They're Eating The Dogs Presidential Thread

[Monker]

There have been polls since the 2018 attack that show jews favor democrats by about 80pct. Specifically, there was a Pew poll after the 2018 election that was pretty clear.

You were the guy on here quoting polls about Hillary being a shoo-in, right? You know nothing.

Well, that's fine. If you want to believe what Memorex says about a couple Jewish friends of his is more acurrate than a Pew research poll, that's fine with me.

[Memorex]

There have been polls since the 2018 attack that show jews favor democrats by about 80pct. Specifically, there was a Pew poll after the 2018 election that was pretty clear.

You were the guy on here quoting polls about Hillary being a shoo-in, right? You know nothing.

Well, that's fine. If you want to believe what Memorex says about a couple Jewish friends of his is more acurrate than a Pew research poll, that's fine with me.

I guess you didn't read what I wrote then. My Jewish friends hate Donald Trump. It burns in them like it does you. However, they also recognize that he has certainly expressed more support for them (with actions as well) than most past presidents of recent memory. On the issue of support for the Jewish community, no recent president even comes close to Trump. How you guys define him as antisemitic is beyond me. You will have to show me why that is, I guess. It's so much more absurd than the racist stuff, and even that's absurd.

The worst I have heard one of my Jewish friends say in regards to this is they don't trust him. They recognize the overtures and actions, but they wonder if something else is behind it. When I ask them what it could be, I just get "I don't know". Their hatred of him blinds them.

[Monker]

I intentionally did not mention the San Diego attack because it distracts from the broader point. There were two attacks within six months of each other, one the deadliest towards jews in this countries history....both at synagogues. Those are the facts.

Correlation does not prove causation. One could just as easily argue that jew haters are coming out because of Trump being pro-Jewish and having Jewish family. Both of the shooters you reference are on record criticizing Trump as well as Israel.

You are just rambling incoherently.

You are the one who mentioned a specific attack that is unrelated to my point about synagogues and used it to try to insult me...by YOUR WORDS that is sick.

I just brought up the historical FACT that antisemitism pre-dates any party or president. Your interest in this shooting is limited to NOW and how you can use it to cheaply score partisan points on a message board - and that's pretty gross.

You posted a specific example and used it for your own political purposes...exactly what you accuse me of. You are such a hypocrite.

It is limited to NOW because synagogues were not targets until NOW. Two within six months. One the most deadly in American Jewish history. Facts that have nothing to do with your insane ramblings now diving into antisemitism...which is not part of what I originally said.

[Monker]

[
I guess you didn't read what I wrote then. My Jewish friends hate Donald Trump. It burns in them like it does you. However, they also recognize that he has certainly expressed more support for them (with actions as well) than most past presidents of recent memory. On the issue of support for the Jewish community, no recent president even comes close to Trump. How you guys define him as antisemitic is beyond me. You will have to show me why that is, I guess. It's so much more absurd than the racist stuff, and even that's absurd.

The worst I have heard one of my Jewish friends say in regards to this is they don't trust him. They recognize the overtures and actions, but they wonder if something else is behind it. When I ask them what it could be, I just get "I don't know". Their hatred of him blinds them.

I did not call him antisemitic.

Here is a summary of another poll:
https://jstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... 8final.pdf

Here is the part specifically about Trump:
While the Trump Presidency has been marked by high profile events such as the
white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, separation of children and parents at
the U.S.-Mexican border, and the shooting in Pittsburgh, American Jews raise
several alarms about the Trump era. Large majorities say they are more concerned
about the following issues since Trump became President: anti-Semitism (81
percent), anti-immigrant sentiment (80 percent), racism (79 percent), and right-wing
extremism (79 percent). These issues go to the core of Jewish values and the
American Jewish experience, and it is particularly striking that 78 percent believe that
anti-Semitism has risen over the past few years.

● Trump’s leadership of the Republican Party has consequences for the GOP,
which is increasingly alienated from American Jews. Major figures in the
Republican Party and those identified with President Trump have extremely poor
favorability ratings among Jewish voters: 9 percent favorable/66 percent unfavorable
for Mitch McConnell, 12 percent favorable/67 percent unfavorable for Jared Kushner,
and 16 percent favorable/73 percent unfavorable for the Republican Party. Most
notably, the Republican Party favorability is a net 8-point drop from 2016, and the
worst rating the Party has had in the 10 years that we have been asking this question

[The_Noble_Cause]

You are just rambling incoherently.

