It is pretty goddamn ironic that people like the fine folks here actually think USA is the paradise and Europe is a hellhole. If anything it's totally the other way around, and our problems are all self-made (almost all due to Republican policies). It's really sad. It's always the people who have never left their home state that are terrified to death of being killed by ISIS.
These arguments are so disingenuous.
Einbert, what is the USA ranked in education and healthcare in the world?
In the top 100 lists of hospitals and universities in the world, which country is massively over represented?
I'm staring open-mouthed at my computer screen at the fact that you're bawling tears over the "fake news" being spread at Donald Trump because...of things that 2+2 forum posters write?
Maybe this post from earlier ITT will help educate you, but I'm not very hopeful for your potential to ever learn anything.
Originally Posted by Original Position
Meh, even that isn't fake news. It has to not only be fake, but also pretending to be a news source, eg this. Wayne LaPierre doesn't pretend to be a news source, partisan or otherwise. The Onion is fake news.
The answer is not exactly cut and dry. At the time of his confirmation hearings, Sessions was still serving as a senator from Alabama. The Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause shields lawmakers from prosecution for lying during proceedings in the House or Senate. The clause was written with the intent to foster debate in Congress without the threat of lawsuits stifling discussion. So, since Sessions was a sitting Senator when he allegedly misled Congress, does that mean he's off the hook? Mother Jones put the question to three constitutional law experts.
"There might be other things he can be prosecuted for," says Josh Chafetz, a law professor at Cornell University, referencing laws that allow Congress to hold individuals in contempt for providing false testimony. But, says Chafetz, Sessions can't be prosecuted for perjury.
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe sees it differently. "That would be a laughable misuse of the Speech and Debate Clause," he says. "He was testifying under oath as an [attorney general] nominee, not in the discharge of any Senatorial business of his own."
Yale Law professor Bruce Ackerman says he's inclined to believe that Sessions is not protected by the clause. Still, Ackerman says there's no decisive case law on the issue, which muddies the waters. "Only one thing is clear," he says, "Sessions must recuse himself, and it is incumbent on the Administration to appoint a special prosecutor."
Regardless of whether Sessions can be prosecuted for perjury, he perjured himself in friggin' confirmation hearings. How can he remain as Attorney General? He must resign immediately, that much is clear.
And if it was accidental, why did he wait so long to clarify? In fact, he waited until reporting revealed the truth to the public. He prepped for those hearings, he knew that was a likely question. So again, I ask. Why did he lie, and why are you okay with him lying?
As I have explained to you before, it depends on whether he did it intentionally or not.
You don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that there is a difference. It's quite simple really.
He lied, he knows he lied, you know he lied. You Trumpkins don't want to admit that you're wrong, fine. But the stupidity and the criticism over it will continue coming at you from the left. Republicans in general and Trump specifically won't survive it for much longer, particularly considering that Don The Con hasn't done a single good thing since entering office.
Most important moment of Sessions' political career (confirmation hearing for Attorney General) and you think he was playing Pokemon Go the week before? Like seriously? He was studying and preparing for testimony. He knew exactly what he was doing when he lied to all of us.
Whataboutism is a term describing a propaganda technique used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world during the Cold War. When criticisms were levelled at the Soviet Union, the response would be "What about..." followed by the naming of an event in the Western world. It represents a case of tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy), a logical fallacy which attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position, without directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument.
The term describing the technique was popularized in 2008 by Edward Lucas in an article for The Economist. Lucas said that this tactic is observed in the politics of modern Russia, along with this being evidence of a resurgence of Cold War and Soviet-era mentality within Russia's leadership.
You really work hard to prove Fly is right about you. I don't think einbert has any posts in Politics before Bernie.
You talked a lot about things like neo-liberalism, financialization, honesty, campaign finance etc at one point, but it's pretty clear that it's all culture war with you. You hate coastal liberals more than you care about America turning fascist and even more oligarchical.