meloshouldgo wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Very good chance Assange is going to a be free man. Thank you Trump

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/798110156336676864

Found this online, if you are not familiar with how Assange ended up in the situation he is in.

Sweden was in a plot with the US to get Assange to Sweden to give a statement on made up allegations, once it Sweden it is much easier to extradite him to the US for face espionage charges.
That is why he is in the embassy to start with, he was tipped off about what was going to go down.
Because of the tip off, he sought asylum with Ecuador. He offered to give a statement to the Swedish police from the embassy, as there is no case against him, this would mean the case was closed but of course, this rejected by Sweden.
Because of the arrest warrant Sweden put out, if Assange left the embassy he would be arrested and shipped from the UK to Sweden so he was imprisoned in the embassy. The UN rightly declared this unlawful imprisonment.
Now Obama has is going and Clinton lost, Sweden are trying to bring their made up case to a close, which means the arrest warrant is cancelled and Assange can leave his imprisonment in the embassy.

Note - Sweden's immigration policy (very open) is causing extreme problems in the country, bringing it down.

Bringing what down?

Sweden. It is in a tough spot from having such and open door policy. Here in Germany it is somewhat difficult but the country is pretty wealthy, it can withstand it so far.

Exactly what damage was caused to Sweden?

From people here in Germany with family/friends there, I hear there is an economic weight, which is nothing shocking but a growing problem is a lack of the Muslim cultures blending with Swedish culture (again, not a big shock).
This article is kind of light but gets into the economic points. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430633/refugees-economic-impact-sweden-not-light

I have friends in Italy and the immigration going on there, is really a much bigger problem and in more ways (e.g. violence). There is now talk of Italy leaving the EU. First Britain and my guess more will follow.

You know, you can just Google this all, it is a pretty talked about thing. I mostly say that as you don't agree with anything I say.

You're an immigrant, so can you stop your passive aggressive agenda of demonizing Muslim refugees who are fleeing a horrific war that we helped create. Thanks.

The truth is a lot of European countries have aging populations and their future will depend on a large influx of immigrants to make up the shortfall. The irony is that all these anti-immigrant inbreds who complain about immigrants ruining their country and stealing their jobs and benefits will be reliant on them in their old age.

Huh? I'm an American living in Europe temporarily. By definition, I'm not an immigrant. Regardless, no reason to take that tone and name call. Passive agenda? Hey, want to guess what my ancestry is?

You do realize that not all countries in the EU are receiving immigrants right? When Sweden, Italy and Germany get the brunt of them, it is going to create problems.

But you hit the nail on the head, these same policies of bombing that Hillary voted across the board for, created this tragedy.

I also understand Germany needs people, but having an open door policy from a country your ally is bombing, that does have terrorists, is a recipe for disaster.
Please, don't make this about me via your guilt by association.

So "immigrant" now qualifies as name calling? Guess we have very different standards for the spoken language as well.

Name calling means calling someone a name. Generally that name is derogatory or used derogatorily. Considering the context here and since you mostly know nothing about me except I'm an American living in Germany, you come up with - I am an immigrant? I don't know where you were going with that except that it is false. So, jump to the next attack and skip over my points.

Nice trying to blame the victim, typical.

My grandfather was from Syria. If we are helping to bomb Syria (or if Hillary was supplying weapons to ISIS to attack Assad), then we have a problem having an open door policy with Syria.
I have nothing against Syrians, I don't hate myself, just a problem with those creating this situation.

Reading comprehension is the ability to actually understand what you read and parse out the content from the noise that overwhelms your active and biased imagination.

I didn't call you an immigrant someone else did.

What I asked you is exactly what is derogatory about being an immigrant?

I am a naturalized citizen for last 6 years and a legal immigrant. I am neither black nor white nor Muslim or any other religion. I don't think being called an immigrant is victimizing someone. Nor would I play the victim of someone called me one.

Like I said we have very different expectations from this language.

Are you going to hold it against me that I thought it was the same conversation? Man, I had just woken up, same thread, lol.
But thanks for the reading comprehension sarcasm. You had a choice to be a human being about it, but responded like that.

Regarding your question, I imagine it is the intent of the person, not so much the word. It doesn't offend me per se, I just didn't understand it as I said I'm American.

No I won't hold it against you, it was an honest mistake, I get it. We all make those from time to time. Sarcasm just happens to be my posting style, can't change that.

Again not sure how you judge intent, but you have said negative things about immigrants and you have consistently called it a problem. That's all I know about you. That and the fact that you seem to honestly belive HRC would declare war on Russia without any evidence of any kind.

I don't think I've had a strong stance against immigrants here. I'm not really even for building a wall separating us with Mexico, but at least fixing the fence.
What are you alluding too with my stance on immigrants? I do think that we need to vet/background check (as best we can) immigrants coming in from States where there are terrorists and America is involved with bombing, droning, etc. I'm pretty sure this happens anyway. Is there something wrong with this?