Nope. If you are going to reference synagogue shootings as proof of a dangerous climate created by Trump, you should be prepared to back that up. The anti-Trump writings left behind by the synagogue shooters don't corroborate that. Furthermore, it's entirely possible that the shootings are a result of the president being staunchly pro-Jewish.

You posted a specific example and used it for your own political purposes...exactly what you accuse me of. You are such a hypocrite.

EXACTLY. I was giving you a taste of your own medicine. Thanks for noticing.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I don't really talk about personal stuff in this thread, but at this point, fuck it. I'm Jewish. I've been to Israel multiple times. I'm semi-fluent in Hebrew. One of my closest friends was wounded while serving in the IDF. Trump is the strongest ally Israel and the Jewish people have. Bar none. You want to have that argument? Let's rock.

[Monker]

You are just rambling incoherently.

Nope. If you are going to reference synagogue shootings as proof of a dangerous climate created by Trump, you should be prepared to back that up. The anti-Trump writings left behind by the synagogue shooters don't corroborate that. Furthermore, it's entirely possible that the shootings are a result of the president being staunchly pro-Jewish.

You posted a specific example and used it for your own political purposes...exactly what you accuse me of. You are such a hypocrite.

EXACTLY. I was giving you a taste of your own medicine. Thanks for noticing.

Now you are just making shit up. This is just pointless.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You are just rambling incoherently.

Nope. If you are going to reference synagogue shootings as proof of a dangerous climate created by Trump, you should be prepared to back that up. The anti-Trump writings left behind by the synagogue shooters don't corroborate that. Furthermore, it's entirely possible that the shootings are a result of the president being staunchly pro-Jewish.

You posted a specific example and used it for your own political purposes...exactly what you accuse me of. You are such a hypocrite.

EXACTLY. I was giving you a taste of your own medicine. Thanks for noticing.

Now you are just making shit up. This is just pointless.

Nah...if I wanted to make things up I would say that Hillary had permission to use a private server and suggest that Trump was going to face execution.

As I already said, correlation is not causation. Both of the shootings you referenced involved suspects that hated Trump for his defense of Israel and the Jewish people. And yet, in the face of this evidence, you want to pin the massacres on Trump. Trump, the very president who made good on the long-standing unfulfilled American promise of moving the Israeli capital and has ultra-orthodox family members. You are just a shameless hack exploiting a tragedy.

[Andrew]

There are fine people on both sides...

That's your moronic leader mainstreaming white supremacy. THAT'S at the heart of these shootings and incidents all around the world. White Power is popular again thanks to Mr. #2 Draft Pick Tweet.

[The_Noble_Cause]

There are fine people on both sides...

That's your moronic leader mainstreaming white supremacy.

No, that's just you being dishonest and cherry-picking quotes. At that very same press conference he said:


"I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” 

THAT'S at the heart of these shootings and incidents all around the world. White Power is popular again thanks to Mr. #2 Draft Pick Tweet.

That's a great theory - EXCEPT both shooters criticized Trump and cited his advocacy for the Jewish state of Israel. You are not entitled to your own facts.

[Andrew]

There are fine people on both sides...

That's your moronic leader mainstreaming white supremacy.

No, that's just you being dishonest and cherry-picking quotes.

THAT is EXACTLY what he said!! Despite trying to back-peddle under questioning - and he backed up that quote just last week once again.

Ok, this is where I know to give up. You are a lost cause and a complete waste of time.

[The_Noble_Cause]

THAT is EXACTLY what he said!! Despite trying to back-peddle under questioning - and he backed up that quote just last week once again.

The full transcript speaks for itself (link below). Throughout the Charlottesville conference, he denounced purveyors of hate including white supremacists.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... s-remarks/

"Those people -- all of those people – excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee."

"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."

"No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them."

Ok, this is where I know to give up. You are a lost cause and a complete waste of time.

Again, I traffic in facts. You deal in insults. I don't believe you watched/read the Trump Charlotesville press conference. I don't believe you read the Mueller report. You recently posted an article saying the dossier is unreliable Russian disinformation - so you clearly don't even read your own articles! By your own admission, you are just here to shit-post and carry on in the tradition of Joe Reardon.

