Trump

[Charlie Darwin]

Created out of thin air? If that is so, why have we been reading about upsurge in crime in Sweden in the English newspapers for two years now.
Going out on a limb here, but maybe international politics is a bit more complex than the English papers make out?

[geysir]

It is difficult to find the proof you require, Geysir, since the Swedish government stopped tracking the nationality/ethnicity of criminals back in, I think, 2010.
I did not ask for proof, I asked for evidence for the claim which you are attempting to provide a rational context for, that the recent flow of emigration and refugees in the last 2 years into Sweden is responsible for an alleged rise in serious crimes in Sweden.


This data gap makes anecdote/observation more important and I have already tried to provide non partisan sources to reasonably portray whether or not there are issues. I also linked to Tim Pool who is over there and I will be following his journey to satisfy my own curiosity and desire for information. Gatestone Institute has a list of a number of serious crimes committed by refugees and immigrants in Sweden too but I didn't bother posting that as, even though it seems factual, it is too right wing a source for the many on here who agree with open border policies.
Anecdote is evidence but it is the lowest form of evidence and following the journey of some self appointed expert with a camera is supposed some sort of substitution for decades of methodical and educated research into compiling statistics and researching reasons for crime?
I also read about the grenade attacks in Malmo. "Between January-August 2015, Malmö experienced 31 grenade attacks, which resulted in no deaths and minor injuries to a few individuals, that police attributed to conflicts between organized crime elements. Police made a concerted effort to stop grenade attacks, and none have been reported since then."
Sourced from an overview of crime in Sweden by the Overseas Security Advisory Council (https://www.osac.gov/Pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=19681) (OSAC) a US state department.

Crime stats in Sweden can be found here Bra (http://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/swedish-crime-survey.html)
There are generations of a huge variety of immigrants settled in Sweden and the researched reasons for levels and type of crime and criminal types are detailed and meticulously compiled and are not much different than those existing in other countries.


With regards to the first paragraph of your post, I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make but I do note that you took a dig at my intelligence and tried to cast me as hating Muslims. Thanks for that. Sound.
As long as you persist in your attempt to provide a rational context for the claims made by race hate groups, violent neo-nazis and Trump, that the recent flow of emigration and refugees in the last 2 years into Sweden is responsible for an alleged rise in serious crimes in Sweden, I will continue to challenge.
And when you reply in such a flippant, dismissive and nonsensical manner as you did, then yes I will mock your attempt.


Another interesting update from Tim Pool.
You are persisting to use this guy.
With that level of intelligence, one could extrapolate that the recent flow of Italian immigrants to the USA are responsible for the outbreaks of violence between Italian American crime gangs. or for that matter, recent immigrants (legal and illegal) from Ireland are a contributing factor to the criminal deeds of Boston Irish gangs.

[Wolfman]

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder421/250x250/73717421.jpg

You certainly are.

More Fake News from the Frumpanzees.

[SkStu]

You certainly are.

More Fake News from the Frumpanzees.

I was just trying to be light hearted.

[Wolfman]

Fair enough, will take it back!

But this moron, is generally no laughing matter.

[SkStu]

I did not ask for proof, I asked for evidence for the claim which you are attempting to provide a rational context for, that the recent flow of emigration and refugees in the last 2 years into Sweden is responsible for an alleged rise in serious crimes in Sweden.


Anecdote is evidence but it is the lowest form of evidence and following the journey of some self appointed expert with a camera is supposed some sort of substitution for decades of methodical and educated research into compiling statistics and researching reasons for crime?
I also read about the grenade attacks in Malmo. "Between January-August 2015, Malmö experienced 31 grenade attacks, which resulted in no deaths and minor injuries to a few individuals, that police attributed to conflicts between organized crime elements. Police made a concerted effort to stop grenade attacks, and none have been reported since then."
Sourced from an overview of crime in Sweden by the Overseas Security Advisory Council (https://www.osac.gov/Pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=19681) (OSAC) a US state department.

Crime stats in Sweden can be found here Bra (http://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/swedish-crime-survey.html)
There are generations of a huge variety of immigrants settled in Sweden and the researched reasons for levels and type of crime and criminal types are detailed and meticulously compiled and are not much different than those existing in other countries.