Hillary pushed Obama into Libya - 30,000 dead. She voted for Iraq and was for Afghanistan. She seems to have an aggressive stance in general. She has a very aggressive stance on Russia with the Wikileaks emails, and had no evidence. She might not start a war right away, but her cold war was already under way. Me and others, quite a few, really were worried about war with Russia eventually. Quite a few people here in Germany said the same thing, a bit of an undercurrent.

This thread gets pretty emotional (it seems) at times. And I do try to be careful usually, sometimes it is tongue and cheek with joking, I get that. But with protests happening, be it George Soros supported/funded or not, I do not want to help divide the country further. Me or anyone "for" Trump and what not, are not an enemy. We have to learn to get along better. Even though he may have policies and such that we don't like (and I've stated what I don't like), it seems things are starting to get out of control. I'll take responsibility in general, but where this may go is really ugly.

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:A little positivity...

Since Trump became President Elect (not even in office yet.)

Defcon nuclear threat REDUCED to safest level http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/732135/donald-trump-election-defcon-reduced-level-5-safest-level (Sort of verifies my fears with Hillary and Russia and WWIII)
No TTP
No TTIP
Stock markets up
Main Stream Media in further decline, NY Times issues apology
Canada PM says ready to renegotiate NAFTA with Trump
Mexico says it will discuss, but not renegotiate, NAFTA with Trump (I bet they do renegotiate)

Our new President is starting off good, quite articulate. Really starting to like this guy.

Trump could be the grand marshal at a KKK parade and you'd find a way to see it as a positive. So matter how bad or good a president he becomes, he can do no wrong in your eyes.

What you are saying is very representative of some of the comments being made in general. How could you possibly connect me, what I've said here, to the KKK? That is crazy. My platform, if I can call it that, is anti-war. And you come out and say that?

This is what is happening, people are talking about hate and racism that Trump does, but I don'T see it, except when I check the news and see what some Clinton supporters are doing and the language they use in general. "Do as I say, not as I do"??? Really, don't make things worse, bring some consciousness to your words.

DrAlphaeus wrote:EMS: surprised don't consider yourself an immigrant to Germany. How long have you been living there? In a certain sense you "emigrated" from the US, right? What do you consider yourself: a tourist? Retiree living abroad? You've been there a bunch of years, no?

I guess the "permanent" part of the definition you don't fit. At what point would your status in Germany would be considered immigration? A lot of immigrants to the US, particularly from the Americas, come with the idea that they will only be here for a couple years to earn X amount of money for themselves and their family to eventually return. Some do return to build that dream house, business, or retirement ... are they not immigrants if they are living and working for years abroad? Then of course many of these folks end up living here for the rest of their lives because of social ties and opportunities they create here versus what would be waiting for them back home.

Was surprised to see you read it as "name-calling" when I think it was just a way to describe your status as an American living abroad — not as a tourist but as a resident of some particular immigration status – with no apparent plans to return. What do you call it then?

It seems "permanent" is a big part of the definition (online). I see me coming back to the States - I miss my family and friends. Just in Germany for over 10 years now as that is where life has taken me. I'm not offended per se, with being called an immigrant, but I don't like putting another label on me. And the reasons for being here - I'm not exactly looking for a better life, being persecuted, etc. More like I am a traveler, Earthmansurfer, and currently surfing Germany. (I'm way too young - and poor - to be retired. ;-)

I guess I'm saying things are a bit Semantic. I don't exactly see the point. I've recently mentioning some of my ancestory and am pretty clear about my intentions. I (we) need to be more careful here though. Things are getting heated up, all over.

Peace out Doc.

gunsnewing wrote:

nixluva wrote:Trump is already a Train Wreck. He had no idea what he was getting into and it's been amateur hour so far. I've said it before but he's got a Tiger by the tail and it's gonna turn around and maul him. There's NOTHING like being President and the workload is beyond his comprehension. He's gonna leave most of the job to Pence and his staff.

lol

and what does that say about Hillary and her campaign staff who can't secure an election victory if you handed it to them

earthmansurfer wrote:
I don't think I've had a strong stance against immigrants here. I'm not really even for building a wall separating us with Mexico, but at least fixing the fence.
What are you alluding too with my stance on immigrants? I do think that we need to vet/background check (as best we can) immigrants coming in from States where there are terrorists and America is involved with bombing, droning, etc. I'm pretty sure this happens anyway. Is there something wrong with this?

