Trump Thread

[Husar]

Against the law, as Obama cannot run again. The 22nd amendment limits a person to <2.5 presidential terms total, regardless of consecutiveness. Grover Cleveland "sat out" a term, winning the popular vote 3 times but losing the electoral college for the middle one.

Yes, but that doesn't improve anything about the Russian situation.

There's no proof that Putin killed Nemtsov other than that he didn't like him. Yes, he may have, but he also may not, and mob squabbling sounds much likelier than the president ordering someone to be murdered near Kremlin.

Nemtsov is not the only Putin critic who happened to have an accident. Do such things never happen to his friends because they're all nice and all his critics are criminals? What a coincidence...

Finally, I have no problem with how Putin circumvented the Russian constitution, as he was elected fair and square. Still a noob compared to our Karamanlis who in exactly 40 years was prime-minister for 14 and president for 10 (and maybe more hadn't been for the king and the junta).

See above regarding the circumvention. Fair and square has to be a joke given that opposition is pretty much not allowed to exist. Almost every journalist or newspaper critical of the man is getting harassed and shut down, critical questions are almost absent from his press conferences and the opposition parties are led by his friends and acquaintances. That's like saying everybody loves Kim Jong Un because people show up to his parades and you never hear about demonstrations against him. Prove me wrong with hard proof.


As for his policies, they're mostly as bad as the things he says. Let's take these:
https://www.politiplatform.com/trump

Crime: Starts out okay, then come the gun things that I just won'rt ever understand as a nanny statist. Plus replace the meth heads with gang members.

Education: Don't improve the school system, just give more tax money to private schools.

Environment: Yeah, sure, by shutting down the EPA and making one of its worst nightmares the head of the EPA. How am I supposed to believe that? Will he invent Clean Oil? As for the pipelines, which are oh so safe: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3rxqUXqPzog/maxresdefault.jpg

Families: Some okay ones, but generally geared towards a population increase = more consumers of resources we are not going to have anymore soon. Yay!

Foreign Policy: Don't have time to think about all of it, but we already know he basically says "America First", huge military increase (why do we need more again if they get more anyway?) and, very funny, no stealing of US tech, not like they would hamper or steal technologies of other countries. No reason for me as a foreigner to like any of this obviously.

Government: Yes, he also placed bankers all over his cabinet and his head advisor is a racist, fascist, fake-news-running ex-banker...

Healthcare: Hard to say on a whim, but I assume more privatization, I like #70, that sounds like a game-changer. I'm curious to see the US cover everyone well with more privatization. Which president didn't promise to fix the VA? (possibly a lot, not like I checked)

Immigration: #90 sounds good, should have been implemented before those entitled millenials automatically got the citizenship. I propose a citizenship exam at age 21, failures get thrown over the wall.

Jobs & Economy: Still waiting to see more Americans with a job while everyone gets a hefty price increase on everything that is or was imported. The lower consumption could be offset by all the babies/new consumers.

Science & Tech: Basically the NSA does not **** me enough yet by saving all my communication?

Taxes: Some of them sound good, want to see them in action though, especially given that he basically promised to tax his friends more when he recently seemed concerned that they can't get enough loans/money.

[Crandar]

Nemtsov is not the only Putin critic who happened to have an accident. Do such things never happen to his friends because they're all nice and all his critics are criminals? What a coincidence...

And a fallacy. Nemtsov's death can be used to blame Putin for another murder and so on, ad infinitum...

See above regarding the circumvention. Fair and square has to be a joke given that opposition is pretty much not allowed to exist. Almost every journalist or newspaper critical of the man is getting harassed and shut down, critical questions are almost absent from his press conferences and the opposition parties are led by his friends and acquaintances. That's like saying everybody loves Kim Jong Un because people show up to his parades and you never hear about demonstrations against him. Prove me wrong with hard proof.

Firstly, you changed the topic, because censoring the opposition is not the same with exchanging places with your underling. Secondly, should I really link any evidence about Putin's increased popularity?

He represses the opposition, but he would have won any way. That doesn't excuse his actions but neither does it delegitimise his presidency.

/snip

Alright. Anyway, my point was that Oliver's obsession with Russia is dishonest, misleading and after all irrelevant. Why should I defend Putin.

[Husar]

And a fallacy. Nemtsov's death can be used to blame Putin for another murder and so on, ad infinitum...

What?
Nemtsov is not required to be a murder for all the "accidents" of his enemies to make him look suspicious.

Firstly, you changed the topic, because censoring the opposition is not the same with exchanging places with your underling. Secondly, should I really link any evidence about Putin's increased popularity?

He represses the opposition, but he would have won any way. That doesn't excuse his actions but neither does it delegitimise his presidency.