As long as you persist in your attempt to provide a rational context for the claims made by race hate groups, violent neo-nazis and Trump, that the recent flow of emigration and refugees in the last 2 years into Sweden is responsible for an alleged rise in serious crimes in Sweden, I will continue to challenge.
And when you reply in such a flippant, dismissive and nonsensical manner as you did, then yes I will mock your attempt.


You are persisting to use this guy.
With that level of intelligence, one could extrapolate that the recent flow of Italian immigrants to the USA are responsible for the outbreaks of violence between Italian American crime gangs. or for that matter, recent immigrants (legal and illegal) from Ireland are a contributing factor to the criminal deeds of Boston Irish gangs.

Well I'm not going to flog a dead horse here. You have it cased, the data is inscrutable and any attempt to hear from the people themselves is irrelevant.

Just one thing, Tim Pool quite clearly states he is the furthest thing from an expert and is going to Sweden and beyond to see where does the truth lie. He has made no conclusions. Usually independent investigative journalism is something that we would have celebrated not so long ago but you are calling for us all to accept, without question, the data that the Swedish Government provides. I hope you are not as naive in your own life. Data, the subsets for which they changed, despite your proclaimed "decades of methodical and educated research into compiling statistics and researching reasons for crime". It would appear that you are the self appointed expert on Swedish crime and the quality of data gathering and analysis.

All bow before the all knowing Geysir for fear he "mocks" you.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Are you really claiming that anecdotal evidence in a YouTube video should be taken as seriously as extensive data collected by a national government over several years? How should the Swedish government make its case then?

I'm not trying to mock you either, but videos like that linked aren't all that useful in determining whether a country has a crime problem or not. To paraphrase a documentary I saw recently, it's like looking at the night sky through a straw.

[SkStu]

Look lads, I am loathe to continue this conversation as it clear how each side feels and I am not inclined to or equipped to present a convincing case on what crime is like in Sweden. What is beyond doubt is that Sweden takes their reporting very seriously and a lot of information is readily available. However, the only reason I presented a video (not as evidence by the way - the videos make no conclusion or imply any outcome, they're just straightforward interviews with citizens and elected officials who give their personal experiences - good, bad, indifferent) is because the very question that we are discussing here is almost impossible to answer as the most important data set is absent from the reporting that is available.

From a Washington Post piece that combats Trumps loose remarks, the following is stated:


What’s more, the Swedish police do not collect information on the ethnicity, religion, or race of perpetrators or victims of crime, which means there’s no evidence for claims that Muslim immigrants are committing crimes in record numbers. Nor is there any evidence to support the claim that Swedish authorities are manipulating the statistics, as the producer of the video [stu - the Horowitz video] alleges.

So, long story short, we are all in a bit of an information vacuum when it comes to the answer to the question. The video only serves to add a first person perspective to the conversation that is carried out by someone with little to no skin in the game apart from doing his bit as an investigative journalist. I don't present the video to come to conclusions or "prove my point", just to learn more and satisfy my own curiosity and maybe peak the curiosity of others on here. I have no real problem if people decide to accept the data provided by the Swedish Government (who do have a lot at stake in this policy shift). That's fine too. I don't think the case is as black and white as some posters here would like to assert but, whatever, I would just like to have a grown up debate about the issues and not get called flippant, nonsensical, stupid or implied as racist.

By the way, I agree that Trumps remarks were ill-advised and, generally, inaccurate and unsubstantiated when it comes to "last night in Sweden". I do not accept that this means that there is no issue to be discussed.

I will leave it there on this issue unless I get baited successfully again. :)

[ifk101]

Well I'm not going to flog a dead horse here. You have it cased, the data is inscrutable and any attempt to hear from the people themselves is irrelevant.

Just one thing, Tim Pool quite clearly states he is the furthest thing from an expert and is going to Sweden and beyond to see where does the truth lie. He has made no conclusions. Usually independent investigative journalism is something that we would have celebrated not so long ago but you are calling for us all to accept, without question, the data that the Swedish Government provides. I hope you are not as naive in your own life. Data, the subsets for which they changed, despite your proclaimed "decades of methodical and educated research into compiling statistics and researching reasons for crime". It would appear that you are the self appointed expert on Swedish crime and the quality of data gathering and analysis.