Hillary pushed Obama into Libya - 30,000 dead. She voted for Iraq and was for Afghanistan. She seems to have an aggressive stance in general. She has a very aggressive stance on Russia with the Wikileaks emails, and had no evidence. She might not start a war right away, but her cold war was already under way. Me and others, quite a few, really were worried about war with Russia eventually. Quite a few people here in Germany said the same thing, a bit of an undercurrent.

This thread gets pretty emotional (it seems) at times. And I do try to be careful usually, sometimes it is tongue and cheek with joking, I get that. But with protests happening, be it George Soros supported/funded or not, I do not want to help divide the country further. Me or anyone "for" Trump and what not, are not an enemy. We have to learn to get along better. Even though he may have policies and such that we don't like (and I've stated what I don't like), it seems things are starting to get out of control. I'll take responsibility in general, but where this may go is really ugly.

You have said immigrants are a problem. Legal immigrants are fully vetted when they enter the US. Illegal immigrants can't be vetted. If you want all illegal immigrants send back because they can't be vetted that's fine. It's a low priority problem to fixate on in my opinion.

You keep saying people dying in Lybia is Hillary'S fault. This is pure baseless right wing talking point. Without war Gaddafi would have slaughtered people. Libya's inability to govern itself after the war is not an US problem. The Libyan ambassador to the UN has said so himself. I have more faith in that country's ambassador than I have in your empty right wing talking points.

She voted for the war in Iraq because she was like everyone else intentionally lied to by Bush and the neocons ruining the country. It wasn't a smart thing to do, but it doesn't make her war happy it makes her gullible.

Your only accusation that had any substance is that she blamed the Russian Govt for wikileaks. To make that into a potential threat to start a war with Russia is just plain stupid.

If President Barack Obama could go back in time and change something about his presidency, he’d choose the U.S.-led intervention in Libya.

As Obama increasingly looks to his legacy, the inevitable do-over question from an audience member Thursday night at the PBS NewsHour Town Hall in Elkhart, Indiana, also underscored how his foreign policy is a political minefield for Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state looking to succeed him in the White House.

“Mr. President, what is the one thing you would go back and change during your presidency, and how would you change it?” asked the questioner in Elkhart, where Obama made his first trip as president seven years ago.

On foreign policy, Obama said it was the 2011 operation in Libya, where the U.S. spearheaded a U.N. and NATO-backed airstrike campaign. Former President Muammar Qaddafi — “this guy,” Obama called him, in a reminder the strongman was considered a state sponsor of terror — had threatened to slaughter thousands of Libyan people.

“We succeeded and probably saved tens of thousands of lives,” Obama responded, referring to the “broader coalition” that went in. “But I did a little too much counting on other countries to then stabilize and help support government formation, and now it’s kind of a mess.”

In March 2011, the U.N. authorized a military intervention, and days later, the U.S. and coalition partners established a no-fly zone over the North African country and began to bomb its government forces. Qaddafi was ousted and killed that October. But Libya has continued to unravel, with the Islamic State swarming in to fill the chaotic vacuum ripped open by the war and the rival factions and governments that followed in its wake.

It’s not the first time Obama has expressed regret over the faltering follow-up. But Obama’s remarks on Libya came just hours after his former secretary of state gave a national-security focused speech with sharp criticism of her likely rival in the 2016 presidential election, presumptive-GOP nominee Donald Trump.

Clinton’s speech in San Diego also served to launch her line of attack against Trump in the general election, arguing his often incoherent and contradictory pronouncements on foreign policy prove he is too dangerous to be commander in chief.

But with the inevitability that the Libya “mess” will be inherited by Obama’s successor — along with a spate of global crises from Syria to Ukraine to the South China Sea — the president’s remarks also remind that Clinton’s more aggressive tack also opens her far more extensive record up to higher scrutiny.

While it’s far from clear whether Obama’s successor will be Trump or Clinton, it’s the likely Democratic nominee who is most closely associated with the current president’s foreign policy — particularly in Libya.

As secretary of state, Clinton was one of Obama’s advisors who advocated strongly for military action in Libya. She also headed the State Department when the U.S. ambassador and several other Americans were killed during attacks on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012. Republican lawmakers continue to try and build a case that Clinton is at fault for failing to provide adequate security before the attacks and that the administration intentionally misled the public after, though a handful previous investigations haven’t found evidence of wrongdoing.

The Libyan ambassador to the U.N. recently told Foreign Policy that the chaos that followed the intervention was not the United States’ or the coalition’s fault, but a crisis of governance of the Libyans’ own making. Still, Republican opponents have already made clear they will attempt to use Libya, and Clinton’s far deeper experience, against her.

“Crooked Hillary Clinton’s foreign interventions unleashed ISIS in Syria, Iraq, and Libya. She is reckless and dangerous!” Trump tweeted on May 21.

It should be noted that Trump also once supported intervention in Libya to remove Qaddafi, saying at the time, “At this point, if you don’t get rid of Qaddafi it’s a major, major black eye for this country.”

