Zelda Wiki
    Mueller Report
    • Red Dingo wrote:

      That’s what happens when you throw people of an ethnic identity into concentration camps, separate children from their parents, and then subject them to abuse while making it virtually impossible for them to ever be reunited. That alone should be grounds for forcing that fucking dickhead you worship out of office.
      Eh, Bill's right on this one. That isn't genocide.

      It's still a fucking huge violation of civil rights on multiple levels, to the point it where a good argument could be made for charging Trump with war crimes, but it's not actually genocide because there's no extermination, either of culture or ethnicity, involved.

      I know that's a fine line, but it's also the line separating WW2-era United States from WW2-era Germany where the concentration camp issue is concerned. The Germans actively tried to exterminate the Jews. We merely locked the Japanese-Americans up and violated their basic rights as human beings.

      It also impacts modern politics, but those are politics irrelevant to this discussion.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Viajero de la Galaxia ().

    • So, systematically separating children from parents and raising them in another culture is a form of genocide.* The idea is that while you're not killing them, you're make a dedicated effort to destroy their culture and heritage.

      I'm not sure if that exactly applies here. ICE is definitely taking children from their parents and giving them to parents of a different culture to be raised, and it's definitely systematic (not a one-off thing, every child in ICE custody seems to go through this). But beyond that it gets fuzzier.

      I'm inclined to say that even if it isn't technically attempted cultural genocide, the fact that it uses the same techniques and has the same end result, albeit on a smaller scale, means that it's close enough to be worth looking into for that reason alone. Even if that wasn't the case, it's still incredibly cruel and inhumane to both the parents and the children, and the fact that there are, apparently, no records about where the children were sent means that it's ludicrously ripe for abuse. The government keeps better track of chickens than it does living humans.

      *One that persisted in the west long after more overt types became taboo. Canada had a dedicated genocide program up until the 1980s built around the idea of "civilizing" First Nations children.

      May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

      Those who defy it, glory!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by John ().

    • The part that makes it incredibly fuzzy is that these people are immigrants, not a native culture existing inside a larger culture or a culture that is being forcibly subsumed by another. By definition, they are actively seeking the extermination of their culture through seeking integration into a different one. Even if they only assimilated into pockets of those who once were part of their culture within the United States, they still would end up culturally diverging from their point of origin just through necessary adaptations.

      Of course, that's a massive oversimplification of what is going on, but it is enough to illustrate that this is not straightforward at all.

      So, the problem crops up that it can be difficult to prove this is genocide because, first, you have to prove those immigrating to the United States don't want to undergo a voluntary form of cultural extermination to begin with. That would involve a very massive, species-wide discussion of immigration, assimilation, and various related cultural impacts on both the immigrants and already-existing populations. And, to be blunt, with current events around the world I do not believe it is one humanity is, as a species, mature enough to have yet.

      Edit: And, because I forgot to include it, I agree this should be looked into as a human rights violation. Genocide is just one of a number of human rights charges that can be leveled, and at this point I do not believe having it in play would make a difference in the final sentence.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Kerest: Forgot part, edited it in. ().

    • Bill wrote:

      In a way, I understand the argument you are making, but I think it is also fair to say that neither of us are legal experts. The Mueller investigation was extensive. expensive, and wide ranging. The bottom line is that they did not recommend an obstruction charge.

      Accountability for what? For collusion he didn't commit?


      Come to think of it, have we forgotten that Rod Rosenstein recommended the firing of Comey? So it wasn't Trump acting unilaterally anyway.
      You're perpetuating a falsehood by claiming Mueller did not recommend obstruction. We don't know what was written in the report but it's be confirmed that Mueller didn't reach a conclusion on obstruction. Judging by his history of following policy, he was mostly like doing what the special prosecutor did in Watergate and that was provide the report to Congress for their determination.

      Barr broke precedent and declared that Trump did not commit obstruction. Barr has a rich history in covering the dirty crimes of Republican Presidents so it is understandable that lot of people are quite irritated by his actions.

      I wouldn't claim victory just yet. Mueller has referred many investigations to other offices.

      Your argument that Trump fired Comey based on the reasoning Rosenstein gave is incorrect since he went on an interview with Lester Holt and admitted he fired Comey because of the "Russian thing".
    • And you are acting in manner that is predictable with someone who is highly invested in a particular outcome, which is to double down and continue to hold on to hope for impeachment or prosecution.

      That is fine with me. For me, It is a positive development when the political opposition increasingly loses touch with the reality of the situation, which is that the chances of impeachment, which were always low, have crashed even further.

      It is a beautiful irony that it was the Democrats who wanted the Special Counsel and continually defended him. And now that the outcome isn't what they hoped for, now the Special Counsel wasn't enough. It just means we need more investigations! What a surprise!

      Of course, that this lack of further indictments has been received as bad news by the Democrats makes it clear (if there was every any doubt) that this was about impeachment and politics all along. Nobody gives a damn about Russia or an actual conspiracy, because if they did, this should be considered great news by everyone. Be happy Trump didn't collude with Russia!

      Fact is, f Democrats want Trump out of office, they're going to have to wait till 2020 get it done at the ballot box. And I'm thinking continuing to focus on Russia and push for more investigations is not going to help with that, although I admit I could be wrong. That's a choice for them to make.
    • HeroOfTime5 wrote:

      You're perpetuating a falsehood by claiming Mueller did not recommend obstruction. We don't know what was written in the report but it's be confirmed that Mueller didn't reach a conclusion on obstruction.
      If he didn't reach a conclusion on whether to charge President Trump with obstruction, does that not mean that he didn't recommend it?
    • Red Dingo wrote:

      You still haven’t answered my question, Bill.
      That's probably because it was uninteresting and got lost in the shuffle. People ignore my points and questions all the time, and I don't whine about it because I'm not under any impression they're obligated to respond. But since you really want my attention, I'll answer your question.

      For the most part, I would consider resources tax dollars. To a large extent, government is about where funding comes from and where it goes.

      But it would also include human resources, intelligence resources, military/strategic resources, natural resources. This is by no means a comprehensive list. I'm sure you could think of others.
    • Or that Barr misrepresented what was in the report. Or that Mueller intended for Congress, the body which according to the Constitution and the DOJ ("sitting presidents cannot be indicted") which is supposed to judge whether a president is legally fit for office. There are a lot of "ors" that can exist here because the report is not being made public and because the subject of the report is being allowed to handle it and redact it before the authority which is supposed to sit in judgement of him. But Republicans are gonna act like because a hand picked Attorney-General who previously covered up the Iran-Contra affair wrote a four page summary of a report that is, by all accounts, hundreds and hundreds of pages long whilst blocking the public release of the full report that the President is completely clear of any legal jeopardy.

      “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
      ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Common Knowledge: Deleted off-topic portion. ().

      Post by Bill ().

      This post was deleted by Common Knowledge: Off-topic. ().
    • Trump and company are planning to hunt down the source of the narrative that he colluded with the Russians:…eller-report-2020/585967/

      This is after Trump suddenly reversing and having a good opinion of Mueller.

      I'm very interested to find out what was in that report that would make Trump so happy with him. Or think there is evidence of a source that can be tracked down.

      Post by Bill ().

      This post was deleted by Common Knowledge: Off-topic. ().

      Post by Bill ().

      This post was deleted by Common Knowledge: Off-topic. ().