All bow before the all knowing Geysir for fear he "mocks" you.

If you are suggesting he is indepedent, it is more arguable he is not - he is not in Sweden at his own expense, although he stated he was planning to travel to Sweden regardless..... I am finding his adventures and the persons he has chosen to interview as quite curious. He has certainly succeeded in finding outspoken individuals on the subject on immigration.

[DannyInvincible]

'Trump’s Use of Navy SEAL’s Wife Highlights All the Key Ingredients of U.S. War Propaganda': https://theintercept.com/2017/03/01/trumps-use-of-navy-seals-wife-highlights-all-the-key-ingredients-of-u-s-war-propaganda/


DURING HIS Tuesday night address to the U.S. Congress, President Trump paid tribute to Ryan Owens, the Navy SEAL killed in the January commando raid in Yemen that Trump ordered. As he did so, television cameras focused for almost four full minutes on Owens’ grieving wife, Carryn, as she wept and applauded while sitting next to and being periodically touched by Trump’s glamorous daughter, Ivanka. The entire chamber stood together in sustained applause, with Trump interjecting scripted, lyrical expressions of support and gratitude for her husband’s sacrifice.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_3FR6FrTEk

It was, as intended, an obviously powerful TV moment. Independent of the political intent behind it, any well-functioning human being would feel great empathy watching a grieving spouse mourning and struggling to emotionally cope with the recent, sudden death of her partner. The majestic setting of the U.S. Congress, solemnly presided over by the U.S. President, vested the moment with political gravity.

Media commentators predictably gushed that this was the moment Trump became “presidential.” Meanwhile, the U.S. media’s most reliable partisan warriors, horrified that the moment might benefit Trump, instantly accused him of exploiting these emotions, and exploiting Carryn Owens herself, for his own political benefit.

While there is certainly truth in their claim that Trump’s use of the suffering of soldiers is politically opportunistic, even exploitative, this tactic was hardly one Trump pioneered. In fact, it is completely standard for U.S. presidents. Though Trump’s attackers did not mention it, Obama often included tales of solider sacrifice, death and suffering in his political speeches – including when he devoted four highly emotional minutes in his 2014 State of the Union address to narrating the story of, and paying emotional tribute to, Sgt. Cory Remsburg, who was severely wounded by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan.

George W. Bush also hauled soldiers wounded in his wars before cameras during his speeches, such as his 2007 State of the Union address where he paid tribute to Sgt. Tommy Rieman, wounded in Iraq.

There are reasons presidents routinely use the suffering and deaths of U.S soldiers and their families as political props. The way in which these emotions are exploited powerfully highlight important aspects of war propaganda generally, and specifically how the endless, 15-year-old War on Terror is sustained.

...

[KrisLetang]

A different take: I would also Note that MKH is a young widow with kids.

http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/03/01/mary-katharine-ham-to-dems-on-carryn-owens-this-moment-is-bigger-than-trump-or-you/

[SkStu]

I don't know if anyone has any interest in watching these videos but this is his most recent and I feel it is worth watching if you're willing to be open minded about the Sweden data. He's produced a video every day he's been there.

9fgJA1jEyqc

[tetsujin1979]

Irish journalist Phillip O'Connor is based in Stockholm and tweets a lot about this - https://twitter.com/philipoconnor

Disclaimer - Phil's a friend of mine

[Charlie Darwin]

I'm sick to death of bloody Sweden.

[BonnieShels]

I'm sick to death of bloody Sweden.

In that case, visit. You're likely to be a victim of a terrorist attack.

[Charlie Darwin]

In that case, visit. You're likely to be a victim of a terrorist attack.
A nice back-alley stabbing would do me fine at this point. Politics, eh?

[ifk101]

I don't know if anyone has any interest in watching these videos but this is his most recent and I feel it is worth watching if you're willing to be open minded about the Sweden data. He's produced a video every day he's been there.

Why do you feel this is worth watching? He has committed himself to producing a video each day and this video is just filler imo. My understanding is he is there to prove a connection between the current upswing in crime and the recent increase in immigration. He has yet to do so. He talks of others skewing crime statistics but is that not what he is doing? Look at statistics on those suspected of committing crime. That's down significantly in 2015 on 2012 recordings. Does not mean a smaller pool of "criminals" are increasing their "criminality activities"? Shouldn't there be a significant rise in new suspects to align with the influx of new immigrants?

