Trump Thread

[a completely inoffensive name]

Who cares when and why accusations appear when they do? All that matters is the validity of the claims.

Questioning the (assumed) victim on their motives defies reason. Humans make odd choices all the time when it comes to emotional trauma, and my brain certainly can't justify judging a woman for waiting three decades to speak out when I still wake up from nightmares of myself forgetting a final (test), and I've been out of college for years!

[Gilrandir]

Are you trying to say that sexual assault allegations over long-past events are somehow politically generated by political actors? Like, there are armies canvassing on the ground looking to gin up accusers or something? That would be attributing far more power and resources to political parties than they actually have.

I'm well into All the kings men by R.P.Warren. Reading it and having seeing how things are done in Ukraine I tend to believe that politicians interested in the issue are always alert for misconducts of any persons liable for a big appointment and are absolutely indifferent to those misconducts if a big appointment never comes. And if this appointment is going to happen/has just happened they are likely to call a Jack Burden and ask him to find all he can on a Judge Irwin (see the mentioned book). So "generated" is too strong a word, but dug out and fanned out of proportions is what I guess is happenning in such cases. The ultimate purpose of such people in the issue under discussion would be to topple Trump (or at least to hurt him as much as possible). So their aims seemed to chime with the victims' coming out. One could argue if it was started by victims and then carried on by political actors or vice versa, but it really doesn't matter much (to me anyway).

Who cares when and why accusations appear when they do? All that matters is the validity of the claims.

If a person knew about a (alleged) crime and kept silent, would it qualify as complicity?

[Husar]

Blablabla, if all the time spent bickering over assumptions had been spent on a proper investigation...

[Beskar]

Max Boot on why his own party, the Republicans need to burn to the ground so Conversativism in America can be saved from white nationalist trash that hijacked his party.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics...a-clean-start/
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17955...-gop-goldwater

[a completely inoffensive name]

If a person knew about a (alleged) crime and kept silent, would it qualify as complicity?

Not if that person is the victim.

[Montmorency]

Not if that person is the victim.

Quick point, I recall the US government was using this type of logic (Gil's) to deport asylum claimants who attested to fleeing because of such persecution as being enslaved by gangs and watching family members be executed by gang members - because this made the asylum claimants accomplices.

[Gilrandir]

Blablabla, if all the time spent bickering over assumptions had been spent on a proper investigation...

You mean, instead of bickering here WE (I and Montmorency and Rory and others) should form an investigating body, assume some legal status and start our investigation? You might as well offer Pannonian to start his own negotiations with the EU as for Brexit.

And, if you have failed to observe, these boards are all about bickering.

Not if that person is the victim.

I don't believe that ONLY victims knew about the alleged crime and have kept silent for forty years. The witnesses' possible testimony needed as evidence would incriminate them right away. And you will need witnesses in that case, won't you?

[Husar]

You mean, instead of bickering here WE (I and Montmorency and Rory and others) should form an investigating body, assume some legal status and start our investigation? You might as well offer Pannonian to start his own negotiations with the EU as for Brexit.

And, if you have failed to observe, these boards are all about bickering.

Since you appear to know that starting your own investigation is a bit far-fetched, you might have failed to observe that that can't have been my point.
I don't even read your long posts about the woman anymore because I don't care what some manly man dude in medieval Ukraine thinks about her trustworthiness.

[Gilrandir]

I don't even read your long posts about the woman anymore because I don't care what some manly man dude in medieval Ukraine thinks about her trustworthiness.

Now I really see that you don't read my posts. It wasn't her trustworthiness that I questioned.

[Strike For The South]

Elizabeth Warren would have been better off ignoring Trump. This may have single handedly torpedoed her 2020 chances.

So there are many Native nations and varying rules regarding who is or can be a part of them. Some require a blood relative, some require a direct link to a person (think the Dawes roles), others may require something else. No matter what the requirement the core issue at stake is the Tribes sovereignty against the United States government.

Not only does Warrens blood ancestry fall very much in line with the wider white population but the way she uses said ancestry perpetuates a kind of "Native as an aesthetic" that is harmful. In Delorias "Playing Indian" he argues that Native culture was used to mold American identity, this is important distinction because it forces inclusion.

Warren is essentially trying to force in inclusion where many people want to retain their own exclusion. She has no ties to the Cherokee nation (beyond her "high cheekbones" and "Pow Wow Chow"). The Chrokee nation has asked her to stop claiming them. She has essientaly backtracked and said "Well it's in my blood, I'm not a member of the nation". She fails to realize her blood has nothing to do with it.

It is a breathtaking ignorance. A lot of white families in Oklahoma have some type of Native ancestor story (Delorias book talks about this too). For years she has used this family myth as cudgel against wider white society, while ignoring what Native peoples were actually saying. She isn't Cherokee not because she is "white", She isn't Cherokee because she has no ties to them as a people. (As an aside this is why the reclamation of Native children through adoption is a major issue, but thats another topic.)

It is why the resisters are screaming about elections while Native people are screaming about erasure. Native nations get to decide who is a part of them. Being a Native is not an accessory. Being Native is not about blood. It is insulting to Native peoples to reduce their culture to a small part of a white womans aesthetic

Also if anyone gets a chance, please read that book. It is not an understatement to say that it changed the way I think. Easily one of the top 5 books I have ever read.