In 2016, Clinton, for her part, has decided to defy these efforts and not only defend but tout her experience as a major strength for her bid to be commander in chief.

She has argued that Libya’s own obstruction prevented success. While the Libyans couldn’t provide their own security, she has said, they resisted U.S. troops — or any foreign force — providing it for them.

“We can’t walk away from that,” she said in a Democratic presidential debate in New York in April. “The Libyan people deserve a chance at democracy and self-government. And I, as president, will keep trying to give that to them.”

Clinton did not mention Libya in her speech

https://www.google.com/amp/foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/03/libya-is-obamas-biggest-regret-and-hillarys-biggest-threat/amp/

Welpee wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

nixluva wrote:Trump is already a Train Wreck. He had no idea what he was getting into and it's been amateur hour so far. I've said it before but he's got a Tiger by the tail and it's gonna turn around and maul him. There's NOTHING like being President and the workload is beyond his comprehension. He's gonna leave most of the job to Pence and his staff.

lol

and what does that say about Hillary and her campaign staff who can't secure an election victory if you handed it to them

It says the system was rigged against her.

1824, John Quincy Adams vs Andrew Jackson - Jackson received 38,000 more votes.

1876, Rutherford B. Hayes vs Samuel J. Tilden - Tilden received 250,000 more votes.

1888, Benjamin Harrison vs Grover Cleveland - Cleveland received 90,000 more votes.

2000, George W. Bush vs Al Gore - Gore received 540,000 more votes.

Clinton has currently received 1,160,817 (and still counting) more votes than Trump. I know you have to allow for lower population numbers in the 1800s, but still...

We should never lose sight of the fact that the majority of American voters do not want Trump as president. Good luck believing he has a "mandate."

Welpee wrote:Also of interest, the four other elections in which the popular vote winner didn't win the election:

1824, John Quincy Adams vs Andrew Jackson - Jackson received 38,000 more votes.

1876, Rutherford B. Hayes vs Samuel J. Tilden - Tilden received 250,000 more votes.

1888, Benjamin Harrison vs Grover Cleveland - Cleveland received 90,000 more votes.

2000, George W. Bush vs Al Gore - Gore received 540,000 more votes.

Clinton has currently received 1,160,817 (and still counting) more votes than Trump. I know you have to allow for lower population numbers in the 1800s, but still...

We should never lose sight of the fact that the majority of American voters do not want Trump as president. Good luck believing he has a "mandate."

This is what the country looked like when the electoral college was implemented...

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:EMS: surprised don't consider yourself an immigrant to Germany. How long have you been living there? In a certain sense you "emigrated" from the US, right? What do you consider yourself: a tourist? Retiree living abroad? You've been there a bunch of years, no?

I guess the "permanent" part of the definition you don't fit. At what point would your status in Germany would be considered immigration? A lot of immigrants to the US, particularly from the Americas, come with the idea that they will only be here for a couple years to earn X amount of money for themselves and their family to eventually return. Some do return to build that dream house, business, or retirement ... are they not immigrants if they are living and working for years abroad? Then of course many of these folks end up living here for the rest of their lives because of social ties and opportunities they create here versus what would be waiting for them back home.

Was surprised to see you read it as "name-calling" when I think it was just a way to describe your status as an American living abroad — not as a tourist but as a resident of some particular immigration status – with no apparent plans to return. What do you call it then?

It seems "permanent" is a big part of the definition (online). I see me coming back to the States - I miss my family and friends. Just in Germany for over 10 years now as that is where life has taken me. I'm not offended per se, with being called an immigrant, but I don't like putting another label on me. And the reasons for being here - I'm not exactly looking for a better life, being persecuted, etc. More like I am a traveler, Earthmansurfer, and currently surfing Germany. (I'm way too young - and poor - to be retired. ;-)

I guess I'm saying things are a bit Semantic. I don't exactly see the point. I've recently mentioning some of my ancestory and am pretty clear about my intentions. I (we) need to be more careful here though. Things are getting heated up, all over.

Peace out Doc.

10 years? Dude, sorry for slapping labels but you emigrated from the US and immigrated to Germany. Or how about calling you an American émigré? It's a fancy label!

The better life/persecution thing is definitionally irrelevant IMHO. The whole leaving one nation to settle in another is the important distinction. Because hey... <in my best hippie voice> there is nothing permanent in this world anyway...

That's all I got from the peanut gallery. Carry on.

PS — I'm certain that you'd be considered an (immigrant to Germany / emigrant from the US) for statistical purposes. If you don't met the strictest dictionary definition, I'm certain "permanent" isn't part of the working definition when we talk about stats and figures or generalize about an "immigrant" problem. Just saying.

PPS — Are you living/working over there illegally?!?