Additionally is it possible recent immigrants are also victims of this new crime wave? He does mention hate crimes are up .....

[mark12345]

'Trump’s Use of Navy SEAL’s Wife Highlights All the Key Ingredients of U.S. War Propaganda': https://theintercept.com/2017/03/01/trumps-use-of-navy-seals-wife-highlights-all-the-key-ingredients-of-u-s-war-propaganda/

Seriously Danny?
You didn't think before posting that, did you?
You should take it back in the name of all that's good and decent.

[DannyInvincible]

Seriously Danny?
You didn't think before posting that, did you?
You should take it back in the name of all that's good and decent.

What's your issue with it?

[mark12345]

Going out on a limb here, but maybe international politics is a bit more complex than the English papers make out?

Agreed. But the point is that there was talk of this violence before Donald Trump ever came on the scene. And now, all of a sudden he is being blamed for fermenting it.
All sense of reason goes out the window when you can no longer rely on the media for truthful reporting, and I fear we have arrived at that juncture now.
Bottom line is - Donald Trump was a real estate mogul and TV celebrity as late as two years ago. Everyone thought fondly of him including millions of Democrats.
Now, two years later there are folks comparing him to Hitler. In all seriousness, what has this man, who has employed thousands of immigrants and minorities, done in two years to deserve that type of hate speech?

[tetsujin1979]

Not paid them?

[Eminence Grise]

Called an entire nation rapists?
Mocked a journalist with a disability?
Been a sex predator?
A narcissistic and pathological liar?
Given Breitbart and assorted hate-mongers a platform?

Reality TV is artifice: we're just seeing the bits of Trump that didn't fall on the cutting room floor.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Pointing out the reality of what Trump has said, done or said he will do is remarkably ineffective. For some reason a whole host of the worlds population just shrug their shoulders and rationalise it all, usually as a media conspiracy.

[SkStu]

Interesting. Even after illegally wiretapping his political rival, Obama and the DNC were unable to find anything to take Trump down.

Pathetic really. Obama is the one who was the biggest threat to democracy and individual rights. Scum.

Interesting times ahead.

[dahamsta]

SkStu, you might feel it's ok for your hero to make accusations without evidence, but it's not ok here. We have rules, and one of them is that we're required to provide evidence for our accusations -- there is no evidence for the accusation you've parrotted above, and until there is you won't make it again.

This is not /r/The_Donald. I won't put up with that sh*t here. Reel it in or I'll toss you out. I mean it. You've had your fun, either get serious or get out.

[SkStu]

Toss me out then. I'm not doing this on a wind up or to have fun and to suggest this, just because you don't agree with me or because Obama isn't in jail yet, is disingenuous to the max. Last I've seen throughout this forum is that reasonable speculation is allowed and I don't know why this is any different.

The possibility of wiretapping is being covered by many outlets and is being given credibility by some and being countered by others. My thoughts on Obama's character and integrity are well covered here, I don't think he is above illegal activity. He has previous on wiretapping (Merkel etc). That's my bias. Sorry that doesn't align with your opinion.

Anyway, ban me if you think it's for the best.

[dahamsta]

What you said is not speculation or opinion, it is an unproven accusation presented as fact, both by Trump and you. I'll ban you from this forum if you do it again. I won't if you don't. Save the passive aggressive nonsense for Reddit.

[NeverFeltBetter]

And that's the other terrifying side of it. Believing whatever he says immediately, regardless of actual proof. The man could say he built the wall and his supporters would back it up. It's almost trite to quote Orwell, but God it fits: We've always been at war with Eurasia.<br>

[SkStu]

What you said is not speculation or opinion, it is an unproven accusation presented as fact, both by Trump and you. I'll ban you from this forum if you do it again. I won't if you don't. Save the passive aggressive nonsense for Reddit.

It is fact. The Trump campaign was spied on by agents and organizations under the Obama executive (FISA x2). The only thing in dispute is the extent (illegal overreach) and what Obama did with the information (leaked etc). I'll refrain from drawing conclusions (definitive statements on illegality etc) but I'll continue to present speculation and express my opinion on issues. I've tried to be careful in what I've posted as I realize I'm in a minority on here but I'll try harder.

