Jump to content
Awoo.

The General 'Murican Politics Thread


Tornado

Recommended Posts

The ban still went through mind you, but nice to know where the US stands on this. And people wonder why people won't stand and "respect" the country that won't show respect back 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Hundreds of White House emails sent to third Kushner family account
White House officials are reviewing a third email account associated with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner’s private email domain.

White House officials have begun examining emails associated with a third and previously unreported email account on Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump’s private domain, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Hundreds of emails have been sent since January from White House addresses to accounts on the Kushner family domain, these people said. Many of those emails went not to Kushner’s or Ivanka Trump’s personal addresses but to an account they both had access to and shared with their personal household staff for family scheduling.

The emails—which include non-public travel documents, internal schedules and some official White House materials—were in many cases sent from Ivanka Trump, her assistant Bridges Lamar and others who work with the couple in the White House. The emails to the third account were largely sent from White House accounts but occasionally came from other private accounts, one of these people said.

The existence of additional accounts on the family domain beyond the two personal accounts used by Kushner and Ivanka Trump and reported earlier raises new questions about the extent of personal email use by the couple during their time as White House aides. Their use of private email accounts for White House business also raises concerns about the security of potentially sensitive government documents which have been forwarded to private accounts.

The family has declined to say what privacy measures have been placed on the domain, but a person familiar with the set-up said some security measures were taken when it was installed.

Many details about the ijkfamily.com email domain remain unclear, including what type of security protections are in place.

The accounts would have been more secure if they relied on commercial email providers rather than a private server, some experts say. “If you’re using a commercial email service provider, you’re really reducing the risk,” according to Lewis, because the major tech companies that run platforms like Gmail and Outlook typically have robust security teams. “If you’re doing your own email, it gets to be a lot easier [to hack],” he added.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/02/jared-kushner-email-account-white-house-243389

 

 

Quote

Jared Kushner's personal email moved to Trump Organization computers amid public scrutiny

President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and daughter Ivanka Trump moved their personal email accounts to computers run by the Trump Organization as public scrutiny intensified over their use of private emails to conduct White House business, internet registration records show.

The move, made just days after Kushner’s use of a personal email account first became public, came shortly after special counsel Robert Mueller asked the White House to turn over records related to his investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with Trump associates. It also more closely intertwines President Trump’s administration with his constellation of private businesses.

...

According to internet registration records reviewed by USA TODAY and cybersecurity researchers, Kushner and his wife Ivanka Trump, who is also a senior adviser, switched the location of their email accounts to a server operated by the Trump Organization on either Sept. 26 or 27, as attention from the media and lawmakers intensified.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/03/exclusive-jared-kushners-personal-email-moved-trump-organization-computers-amid-public-scrutiny/728467001/

Is the Kushner email fiasco as bad as Clinton's yet? It can't get much closer without actually being in a Trump family home - but I'm sure Clinton's email scandal would've been just the same if her email server had been at Clinton Foundation headquarters.

Oh and even the NRA has been shadily dealing with Russia.
 

So much for those so-called "patriots." Is there anyone tied to the Trump campaign who didn't have their head up Putin's ass?

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KHCast said:

So while we were all busy talking about guns, this happened 

http://www.newnownext.com/u-s-votes-against-u-n-ban-on-death-penalty-for-homosexuality/10/2017/?fb_ref=fbshare_web

I can't even with the US right now. This fucking happened 

Who the fuck even is our US Ambassador again? I assume it's some Trump campaign donor as per the norm. How can you sit there with a straight face and vote for something the vast majority of not only your country, but the entire fucking planet, opposes? It's basic human rights! It's an easy fucking win in the eyes of the public! I feel like Republicans are actively dooming themselves for letting Trump and his cabinet continue to make the US look horrid on the national stage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd assume there was some sovereignty argument as part of the decision as well, like this would be the slippery slope to letting the UN dictate America's being able to have the death penalty at all.

Even though the UN has no enforcement mechanism (other than, oddly, the USA itself) so it's rather strange.