I didn't change the topic, I gave the answer regarding him switching positions above and then commented on your saying that he won fair and square. To say he would have won anyway sounds incredibly cynical and cannot be proven obviously, just like the opposite. That he does all these things clearly shows that his presidency is more like a dictatorship than a presidency. There are probably other dictators who may get a lot of votes, even majorities, but that doesn't change anything about their ruthlessness or that they may have brainwashed to population to get there. It's like saying Hitler didn't need elections anymore because he would have won them anyway, he was just a popular chancellor and not a dictator.

Alright. Anyway, my point was that Oliver's obsession with Russia is dishonest, misleading and after all irrelevant. Why should I defend Putin.

I don't think he has an obsession with Russia and every time US shows say about European countries it is partially misleading, just like I have people on Facebook who say misleading things about the US. You have to see the overall picture and he's not so wrong about Russia there.
And they're not irrelevant, he used it to show why Trump's attitude towards Russia is morally and perhaps judicially questionable. Trump is the one who has some strange obsession with talking about how he wants to be friends with Russia.

[Gilrandir]

I didn't change the topic, I gave the answer regarding him switching positions above and then commented on your saying that he won fair and square. To say he would have won anyway sounds incredibly cynical and cannot be proven obviously, just like the opposite. That he does all these things clearly shows that his presidency is more like a dictatorship than a presidency.

A rumour:
http://24-my.info/putin-wants-to-rep...eader-media-2/

[Idaho]

So I see there are increasingly moves to outlaw public protest in the US:

http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/s...2062bd07b.html

I see that it's also being used to expand the civil forfeiture rules to... Nice!

So the state decides if you are allowed to protest, and if it decides that you aren't, it takes all your stuff.

If that isn't fascism, what the hell is it?

The civil forfeiture rules in the US are unbelievable. Any of you non Americans who haven't acquainted yourselves - here's a rogues gallery to give you a taste:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/listver...orfeiture/amp/

A novel way for law enforcement to boost their budgets by stealing off (mainly) black people.

[Greyblades]

Need more information, what are the criteria the police are using to identify those who should be arrested. What property is allowed to be siezed.

As it is we dont know if this isnt merely allowing cops to arrest the guy who showed up with a face mask' baseball bat and molotov before he starts causing damage or sieze his weapons without spending time getting a warrent.

[Idaho]

With the narcotics seizure rules, the police pretty much can decide if you are likely to be involved in the drugs industry, and then they can take anything that isn't nailed down.

In some counties the situation is getting extreme and is not necessarily drug related. Any local infraction incurs a large fine, which if you can't pay, results in more fines... Then prison. Consequently large numbers of young (mainly black) people owe the state lots of money they don't have and are in prison for trifling offences.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So I see there are increasingly moves to outlaw public protest in the US:

http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/s...2062bd07b.html

I see that it's also being used to expand the civil forfeiture rules to... Nice!

So the state decides if you are allowed to protest, and if it decides that you aren't, it takes all your stuff.

If that isn't fascism, what the hell is it?

The civil forfeiture rules in the US are unbelievable. Any of you non Americans who haven't acquainted yourselves - here's a rogues gallery to give you a taste:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/listver...orfeiture/amp/

A novel way for law enforcement to boost their budgets by stealing off (mainly) black people.

That looks more like out-and-out corruption than Fascism.

[Idaho]

That looks more like out-and-out corruption than Fascism.

When the state allows its enforcers free reign over its citizens, the individual examples do look like corruption.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So I see there are increasingly moves to outlaw public protest in the US:

http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/s...2062bd07b.html

I see that it's also being used to expand the civil forfeiture rules to... Nice!

So the state decides if you are allowed to protest, and if it decides that you aren't, it takes all your stuff.

If that isn't fascism, what the hell is it?

The civil forfeiture rules in the US are unbelievable. Any of you non Americans who haven't acquainted yourselves - here's a rogues gallery to give you a taste:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/listver...orfeiture/amp/

A novel way for law enforcement to boost their budgets by stealing off (mainly) black people.

Idaho and I are not normally on the same side of most issues. However, the civil forfeiture rules for drug crimes in America are far too easily abused and applying the same rules for such things as protesting without a permit would be ludicrous. I cannot see that application as anything other than an infringement of the first amendment. Injunct it now and strike it down soon after.

If I recall, @Strike For The South is also quite leery of this forfeiture stuff.

[Idaho]

You guys only live there, what would you know. Greyblades has a deeper understanding, based on a sense of moral superiority that only an English tory could nature.

[Greyblades]

I am?

I cannot see that application as anything other than an infringement of the first amendment.

You cant? I could easily see the police wanting to using it on protestors wielding various weapons before they get the chance to use them.