Here's a video from Fox News that articulates what is currently known/public about the wiretapping.

q2eu-B5ZNPs

[Charlie Darwin]

I'll refrain from drawing conclusions (definitive statements on illegality etc) but I'll continue to present speculation and express my opinion on issues. I've tried to be careful in what I've posted as I realize I'm in a minority on here but I'll try harder.

q2eu-B5ZNPs
You literally just said it was illegal.

[SkStu]

If you mean my initial post, I know, I was subsequently saying I'd refrain in future from drawing conclusion like that.

Is that ok?

[dahamsta]

The above is not evidence. I need evidence for your claim that Obama ordered surveillance of Trump by 6pm tomorrow or you'll be suspended from this forum for 1 week. Don't try to weasel-word your way out of it now, you made by the claim and reiterated it. If you make the claim again without evidence, that'll shortcut you out of here. Don't say you weren't warned.

[Wolfman]

Even if what Stu says is true, pretty unlikely there's proof especially in the public domain, but the bigger point is an unfetterered Frump appears as if he's going to be far worse to the rest of the world and every minority going in the US.

Which considering he supported his opponent as recently as two elections ago, marks out his staggering hypocrisy at the very least...

[SkStu]

The above is not evidence. I need evidence for your claim that Obama ordered surveillance of Trump by 6pm tomorrow or you'll be suspended from this forum for 1 week. Don't try to weasel-word your way out of it now, you made by the claim and reiterated it. If you make the claim again without evidence, that'll shortcut you out of here. Don't say you weren't warned.

I'm not sure what constitutes evidence for the purposes of this charade but the following is a quote from a Guardian article dated January 11th which states:


The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts

The "one report" mentioned in the quote above links directly to the following source:

https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/

FISA Act operates under the oversight of the Presidents office therefore anything ordered by, say, the FBI is ordered by the President.

So if you accept the above, the following is known:

1) June - Obama administration applied for FISA warrant to place surveillance on Trump and campaign. Denied.

2) October - Obama administration applies for FISA warrant and, according to the sources in the Heat St article above, is granted permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia, presumably this does not exclude Donald.

So to go back to my subsequent posts, the only question is the extent to which the warrant, if the sources are correct, was used or abused and what happened with the information gathered.

Bear in mind that "unnamed sources" are sufficient to allow most accusations against Trump be published by media outlets so I would expect that I would be held to the same low standard of evidence.

[Wolfman]

That's as maybe. Why would you want to stand up for him in the first place?

[osarusan]

FISA Act operates under the oversight of the Presidents office therefore anything ordered by, say, the FBI is ordered by the President.

I don't think this makes any sense at all.

Depending on what they want to investigate, the FBI could apply for warrants to a number of different courts. If the FBI wants to investigate what they believe to be foreign spies operating inside the USA, they apply to a FIS court.

I don't see the logic behind the argument that an FBI request for a warrant to a FIS court is on somehow on behalf of the presidential administration.

"The FBI doing it is the same thing as the Obama administration doing it" doesn't make much sense to me at all.

[SkStu]

That's as maybe. Why would you want to stand up for him in the first place?

Because America is disgusting and decades of interventionist policy has led to carnage across almost very continent. I think Obama and Clinton pulled the wool over everyone's eyes on a number of big issues and made the world a worse place. Trump ran on a platform of America First and Draining the Swamp and I think he deserves a chance to see what he can do in that regard.

I am not really standing up for him (this started as me being anti-Obama, DNC and Clinton) - I don't think he's an angel and I don't think he's the devil. I agree with some of his policies and I disagree with others. He's ridiculously transparent with his thoughts but he's also a buffoon. I also don't believe everything the mainstream media pushes, I can see their agenda clearly and so I just want to consider other points of view and I think everyone should do the same.

Anyway, Dahamsta ban or not, it would probably be best for me not to post on here anymore. It's difficult to have a conversation about him without getting backed into a corner or painted as something I'm not. It's tiring! :)

[mark12345]

I don't think this makes any sense at all.

Depending on what they want to investigate, the FBI could apply for warrants to a number of different courts. If the FBI wants to investigate what they believe to be foreign spies operating inside the USA, they apply to a FIS court.