[Andrew]

All you do is insult. I’m done for now.

[The_Noble_Cause]

All you do is insult. I’m done for now.

Again, no facts.

[Monker]

Nah...if I wanted to make things up I would say that Hillary had permission to use a private server and suggest that Trump was going to face execution.

You say I brought up San Diego to score political points. Bullshit, I didn't mention it.
You say I want to pin massacres on Trump. Bullshit, I did NOTHING OF THE KIND.

You are rambling like an insane person who is off his medication. You are inventing arguments with me in your head that simply do not exist in the real world.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You say I brought up San Diego to score political points. Bullshit, I didn't mention it.
You say I want to pin massacres on Trump. Bullshit, I did NOTHING OF THE KIND.

You are rambling like an insane person who is off his medication. You are inventing arguments with me in your head that simply do not exist in the real world.

In response to Memorex's facetious post regarding the lack of current day-to-day dangers living under Trump, you said this:

"You can't think of anything? You are obviously not Jewish and go to synagogue."


Memorex did not mention the recent anti-semitic violence / terrorism. That was all you. So yes, you did bring it up. And you did so in order to use innocent deaths as a cheap talking point.

Instead of leveling insults about the mentally ill, why don't you address the fact that both of the shooters criticized Trump for his support of the Jewish state?

[Monker]

You say I brought up San Diego to score political points. Bullshit, I didn't mention it.
You say I want to pin massacres on Trump. Bullshit, I did NOTHING OF THE KIND.

You are rambling like an insane person who is off his medication. You are inventing arguments with me in your head that simply do not exist in the real world.

In response to Memorex's facetious post regarding the lack of current day-to-day dangers living under Trump, you said this:

"You can't think of anything? You are obviously not Jewish and go to synagogue."


Memorex did not mention the recent anti-semitic violence / terrorism. That was all you. So yes, you did bring it up. And you did so in order to use innocent deaths as a cheap talking point.

Instead of leveling insults about the mentally ill, why don't you address the fact that both of the shooters criticized Trump for his support of the Jewish state?

Nowhere in that statement did I mention San Diego. Nowhere in that statement did I "blame Trump:" Memorex said he could not think of ANYTHING that would cause him fear. THAT is what I replied to.

YOU replied with specific examples of past shootings and used them for your own partisan purpose.
YOU are taking the statement above and filling in (intentional) blanks and blaming Trump for the shootings.
YOU are taking my two sentence reply above and going off on wild tangents to the point of talking about the capital of Israel.
YOU are inventing arguments in your own head and trying to bring them to the forum as if somebody here is fighting against those ideas.
YOU are acting like a TrumpHead cuz he is all that is on your mind.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Nowhere in that statement did I mention San Diego. Nowhere in that statement did I "blame Trump:" Memorex said he could not think of ANYTHING that would cause him fear. THAT is what I replied to.

Memorex was talking about dangers (or the lack of) while living under Trump. He wasn't talking about general childhood fears of clowns, spiders, and heights. So either you didn't understand the discussion you replied to, or you are just lying.

YOU replied with specific examples of past shootings and used them for your own partisan purpose.
YOU are taking the statement above and filling in (intentional) blanks and blaming Trump for the shootings.
YOU are taking my two sentence reply above and going off on wild tangents to the point of talking about the capital of Israel.
YOU are inventing arguments in your own head and trying to bring them to the forum as if somebody here is fighting against those ideas.
YOU are acting like a TrumpHead cuz he is all that is on your mind.

I did reference past anti-semitic attacks. Jews are frequently a target of senseless violence regardless who is in office. Those who want to pretend that this is something novel, or a direct result of Trump, need to be called out.

[Andrew]

More of Drumpf's finest supporters at work...

"Conspiracy theorist Jacob Wohl accused of recruiting men to claim sexual assault by Pete Buttigieg"

[Andrew]

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4410 ... UWip0XOzSE

10,110 lies. So far.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Meanwhile, in real news.....

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/30/don ... overnment/

[Andrew]

Shock!

“Mueller told the attorney general that the depiction of his findings failed to capture ‘context, nature, and substance’ of probe.”

[Andrew]

A piece centered on Murdoch and local politics, but covering the USA and the UK. Murdoch is controlling the world narrative of hard right conservative politics. Evil prick.


