi muokattu:

totuuskomissio

Kersantti
Trump Isn’t Ready for the Impeachment Hearings

He’s always been more comfortable with chaos than teamwork and preparation.

'After weeks of damaging testimony from current and former White House advisers and career diplomats, the House of Representatives voted on Thursday to publicly endorse the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.

On the same day, Tim Morrison, Trump’s former top adviser for Russian and European affairs on the National Security Council, met with legislators and corroborated earlier accounts that the president strong-armed Ukraine to help undermine a political opponent. On Monday, four more Trump advisers are slated to testify, including John Eisenberg, the president’s deputy counsel for national security affairs. (Eisenberg may be a no-show because he figures prominently and problematically in many episodes of l’affaire Ukraine.) John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, has also been invited to testify. Bolton openly disparaged Trump’s Ukraine sorties, making his testimony potentially devastating.

This has become a runaway train for the White House, careening inevitably toward a House vote to impeach Trump and a Senate trial. Yet through most of it, the White House has simply stood by, relying on staged outrage from Republican proxies and mocking invective from the president’s Twitter feed. Mockery, though, isn’t strategy. And Trump is responding to the most serious threat to his presidency by tightening his decades-long embrace of chaos, mismanagement and serial buffoonery. Neither he nor his advisers have been able to respond to the threats they face in a sophisticated way.'

 

Vääpeli

Ylipäällikkö
 

TT

Eversti
Mikä ihmeen sc tappelut; olen niinqu neverhöörd.
NC vastaan SC. Ootko ihan pihalla. Toisessa on sentään Aho, Teräväinen ja Haula palkkasotureina. Ennenkin siellä murikassa north ja south ottanut erää.

Ja kuulemma ICE on perus rajavartiosto ja tulli eikä ysärillä perustettu lisäke vielä sotkemaan jenkkilän kummallista aakkossoppaa.

[EdT: no tuli mieleen että se tuo pulju vissiin perustettiin vasta 9/11 jälkimainingeissa 00-luvulla pyydystämään terppoja joten Fake News Alert.]
 
Viimeksi muokattu:

totuuskomissio

Kersantti
Trump Claim to Syrian Oil Raises Many Questions

"We're keeping the oil — remember that," he said in Chicago. "I've always said that: 'Keep the oil.' We want to keep the oil. Forty-five million dollars a month? Keep the oil."

White House officials since then have declined to explain what Trump meant by "we're keeping the oil" or his estimate of its value. Pentagon officials have said privately they've been given no order to take ownership of any element of Syria's oil resources, including the wells and stored crude.

 

taantumu

Eversti
Osa republikaanisenaattoreista on valmiina myöntämään Ukrainan sotilasavun ja Bidenin pojan tutkinnan kytkeytyneen toisiinsa. Tällöin argumenttina olisi USA:n usein vaativan vastikkeita avustuksilleeen eikä siinä ole mitään väärää, väitteen heikkous toki on siinä etteivät nämä vaihtokaupat sisällä tietoja poliittisesta vastustajasta.
A growing number of Senate Republicans are ready to acknowledge that President Trump used U.S. military aid as leverage to force Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his family as the president repeatedly denies a quid pro quo.

In this shift in strategy to defend Trump, these Republicans are insisting that the president’s action was not illegal and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense as the Democratic-led House moves forward with the open phase of its probe.

But the shift among Senate Republicans could complicate the message coming from Trump as he furiously fights the claim that he had withheld U.S. aid from Ukraine to pressure it to dig up dirt on a political rival, even as an increasing number of Republicans wonder how long they can continue to argue that no quid pro quo was at play in the matter.

The pivot was the main topic during a private Senate GOP lunch on Wednesday, according to multiple people familiar with the session who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the meeting. Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) argued that there may have been a quid pro quo but said that the U.S. government often attaches conditions to foreign aid and that nothing was amiss in Trump’s doing so in the case of aid to Ukraine, these individuals said.

Inside the lunch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who ran against Trump in 2016, said a quid pro quo is not illegal unless there is “corrupt intent” and echoed Kennedy’s argument that such conditions are a tool of foreign policy.