I don't see the logic behind the argument that an FBI request for a warrant to a FIS court is on somehow on behalf of the presidential administration.

"The FBI doing it is the same thing as the Obama administration doing it" doesn't make much sense to me at all.

It doesn't make sense?
Why?
The FBI must go to the FISA court to request a warrant. A judge either approves or denies it. That's the way it works.

[osarusan]

The FBI must go to the FISA court to request a warrant. A judge either approves or denies it. That's the way it works.

I know how it works.


Where and how does the presidential administration fit into this process to the point that there is a legitimate argument that the FBI doing it is the same thing as the Obama administration doing it?

[mark12345]

That's as maybe. Why would you want to stand up for him in the first place?

Why would you want to stand up for him?
Because he's the only presidential candidate ever (I stand to be corrected) who stood on an anti-drug platform. And he's following through on that promise.
Have you witnessed first hand the drug problem in America?

[mark12345]

FBI is controlled by the government.

[osarusan]

FBI is controlled by the government.
If it's that simple, would you think then that the FBI investigation of Clinton's emails shortly before the election was also the work of the Obama administration?

[mark12345]

No. That came due to pressure following a public outcry.

[osarusan]

No. That came due to pressure following a public outcry.

So if the actions of the FBI aren't always controlled by the government, what evidence do you have to suggest that it was the case in this instance?*

*Assuming for the purposes of debate that Heatstreet has good info on this.

[Charlie Darwin]

FBI is controlled by the government.
It doesn't seem to be controlled by the current government.

[DannyInvincible]

Why would you want to stand up for him?
Because he's the only presidential candidate ever (I stand to be corrected) who stood on an anti-drug platform. And he's following through on that promise.
Have you witnessed first hand the drug problem in America?

The term "War on Drugs" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs) has enjoyed widespread use in mainstream US discourse ever since Richard Nixon popularised it in 1971 and the US has, in latter years, spent $51 billion annually on policies purportedly geared towards eradication, prohibition and incarceration. Although the Obama administration eschewed use of the term popularised by Nixon (as it was deemed to be "counter-productive"), Obama did not significantly alter long-standing drug enforcement policy.

Is Trump's hard-line stance - which, in accordance with pre-existing US convention, misguidedly (or perhaps mendaciously) regards drugs as a criminal matter rather than a public health issue - really anything novel then?

Have you ever seen Eugene Jarecki's The House I Live In (http://www.documentary.org/magazine/war-without-end-house-i-live-deconstructs-americas-failed-drug-policies)?:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlPNRaXj2OQ

It's worth a watch if the US's (failed) anti-drug policies are something in which you're interested.


The House I Live In takes on the 40-year history of the "War on Drugs," exploring in depth why it has been such a costly failure. No dry exegeses, this story is full of unexpected twists and turns, and compelling accounts from police officers, prison authorities, Federal judges, journalists, politicians, inmates and families trying to deal with drug users in their own homes. Jarecki lays out complex issues in accessible terms, delineating a clear analysis of what has happened over four decades-- and in the process telling the stories of individuals from all over the United States.

...

One of the key issues in the film is the contention by several academics and journalists that drug policy is driven by economics. Scholar Richard Lawrence Miller relates an eye-opening history of drug policies as a means to oppress minority populations in America, whether through the criminalization of opium to purge the Chinese in California, or cocaine and hemp to vilify blacks and Mexicans.

This disturbing pattern is what journalist/television producer David Simon (The Wire) characterizes as a "chain of destruction." Draconian sentencing laws have driven thousands into the prison system, which has consequently evolved into a big business--in many cases providing economic support to entire towns. There's more of an incentive, then, to populate the prisons than to address the culture of drugs.

"Drug abuse is ultimately a matter of public health that has instead been treated as an opportunity for law enforcement and an expanding criminal justice system," Jarecki observes. "I saw how this misguided approach has helped make America the world's largest jailer, imprisoning her citizens at a higher rate per capita than any other nation on earth."

Police officers in the film reveal that colleagues with multiple arrests per week or month are able to generate significant overtime pay, while those in homicide or fraud don't get those perks. The Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, laws enacted in the 1980s allow cops to pull over any car and search for drugs, even if they find nothing and make no arrests. In the process the police may confiscate any drugs or large sums of cash they find.