While it looks bad, though, don't get too caught up in the UN's votes. We've often refused to back human rights laws yet have a far better record than many of the countries that didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lord Basil (Ogilvie) said:

I'd assume there was some sovereignty argument as part of the decision as well, like this would be the slippery slope to letting the UN dictate America's being able to have the death penalty at all.

Even though the UN has no enforcement mechanism so it's rather strange.

While it looks bad, though, don't get too caught up in the UN's votes. We've often refused to back human rights laws yet have a far better record than many of the countries that didn't.

It's still fucking shitty that America of all countries voted this direction, even if it overall doesn't do much, is the point. The fact that we have a past record of not backing basic human rights doesn't make the situation look better, as a principal moral point, the fact a country priding itself on equality doing this is beyond fucked up, gross, and I don't give a shit if they at home are better at enforcing equal rights(which they really haven't been lately), when those views don't apply outside. It's cowardly and gross, and shows a lack of respect for the groups they so desperately try to pander to. Certainly was a slap in the face to gay Trump supporters I can bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, KHCast said:

(which they really haven't been lately),

Last I checked, we're not executing people for being gay or blaspheming God. Or how, while we still have a patriarchy going, we are far ahead of states that signed the Rights of Women.

Actions speak louder than words, though. I'm sure the people of West Africa's countries think highly of France voting in favor of the measure, for example, when France routinely violates their sovereignty. Likewise, I'm sure the countries of the world would think so highly of us if we signed onto this considering all the other things we do.

Food for thought: maybe we're communicating that we don't need to sign a resolution because we are already living up to its provisions. Now that would be false in this case, of course, given the discrepancy in how capital punishment is given, but it's still a point for consideration.

16 minutes ago, KHCast said:

when those views don't apply outside. It's cowardly and gross, and shows a lack of respect for the groups they so desperately try to pander to.

It's a proud American tradition to only care for human rights and democracy when it's convenient for us. This really is nothing new. Unfortunate, yes, but no more than the million other things we've done for a century. We are a nation of hypocrites and quite likely always will be. If anything, not backing this sort of resolution is refreshing, because it exposes just how rotten American culture is.

Overall though, this why "America First" is so damned pretentious, because it implies we've ever been anything but America First. Even when we help other states, it has always been because we had a benefit in it. It's why we got involved in the Korean and Iraq Wars but shrugged during the many genocides and wars in Africa.

UN Resolutions are quite literally virtue signaling. You can't blame me for not being particularly caring on this kind of subject given 1) we have a better record than many other states that say yes and 2) signing a piece of paper doesn't mean anything without actual change in policy.

UN resolutions are "thoughts and prayers" and just as meaningless to people in need.

16 minutes ago, KHCast said:

Certainly was a slap in the face to gay Trump supporters I can bet.

The GOP is actively trying to kill its own senior base with its healthcare laws and policies.

I think anybody with self-interest has left the Party by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Lord Basil (Ogilvie) said:

Last I checked, we're not executing people for being gay or blaspheming God. Or how, while we still have a patriarchy going, we are far ahead of states that signed the Rights of Women.

Many areas of the country, and even those in congress are constantly attempting to push forward racist, anti-LGBT, etc policies, and even Trump has been supportive of discriminating policies and ideals. Actions speak louder than words as you said, and you can't ignore these actions. Us being better than others doesn't mean by virtue of who else there is, we're great. If we're seriously gonna go "hey we're not killing gays at least" you may as well also go "well we're not lynching blacks anymore, we're better than other places"

"Food for thought: maybe we're communicating that we don't need to sign a resolution because we are already living up to its provisions. Now that would be false in this case, of course, given the discrepancy in how capital punishment is given, but it's still a point for consideration."

id say only barely living up to it, when we have states pushing and trying to pass laws that allow medics and paramedics to not treat gay people. If we actually were decently treating as a whole country LGBT people, yeah I could maybe be more fair to that theory, but the Trump administration has been caught with bias against the LGBT community multiple times, so sorry, can't buy that this is meant to be looked at in a deeper context. Certainly not a secretly clever decision people shouldn't express disgust at. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys i need examples of killings of unarmed black people as well as examples of how gerrymandering effects black people, i'm trying to prove a friend that people of color are being oppressed in America and show him why

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America doing the world proud again i see..