News Corp is not merely biased against Labor and in favour of the Liberals. This underestimates the international nature of the franchise. It is a series of multi-platform metastases that endanger minorities – sexual, racial and religious – all over the world. Right now, in the US, it is pouring its hatreds onto individuals– with a special emphasis on women, and women of colour in particular – in a manner unchanged by the upsurge of massacre and vigilantism. Its treatment of the Muslim congresswoman Ilhan Omar is an almost carbon copy of the treatment it meted out locally to Yassmin Abdel-Magied. All this has happened with the “good journalists” barely uttering a peep. Any potential friction this would cause with people of colour in the newsrooms is solved by having almost none. Some of those have left, unable to bear the culpability.

Any one of these factors, by themselves, would make an entity like this dangerous. Together, they represent an existential threat to democratic society. If you think this is hypothetical, or hyperbolic, look to the US post-Trump, or the United Kingdom post-Brexit, and realise that this is what these people fought for – and they want it to happen here. “It’s mind-blowing to look at the wreckage of UK politics, realize that it’s basically all Rupert Murdoch’s fault, and then look back to the US and realize that’s *also* all Rupert Murdoch’s fault”, the American political analyst Matt Yglesias tweeted in March. It’s a simplification – these are complex, multi-factorial events (and it’s also Lachlan Murdoch’s fault) – but it is not a simplification to say that the Murdoch media has ultimately been the decisive factor. The evidence, both quantitative and anecdotal, is very clear.
The MSNBC host Chris Hayes replied to Yglesias: “Australia ain’t doing so hot either.” He was right, yet at the same time Australia’s political turmoil has a different character to it: more of a depression than a psychosis, a decade in which we have lurched from one dysfunctional government to another. News Corp hasn’t been entirely responsible, but it must carry a significant share of the blame. If we could borrow from one Labor PM demonised by News, its influence “doesn’t explain everything. It doesn’t explain nothing. It explains some things. And it is for the nation to think in a sophisticated way about those shades of grey.” Unable to fully implement its own agenda in the political arena, News has instead stymied the reforms of others, in particular making action on climate change impossible.

This election offers an opportunity to repudiate that agenda. News Corp does not have its preferred candidate in the Lodge – that would be Peter Dutton – but it has a close analogue in Scott Morrison. The shared strategy of both is, or was, the demonisation of migrants, something that has always appealed to News. Most recently, the Herald Sun and the Liberal Party made attacks on a Sudanese “crime wave” central to the last Victorian election, very unsuccessfully. But this old favourite became briefly unacceptable in the aftermath of the Christchurch massacre, and without this centrepiece, the government for a moment looked like a sales force in search of a product, before settling on a battle over taxes.

Yet the danger has not passed, and will not pass if Labor wins. If history is a guide, there will be some post-election months of ingratiating best behaviour, the loss will be laid at the feet of Liberal moderates (who are on their way out of the party anyway), and News will lament that the right was too kind. At first glance a Shorten prime ministership will look like a moment of progressive ascendency, and a consequent moment of weakness for the Murdoch agenda (Shorten has already broken with tradition by declining an invitation to meet the mogul in person). But if Dutton or Morrison becomes Opposition leader, and Sky News continues its shape-shifting into Fox News while broadcasting free-to-air on regional network WIN, the components of a reactionary doomsday device are being assembled at the same time.

[Andrew]

To clarify for my RWNJ friends reading from exile... Labor aligns closest to Democrats and the Liberal Party is actually the Conservative party in Australia.

They are currently in power, are the most unpopular government in history and are about to be turned out in 3 weeks, despite the best efforts of Murdoch and News Corp.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Shock!
“Mueller told the attorney general that the depiction of his findings failed to capture ‘context, nature, and substance’ of probe.”

Well, it was Mueller - NOT Barr or anyone else - who decided he could neither exonerate or charge Trump and left it open for the AG/Deputy AG to make the final decision. Yes, OLC guidelines prevented Mueller from indicting. However, guidelines are not law and Mueller still could have clearly outlined impeachable offenses. He didn't do that. Most importantly, he didn't indict anybody for colluding.

[Monker]

Shock!
“Mueller told the attorney general that the depiction of his findings failed to capture ‘context, nature, and substance’ of probe.”