“To me, this entire issue is gonna come down to, why did the president ask for an investigation,” Kennedy, who worked as a lawyer, said in an interview. “To me, it all turns on intent, motive. ... Did the president have a culpable state of mind? … Based on the evidence that I see, that I’ve been allowed to see, the president does not have a culpable state of mind.”

The discussion underscores the dilemma for congressional Republicans as a cadre of current and former Trump administration officials paint a consistent picture of a president wiling to use foreign policy to undercut a potential domestic political adversary. On Thursday, Trump appointee and longtime Republican aide-turned-National Security Council adviser Tim Morrison became the latest official to testify that nearly $400 million of congressionally appropriated military aid for Ukraine was frozen to increase pressure on President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden, a 2020 presidential contender.

And with the House Democrats voting Thursday to open the closed-door impeachment investigation, undermining the GOP’s complaints about a secretive process, Republicans are frantically seeking a new strategy and talking points to defend the president.

Meanwhile, the president has frustrated Senate Republicans by seeming to change his messaging strategy every day rather than present a coherent defense of his actions, said multiple Senate GOP officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to comment frankly.

On Thursday, Trump told the Washington Examiner that he wanted to do a series of “fireside chats” — as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously did during the Great Depression and the early part of World War II — to defend himself. He said he perhaps would read aloud the transcript of the July 25 telephone call in which he asked Zelensky to do him a “favor.”

The willingness of some Senate Republicans to acknowledge a quid pro quo while dismissing the offense comes just two weeks after acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney had to walk back a similar assertion. Mulvaney argued in a long-winded news conference on Oct. 17 that quid pro quos are a common feature of foreign policy and that the media should “get over it.”

Congressional Republicans balked, forcing Mulvaney to retreat.

Indeed, a strategy that includes acknowledging a particular kind of reciprocity with a foreign government would almost certainly unnerve moderate Republicans such as Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), who faces reelection next year in a Democratic-leaning state and has said it was “completely inappropriate” for Trump to invite China to investigate Joe Biden, which the president did after the Ukraine controversy began. Collins has repeatedly declined to comment on Ukraine, arguing that she probably would be a juror in a Senate trial of the president.

One senior Republican aide cautioned that acknowledging a quid pro quo is unlikely as a strategy for the Senate GOP, even if some conservatives like the idea.
Such a step would also undercut Trump’s central talking point on impeachment — and would clash with House Republicans’ strategy. Trump’s Capitol Hill allies and Republican leaders, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (La.), are sticking with Trump’s line that there was no proposed trade-off with Ukraine.

“You can’t have been in [the impeachment depositions] with 10 different witnesses and come out with any credible belief that there was a quid pro quo for aid. … It’s just not accurate,” said top Trump ally Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) “I’ve heard people say, ‘Well even if he did it, it’s fine.’ The problem with that is: I know that he didn’t do it.”

In the Senate, however, some Republicans aren’t as confident and have expressed concerns about the endless drip of embarrassing headlines from daily witness testimony that the U.S. aid and a White House visit for Zelensky hinged on the Biden probe.

The Senate lunch, according to those in attendance, also focused on how best to rally to Trump’s defense if he is impeached. Under the constitutional process, the Senate would hold a trial, with conviction requiring the votes of two-thirds of the senators present.

While some Senate Republicans have argued for a quick trial, most other senators believe that moving quickly could backfire. Senate Republicans, especially those up for reelection next year in Democratic-leaning or swing states, could face criticism that they did not take the charges seriously.

During last year’s contentious battle to confirm now-Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Republicans thought that the more thorough process, including a new FBI investigation in the final days of the confirmation fight, arguably helped to win more support, including that of Collins and then-Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

Some Republicans suggested a longer trial could help the president by giving the GOP the opportunity to try to poke holes in the Democrats’ case. Among those who made a case for thorough proceedings was Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who responded to a remark from Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) that while, in theory, White House attorneys could move every day to try to dismiss the case, the administration would be advised not to do that.

Cramer appeared to agree with that argument.