Just curious.. question for the americans here... did anyone of you vote for Trump?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Fijut said:

America doing the world proud again i see..

Just curious.. question for the americans here... did anyone of you vote for Trump?

Yes. :V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Fijut said:

America doing the world proud again i see..

Just curious.. question for the americans here... did anyone of you vote for Trump?

No, i didn't like Hillary ether however i understood that she was the lesser evil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Fijut said:

America doing the world proud again i see..

Just curious.. question for the americans here... did anyone of you vote for Trump?

Hell no.

On 10/4/2017 at 9:19 AM, CD Sanic said:

Guys i need examples of killings of unarmed black people as well as examples of how gerrymandering effects black people, i'm trying to prove a friend that people of color are being oppressed in America and show him why

Honestly I wouldn't waste my time. People like those, whenever they're faced with concrete evidence of the disparity between white and pretty much everyone else (in this case, black people), always have some BS excuse for it.

Blacks on average tend to be poorer than whites? "They're just not working hard enough."

Blacks are being murdered by misdemeanors a white person would've walked away with their life from? "They're just doing their job."

Blacks are more likely than whites to be arrested for suspicion of committing a crime despite being equally as likely to have actually done it? "Well maybe if they didn't act like thugs..."

If a man has convinced himself that grass is purple, there's no use in telling him that it's actually green.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Fijut said:

America doing the world proud again i see..

Just curious.. question for the americans here... did anyone of you vote for Trump?

Hell no. And I’ll be sure to vote his ass out of office by 2020, assuming he hasn’t been impeached by then.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dizcrybe said:

Hell no.

Honestly I wouldn't waste my time. People like those, whenever they're faced with concrete evidence of the disparity between white and pretty much everyone else (in this case, black people), always have some BS excuse for it.

Blacks on average tend to be poorer than whites? "They're just not working hard enough."

Blacks are being murdered by misdemeanors a white person would've walked away with their life from? "They're just doing their job."

Blacks are more likely than whites to be arrested for suspicion of committing a crime despite being equally as likely to have actually done it? "Well maybe if they didn't act like thugs..."

If a man has convinced himself that grass is purple, there's no use in telling him that it's actually green.

Usually in my experience the retorts tend to be, "white people struggle with those problems too", "blacks can be just as racist and harmful towards us", and "there are successful black people, some even agree with us about blacks simply using the race card as a crutch" along with those things you mentioned, whenever I bring up statistics about institutional discrimination. Although, any racism they'll admit exists, they'll say is simply just on a personal level , and not a institutional one.

funnily enough, they never address the issue of incarceration and blacks getting longer sentences for the same crimes along with prisons still being mostly full of black people 

  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Chuckle 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, KHCast said:

Usually in my experience the retorts tend to be, "white people struggle with those problems too", "blacks can be just as racist and harmful towards us", and "there are successful black people, some even agree with us about blacks simply using the race card as a crutch" along with those things you mentioned, whenever I bring up statistics about institutional discrimination. Although, any racism they'll admit exists, they'll say is simply just on a personal level , and not a institutional one.

funnily enough, they never address the issue of incarceration and blacks getting longer sentences for the same crimes along with prisons still being mostly full of black people 

All while insisting that they do care about the struggles blacks in America face, honest, despite only ever bringing them up when prompted and never without a "but" attached.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of race, here's a bit of fun news: according to the FBI, if you're black and vocalize your displeasure with how your people are treated in America, you're a terrorist.

What's really funny the FBI talks about "alleged" police violence (their words. seriously) being the cause of this. Because being called a terrorist for demanding equal treatment is fucking helping, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buzzfeed, in an astonishing act of genuine investigative journalism that calls into question their well-earned click-bait quiz reputation, have obtained a cache of emails sent by Breitbart's Steve Bannon and Alt-Right darling Milo Yiannopoulos.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart-and-milo-smuggled-white-nationalism?utm_term=.twEm1lmkOn#.jeZPZ9PXwm

Some key take-aways from the article, which I dare say should be essential reading for everyone with the time to go through it.