Mike Carpenter, chief of security at Lexington Corrections Center in Oklahoma, doesn't mince words in describing the policy failure, which forces everyone-law enforcers and defendants- into untenable positions. "Some of the prison guards there were among the most thoughtful people I have met and have better ideas on how to change things than most I've heard," Jarecki notes. "They confront the problems of over-crowding, over-penalization of non-violent drug offenders, and diminishing resources on a daily basis."

We also hear from US District Court Judge Mark Bennett regarding the disastrous results of the extreme sentencing laws. He has no choice but to give life sentences to defendants arrested for possession of a small amount of drugs. That is a major way the prison system has mushroomed into a billion-dollar industry.

Anyhow, even if Trump was to sincerely and effectively work towards resolving drug-related problems in the US to your satisfaction - whilst presumably granting unique exemption from any hard-line crackdown on psychoactive substances for drugs like (regulated) alcohol, which is the most medically and socially harmful drug of all (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm), (regulated) nicotine or (legal) caffeine* - does that negate or mitigate his many other failings and prejudices? You must have great time for Rodrigo Duterte too?...

*For what it's worth, I don't advocate criminalisation of the sale, exchange, possession, use or abuse of alcohol, nicotine or caffeine, but I feel that tolerance or acceptance of their legality or regulation by those who simultaneously purport to have a hard-line "zero tolerance" stance on traditionally-banned psychoactive substances is paradoxical (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/28/why-are-drugs-illegal-google-answer). It's demonstrative of gross double standards and, thus, questionable motives.

[SkStu]

Really interesting read on FISA here from back in 2013. It's amazing what we now accept as normal. Well worth a read no matter your thoughts on Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy


"On its face, the 2008 law gives the government authority to engage in surveillance directed at people outside the United States. In the course of conducting that surveillance, though, the government inevitably sweeps up the communications of many Americans. The government often says that this surveillance of Americans' communications is 'incidental', which makes it sound like the NSA's surveillance of Americans' phone calls and emails is inadvertent and, even from the government's perspective, regrettable.

"But when Bush administration officials asked Congress for this new surveillance power, they said quite explicitly that Americans' communications were the communications of most interest to them. See, for example, Fisa for the 21st Century, Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2006) (statement of Michael Hayden) (stating, in debate preceding passage of FAA's predecessor statute, that certain communications 'with one end in the United States" are the ones "that are most important to us').

The principal purpose of the 2008 law was to make it possible for the government to collect Americans' international communications - and to collect those communications without reference to whether any party to those communications was doing anything illegal. And a lot of the government's advocacy is meant to obscure this fact, but it's a crucial one: The government doesn't need to 'target' Americans in order to collect huge volumes of their communications."


When it is time for the NSA to obtain Fisa court approval, the agency does not tell the court whose calls and emails it intends to intercept. It instead merely provides the general guidelines which it claims are used by its analysts to determine which individuals they can target, and the Fisa court judge then issues a simple order approving those guidelines. The court endorses a one-paragraph form order stating that the NSA's process "'contains all the required elements' and that the revised NSA, FBI and CIA minimization procedures submitted with the amendment 'are consistent with the requirements of [50 U.S.C. §1881a(e)] and with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States'". As but one typical example, the Guardian has obtained an August 19, 2010, Fisa court approval from Judge John Bates which does nothing more than recite the statutory language in approving the NSA's guidelines.

Once the NSA has this court approval, it can then target anyone chosen by their analysts, and can even order telecoms and internet companies to turn over to them the emails, chats and calls of those they target. The Fisa court plays no role whatsoever in reviewing whether the procedures it approved are actually complied with when the NSA starts eavesdropping on calls and reading people's emails.

[DannyInvincible]

Another worthwhile Greenwald piece on Democrat opportunism and hypocrisy when it comes to condemning Trump on his approach to Russia; 'Democrats Now Demonize the Same Russia Policies that Obama Long Championed': https://theintercept.com/2017/03/06/democrats-now-demonize-the-same-russia-policies-that-obama-long-championed/


...