Well, it was Mueller - NOT Barr or anyone else - who decided he could neither exonerate or charge Trump and left it open for the AG/Deputy AG to make the final decision. Yes, OLC guidelines prevented Mueller from indicting. However, guidelines are not law and Mueller still could have clearly outlined impeachable offenses. He didn't do that. Most importantly, he didn't indict anybody for colluding.

You spent weeks saying that if Mueller had an issue with Barr's summary, he would say something. Now we find that he DID say something and now you are saying that what Mueller says doesn't matter. You are doing nothing but deploying political spin tactics to favor Trump.

As far as I know, Mueller has never said his intentions were to leave it up to Barr to charge Trump. You are simply making stuff up, or repeating the spin like a zombie. IMO, Mueller's actions CLEARLY indicate that he felt the remedy for obstruction, or any other crime, was for congress to decide on whether to impeach Trump. Mueller told Trump's team MONTHS prior that he would not charge Trump. If that is how he felt, I doubt very much that he felt the AG would indict Trump either. He left it up to congress...not the AG.

And, "colluding" is not a crime...the report writes MULTIPLE PARAGRAPHS to explain that.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You spent weeks saying that if Mueller had an issue with Barr's summary, he would say something. Now we find that he DID say something and now you are saying that what Mueller says doesn't matter.

To date, Mueller still hasn't said anything publicly about Barr's summary. This latest story quotes anonymous sources - not Mueller. The example I repeatedly used was the Buzzfeed story regarding Michael Cohen. Mueller's office released a rare PUBLIC statement disputing the accuracy of the story.

You are doing nothing but deploying political spin tactics to favor Trump.

If Mueller publicly contested the accuracy of Barr's summary, then go ahead and quote him. You can't. All you have are anonymous sources and leaks. Could be true, could be BS. And if the story is to be believed, Mueller did not dispute the facts of the summary AT ALL.

As far as I know, Mueller has never said his intentions were to leave it up to Barr to charge Trump. You are simply making stuff up, or repeating the spin like a zombie.

Under DOJ guidelines changed after the Starr report, the special counsel report is confidential and goes only to the AG. Previously, the independent counsel report went right to Congress. You don't know what the hell you are even talking about.

IMO, Mueller's actions CLEARLY indicate that he felt the remedy for obstruction, or any other crime, was for congress to decide on whether to impeach Trump.

Again, under current DOJ guidelines, the confidential report goes only to the AG. The ball was put in Barr and Rosenstein's court by Mueller. The only reason Congress and the public has seen the report is because of Barr and Trump. To assume that the report was intended for congress to act is to assume that 1) Trump would not invoke executive privilege and 2) that Barr would release the report in the public interest. That's a lot of *IF's* and has no basis in DOJ policy.

Mueller told Trump's team MONTHS prior that he would not charge Trump. If that is how he felt, I doubt very much that he felt the AG would indict Trump either. He left it up to congress...not the AG.

Starr didn't indict Clinton, but still clearly accused and outlined grounds for impeachment. Mueller, on the other hand, equivocated and punted by saying "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” In doing so, he left it up to Barr and Rosenstein to make a prosecutorial judgement. If Mueller could unambiguously weigh in on conspiracy, he could have equally done the same with obstruction. Instead, he kicked the can down the lane to the chief law enforcement officer of the US.

And, "colluding" is not a crime...the report writes MULTIPLE PARAGRAPHS to explain that.

You're playing word games. While collusion is not a legal term, conspiracy most certainly is - and nobody was charged with that either.

[Andrew]

https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... er-to-barr

[The_Noble_Cause]

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/441547-read-muellers-letter-to-barr

Until Mueller is subpoenaed or releases a statement, we don't know how he feels on any of this. This letter was an internal document. Initially, anonymous sources leaked about it to the press and now it was released by Barr's DOJ. The letter makes clear that Mueller would have preferred that Barr release Mueller's executive summaries. Instead Barr released his own four page summary.

Is that Mueller's decision to make? No.

Would the executive summaries changed anything? Possibly.

The summaries could have more negatively shaped public perception on the issue of obstruction. But again, Mueller has no standing to make that decision.

Otherwise, not much here folks.

[Andrew]

Jesus Christ on a bike. Are you related to Sarah Sanders? Talk about endless streams of bullshite. It's just funny now.