  • The links between Bannon, Milo, and the American Neo-Nazi & White Supremacist movements are now undeniable.
  • Misogyny and racism are frighteningly widespread across the tech and media landscape, even among its more liberal members. A Silicon Valley writer jokingly speculated that Zoe Quinn might be trans, the editor of Vice's women's channel sicced Milo on a "fat feminist", and a Slate.com tech writer emailed regular tips about Anita Sarkeesian's love life to Breitbart. These people all paid lip-service to anti-Gamergate positions, while happily remaining half submerged in the swamp that birthed that wretched shitstorm.
  • The stunningly, appallingly uneven ground that the 2016 election was fought on. The Clinton campaign's emails were hacked, leaked, and dissected by the media, becoming instantaneous fodder for conspiracy theorists, who bought wholesale into the bullshit about cannibalistic rituals and child sex rings. Simultaneously, the Trump campaign's chief brought together shady billionaires, Twitter trolls and Neo-Nazis, and launched a brand new White Supremacist movement, facing no real media scrutiny for doing so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2017 at 10:32 PM, KHCast said:

Usually in my experience the retorts tend to be, "white people struggle with those problems too", "blacks can be just as racist and harmful towards us", and "there are successful black people, some even agree with us about blacks simply using the race card as a crutch" along with those things you mentioned, whenever I bring up statistics about institutional discrimination. Although, any racism they'll admit exists, they'll say is simply just on a personal level , and not a institutional one.

funnily enough, they never address the issue of incarceration and blacks getting longer sentences for the same crimes along with prisons still being mostly full of black people 

They always seem to use deflection tactics like that instead of having a normal conversation. When you don't see things from their perspective they start to take it personally or act like you are your opinion. Being aware of inequality issues that persist in our society shouldn't mean that "you are the one that's racist!" or "being racist against white people".

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Dizcrybe said:

All while insisting that they do care about the struggles blacks in America face, honest, despite only ever bringing them up when prompted and never without a "but" attached.

Yeah they, despite caring and wanting better treatment for everyone, seem to decredit and argue against the issues being problems that need addressing, and instead expect us to take their word for it and move on. It's blatant ear plugging and deflection like Panda had said. Instead of discussing the issue, make the issue something else or claim by bringing up these issues, you hate and don't appreciate America. Or make it a issue about the community itself despite evidence pointing to the contrary.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2017 at 6:15 PM, Fijut said:

America doing the world proud again i see..

Just curious.. question for the americans here... did anyone of you vote for Trump?

I almost considered voting for Trump after dnc rigged the primary to get Clinton picked, but in the end I ended up writing Bernie Sanders instead. My conscience could not bare picking the less evil and I felt horrible at the thought of doing that. I don't agree with always picking the lesser of two evils either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, PandaChao said:

When you don't see things from their perspective they start to take it personally or act like you are your opinion.

A similar thing they do, is when all the arguments for their point have been deconstructed to the point that they can't reasonably argue it anymore, they play the victim card, claiming they're being "attacked" or "ganged up on".

  • Chuckle 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Dizcrybe said:

A similar thing they do, is when all the arguments for their point have been deconstructed to the point that they can't reasonably argue it anymore, they play the victim card, claiming they're being "attacked" or "ganged up on".

"See this is proof white people are oppressed and discriminated against too. You people always make it about race and when I, a white person, disagree, you act like I don't understand what you're going through. I'm poor and struggling too and have been arrested unjustly." *changes the subject to how we should be focusing on important American issues*

*or points to some semantical shit in your post to make a big issue out of* (that actually happened once. I said if someone called me a n*gger to my face, I wouldn't be surprised if someone punched them, and suddenly I'm a advocate of violence no different than the neo-Nazi's)

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we're a month out from Election Day 2017, where many races will be held across the country.