The general Russia approach that Democrats now routinely depict as treasonous – avoiding confrontation with and even accommodating Russian interests, not just in Ukraine but also in Syria (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/obama-proposes-new-military-partnership-with-russia-in-syria/2016/06/29/8e8b2e2a-3e3f-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html?utm_term=.e54a17fd6fce) – was one of the defining traits of Obama’s foreign policy. This fact shouldn’t be overstated: Obama engaged in provocative acts such as moves to further expand NATO, non-lethal aid to Ukraine, and deploying “missile defense” weaponry in Romania (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/11/politics/nato-missile-defense-romania-poland/). But he rejected most calls to confront Russia. That is one of the primary reasons the “foreign policy elite” – which, recall, Obama came into office denouncing and vowing to repudiate – was so dissatisfied with his presidency.

A new, long article (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/trump-foreign-policy-elites-insiders-experts-international-relations-214846) by Politico foreign affairs correspondent Susan Glasser – on the war being waged against Trump by Washington’s “foreign policy elite” – makes this point very potently. Say what you will about Politico, but one thing they are very adept at doing is giving voice to cowardly Washington insiders by accommodating their cowardice and thus routinely granting them anonymity to express themselves. As journalistically dubious as it is to shield the world’s most powerful people with anonymity, this practice sometimes ends up revealing what careerist denizens of Washington power really think but are too scared to say. Glasser’s article, which largely consists of conveying the views of anonymous high-level Obama officials, contains this remarkable passage:

https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2017/03/politicofp-1488804138.png

In other words, Democrats are now waging war on, and are depicting as treasonous, one of Barack Obama’s central and most steadfastly held foreign policy positions, one that he clung to despite attacks from leading members of both parties as well as the DC National Security Community. That’s not Noam Chomsky drawing that comparison; it’s an Obama appointee.

...

The Democrats’ obsession with Russia has not just led them to want investigations into allegations of hacking and (thus far evidence-free (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article136600203.html)) suspicions of Trump campaign collusion – investigations which everyone should want. It’s done far more than that: it’s turned them into increasingly maniacal and militaristic hawks – dangerous ones – when it comes to confronting the only nation with a larger nuclear stockpile than the U.S., an arsenal accompanied by a sense of fear, if not outright encirclement, from NATO expansion.

Put another way, establishment Democrats – with a largely political impetus but now as a matter of conviction – have completely abandoned Obama’s accommodationist approach to Russia and have fully embraced the belligerent, hawkish mentality of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Bill Kristol, the CIA and Evan McMullin. It should thus come as no surprise that a bill proposed by supreme warmonger Lindsey Graham (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/341?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22russia+sanctions%22% 5D%7D&r=3) to bar Trump from removing sanctions against Russia has more Democratic co-sponsors than Republican ones.

This is why it’s so notable that Democrats, in the name of “resistance,” have aligned with neocons, CIA operatives and former Bush officials: not because coalitions should be avoided with the ideologically impure, but because it reveals much about the political and policy mindset they’ve adopted in the name of stopping Trump. They’re not “resisting” Trump from the left or with populist appeals – by, for instance, devoting themselves to protection of Wall Street and environmental regulations under attack (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/business/dealbook/trump-congress-financial-regulations.html), or supporting the revocation of jobs-killing free trade agreements, or demanding that Yemini civilians not be massacred.

Instead, they’re attacking him on the grounds of insufficient nationalism, militarism, and aggression: equating a desire to avoid confrontation with Moscow as a form of treason (just like they did when they were the leading Cold Warriors). This is why they’re finding such common cause with the nation’s most bloodthirsty militarists – not because it’s an alliance of convenience but rather one of shared convictions (indeed, long before Trump, neocons were planning a re-alignment with Democrats (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html) under a Clinton presidency). And the most ironic – and over-looked – aspect of this whole volatile spectacle is how much Democrats have to repudiate and demonize one of Obama’s core foreign policy legacies while pretending that they’re not doing that.

[DeLorean]

Anyway, Dahamsta ban or not, it would probably be best for me not to post on here anymore. It's difficult to have a conversation about him without getting backed into a corner or painted as something I'm not. It's tiring! :)

Sport and politics don't mix Stu, be careful out there. :)

[dahamsta]

FISA is not Obama. SkStu is suspended from this forum for 1 week.

Seriously, I'm simply not having /r/The_Donald conspiritard behaviour in here, it's pathetic and I'm not giving it a platform. Call it censorship, call it whatever you want, it's not happening in this forum.