“This may be his only opportunity to change what the public sees and hears if they’re gonna continue with their very one-sided process over in the House,” Cramer said, later adding: “In my view, [it is] in the president’s best interest to have the whole thing played out. I don’t mean five weeks, but at least the case so at least the public gets to hear his case.”

Cramer also subscribed to the idea that “there’s lots of quid pro quos” in U.S. foreign policy, pointing to stipulations on assistance for Venezuela and other nations.
“We’ve done quid pro quos a lot of times,” he said. “... The question isn’t whether it was quid pro quo; the question is: Was it corruption?”

Kennedy argued that there are two views on Trump’s actions: that he pushed for an investigation of a political rival; or that he pushed for an investigation of corruption in a country that has a history of missteps — and the request just happened to include the Bidens. Kennedy, an ally of Trump’s, said he expects the president’s lawyers to argue the latter during a Senate trial.

Trump asked Zelensky in the call to look into the Bidens, referring to allegations that Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian officials to fire a prosecutor who was probing the company where Hunter Biden served as a director. Former Ukrainian and U.S. officials say the prosecutor’s investigation into the company was dormant.

“He honestly believes that there may have been corruption in Ukraine, and before he turns over $400 million of American taxpayer money, he’s entitled to ask,” Kennedy said, later adding, “The issue to be litigated … is going to be: Did the president have a good-faith reason to believe that Hunter Biden may have been involved in corruption? And if I’m correct in my analysis, then there will be a lot of time spent on what Mr. Biden did for the money.”

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who has been heavily involved in the Ukraine saga and is chairman of the Foreign Relations subcommittee on Europe and regional security cooperation, argued that the United States often puts conditions on foreign aid.

Johnson also said that Trump would not allow him to promise Ukrainian officials military aid earlier this year because of other reasons, including concerns about corruption and the desire for European nations to do more to help Ukraine.

“My point is those are legitimate reservations,” he said. “There’s nothing wrong with that. … That’s not impeachable.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/growing-number-of-gop-senators-consider-acknowledgingtrumps-quid-pro-quo-on-ukraine/2019/11/01/72084a3e-fcc4-11e9-9534-e0dbcc9f5683_story.html#comments-wrapper
 

Rannari

Ylipäällikkö
Osa republikaanisenaattoreista on valmiina myöntämään Ukrainan sotilasavun ja Bidenin pojan tutkinnan kytkeytyneen toisiinsa. Tällöin argumenttina olisi USA:n usein vaativan vastikkeita avustuksilleeen eikä siinä ole mitään väärää, väitteen heikkous toki on siinä etteivät nämä vaihtokaupat sisällä tietoja poliittisesta vastustajasta.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/growing-number-of-gop-senators-consider-acknowledgingtrumps-quid-pro-quo-on-ukraine/2019/11/01/72084a3e-fcc4-11e9-9534-e0dbcc9f5683_story.html#comments-wrapper
Tämähän on käänteisesti se perinteinen malli jossa "rikos kyllä keksitään kunhan syyllinen on tiedossa". Nyt vain tiedetään syytön ja kökkögeneraattori suoltaa milloin minkäkin tuulenhuuhtoman selityksen.

Siinähän on tosiaan hiuksenhieno periaatteellinen ero onko vastineen hyödynsaajana valtio yleisesti vai presidenttiehdokas henkilökohtaisesti.
 

Vakaa Nero

Kersantti
Siinähän on tosiaan hiuksenhieno periaatteellinen ero onko vastineen hyödynsaajana valtio yleisesti vai presidenttiehdokas henkilökohtaisesti.
Vaikea ymmärtää miksi Trumpin piti edes yrittää hoitaa tämäkin asia valtion rahoilla. Ilmeisesti kyse on tottumuksesta, taparikollinen ei vain pääse karvoistaan. Olisi hakenut omalta tililtään paperpussillisen rahaa ja palkannut vaikka yksityisetsivän. Siis sikäli, kuin Trump on rahamies.
 

Tetra

Ylipäällikkö
Lahjoittaja
ELSO 2.0
Top