The New Jersey race remains a relatively safe Democratic pickup (of course, NJ Dems should take the lesson of 2016 well that nothing is for certain), and there's good news for Democrats: it's possible Senator Menendez' seat will not go up for grabs, as his trial may not even make it to a jury. On the other hand, the corruption charge will hang heavy on him going forward, and Dems have an incentive to replace him with someone else in the next election cycle for this reason.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/354005-poll-dem-northam-leads-virginia-governor-race-by-13-points

The latest Virginia poll puts the Democrat 13 points ahead of his Republican opponent for the Governorship. While 57% of Virginians oppose removing Confederate monuments, Northam remains interested in removing them, most likely because most of the opposition doesn't consider it a deciding issue and most of them are Republican anyway.

The House of Delegates race has no polling I can find, but it has a record number of candidates. This election cycle may also produce the first transgender member of the Virginia House.

The voter registration deadline in Virginia is October 16th.

No polling for the Maine Medicaid expansion ballot question, which is a big prize in the race, but the Democrat in the Washington Senate 45 race has about a 10 point lead on the GOP candidate. That seat controls the balance of power, and if won, will give Democrats control of the whole state government.

Overall, Democrats are poised to win on 4 of the 5 key elections on November 7th: the Virginia Governorship, the New Jersey Governorship, control of the Washington Senate, and the Maine ballot question. The only thing that remains a long shot is control of the Virginia House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When will the Supreme Court decide whether corrupt partisan gerrymandering is able to continue or not?

Speaking of, we had some good signs from Justice Anthony Kennedy on that front a few days ago...

Quote

The Supreme Court is hearing a case on whether partisan gerrymandering can be considered unconstitutional, and Kennedy is likely to be the deciding vote. ... Wisconsin is appealing a decision by a lower court, which ruled that the way Republicans crafted the state’s electoral maps in 2010 was illegal. The attorneys for the state, who are defending the maps, got plenty of questions from Kennedy, while the Wisconsin Democrats, who want the maps struck down, got none. Kennedy spoke 10 times during the state of Wisconsin’s arguments. He asked five questions and made five statements.

“If you get a lot of questions, you’re going to lose,” Adam Liptak, The New York Times’ Supreme Court reporter, told FiveThirtyEight in 2015.


Justices aren’t just asking questions to get information from the lawyers arguing their cases. In some ways, the questions aren’t meant for the lawyers at all. The justices ask questions to signal their positions to their fellow members of the court, and to potentially sway other justices to their side. If they’re skeptical of one side’s argument, they often pepper that side with queries. Chief Justice John Roberts has even described the lawyers as a “backboard” — the questions bounce off them and come right back to the bench.

A body of academic research has confirmed this conventional wisdom, showing empirically that questions from the justices are usually bad news for the party on the receiving end. The number of questions, their length, their linguistic content and even the tone of voice in which they’re asked are all statistically significant factors in predicting the court’s eventual decision.

[...]

Kennedy didn’t speak during the Wisconsin Democrats’ arguments, but they were clearly speaking to him. Their attorney cited him twice during his arguments, and, as one of their attorneys in lower court, Nicholas Stephanopoulos, told FiveThirtyEight, “Our first Supreme Court brief … cites Anthony Kennedy all over the place and that’s not purely for tactical reasons, it’s actually because he’s said a lot of things that we think our test is consistent with.”

Of course, some of the other justices had plenty to say during the Wisconsin Democrats’ arguments. The most junior justice, Neil Gorsuch, dismissively compared their legal test to the hodgepodge of spices in his steak rub, and Chief Justice Roberts called it “sociological gobbledygook.” But Kennedy sat in silence, taking in a case that was tailor made for him.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-justice-kennedys-silence-means-for-the-future-of-gerrymandering/?ex_cid=538twitter

With any luck, we won't need to worry about post-2020 redistricting efforts, regardless of the election's outcome. The sooner the practice of redistricting falls to a non-partisan commission, the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.