2 2
Phil1111

Michael Cohen Testifies

Recommended Posts

Mark Meadows is shocked! appalled! outraged!  that anyone would even suggest that his stunt at the Cohen testimony was racist.  He demands that even the suggestion of such a thing be stricken from the record.  No one is less racist than he is.  He has black friends.  See?  There's one right there.

Meadows in 2011: "It’s interesting, that when the more we find out, the more we realize how wrong the direction we are going. And so what we are going to do is take back our country. 2012 is the time we are going to send Mr. Obama home to Kenya or wherever it is. We’re gonna do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought that there would be any real, concrete, and open collusion between DJT and Russia. He would have to be monumentally stupid in order for that to happen. And I think Cohen verified that (at least from his [Cohen] standpoint). I think that Cohen did give testimony that there was open collusion between Trump's kids and Russia. But the biggest thing that Cohen did give is campaign finance violations of Trump. And those are real crimes. Are they enough to take down a president, aka Al Capone style - I don't know.

This all confirms to me that we are again living in exciting times. We are seeing the start of the end of the US as a superpower. I had always wondered what it was like to be alive during the fall of the roman empire or greek etc. If we as a country continue down this path of partisan politics at the demise of the country, we will implode into nothingness. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Yeah but wanting to send a black american to Africa isn't racist, I mean that's where they come from.

/s

"Would you like to send our colored cousins home again, my friends?
All you need to do is follow the worms" - Roger Waters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billvon said:

Mark Meadows is shocked! appalled! outraged!  that anyone would even suggest that his stunt at the Cohen testimony was racist.  He demands that even the suggestion of such a thing be stricken from the record.  No one is less racist than he is.  He has black friends.  See?  There's one right there.

I think that's a lazy and inaccurate representation of what actually happened.   Rep. Rashida Tlaib apologized for giving the wrong impression that she was calling Meadows a racist.  Secondly, both Elijah Cummings and Lynne Patton stood up for Meadows.  Thirdly, Meadows withdrew his request for the comment to be stricken.

I think it was offensive to suggest that Lynne Patton was merely a prop as if she didn't have legitimate reasons of her own for standing up for Trump.  Patton has said that she's been called an uncle tom and a house negro in the past and that much of her family has alienated her.  She said that it was racist to take the word of a convicted liar over that of an accomplished African American woman working within the Trump Admin right alongside Cohen himself.

 

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Meadows in 2011: "It’s interesting, that when the more we find out, the more we realize how wrong the direction we are going. And so what we are going to do is take back our country. 2012 is the time we are going to send Mr. Obama home to Kenya or wherever it is. We’re gonna do it."

Ya, that's not going to help his case.  I don't think the comment was necessarily racist on the surface, but when given the context and the group he was playing up to, I think it's clear what he was implying.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know what's worse, actually being racist or pretending to be. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Coreece said:

I think that's a lazy and inaccurate representation of what actually happened.   Rep. Rashida Tlaib apologized for giving the wrong impression that she was calling Meadows a racist.  Secondly, both Elijah Cummings and Lynne Patton stood up for Meadows.  Thirdly, Meadows withdrew his request for the comment to be stricken.

Right.  Good for her, and good for him for withdrawing the request to strike it from the record.

Quote

I think it was offensive to suggest that Lynne Patton was merely a prop as if she didn't have legitimate reasons of her own for standing up for Trump. 

She may well have lots of good reasons to be there; no one is disputing that.

When asked why Patton was there, Meadows said "she has information."  But she didn't speak or provide any of that information.  Her presence there was only used so Meadows could point at her and say "See?  Trump's not a racist."  And being there merely to be visible to the audience is pretty much the definition of a prop.

If someone asks me to a conference to speak on wireless power, then great.  I've done that a lot and would be happy to do it again.  But if someone asks me to stand on stage while someone else tells people how great his company is, and points to me periodically because I have a lot of wireless power patents, then I am a prop.  Doesn't mean anyone hates me, or that they are racist (or sexist or anything else.)  But at that point I'm a prop - something that people look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, billvon said:

When asked why Patton was there, Meadows said "she has information."  But she didn't speak or provide any of that information.  Her presence there was only used so Meadows could point at her and say "See?  Trump's not a racist."  And being there merely to be visible to the audience is pretty much the definition of a prop.

I'll agree that it seemed a bit awkward, and I wondered why she didn't speak for herself.  The only thing that made sense to me was that she couldn't talk since she wasn't part of the committee, but could at least make a statement with her presence.  And given the fact that even the scope of questioning by congress was limited, it's not unreasonable to make that assumption.  I just don't know how accurate it is.  I haven't found anything about the rules yet.

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2019 at 10:32 PM, BillyVance said:

Meanwhile, Trump is in Vietnam working with North Korea on the nuclear issues, as well as getting Vietnam to order $15 billion in Boeing aircraft orders. WINNING!

Billy, not being funny mate but you do seem to be doing your best to appear incredibly gullible. First, you should be able to tell yourself what a useless clusterfuck the DPRK meeting as been, where Trump achieved absolutely nothing except publically absolving Kim of any responsibility for the wrongful death of a US citizen.

 

Second, about those jets...

Quote

On the sidelines of a summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in the Vietnamese capital of Hanoi, VietJet showcased a recent order to purchase 100 737 MAX planes worth $12.7 billion. The deal was provisionally announced in July 2018 and firmed up later that year, without a public announcement until now...

VietJet CEO Nguyen Thi Phuong Thao told Reuters the first four aircraft ordered as part of a previous 100-plane deal, announced in 2016 when President Barack Obama visited Vietnam, would be delivered later this year. 

 

Well done Trump, just happening to be there when an already done deal, that itself is a continuation of deals made under Obama, is made public. Yeah, that's way more important than finding out about Trump's pattern of lies and crimes from one of his closest associates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Coreece said:
42 minutes ago, billvon said:

When asked why Patton was there, Meadows said "she has information."  But she didn't speak or provide any of that information.  Her presence there was only used so Meadows could point at her and say "See?  Trump's not a racist."  And being there merely to be visible to the audience is pretty much the definition of a prop.

I'll agree that it seemed a bit awkward, and I wondered why she didn't speak for herself.  The only thing that made sense to me was that she couldn't talk since she wasn't part of the committee, but could at least make a statement with her presence.  And given the fact that even the scope of questioning by congress was limited, it's not unreasonable to make that assumption.  I just don't know how accurate it is.  I haven't found anything about the rules yet.

I briefly skimmed over the rules in the "Committee Consideration" subsection found in the following link:

https://www.govtrack.us/congressional-procedures

I'm still under the impression that they would've had to call Patton as a witness in order for her to speak at the hearing.  Perhaps it wasn't worth all the trouble?

Also, I know the republican within the first minute of the hearing called for a motion to postpone  because they didn't get Cohen's written testimony until late that night before the hearing, but the rules state that it should be given 24 hours  in advance so they could properly prepare.

The motion to postpone was voted down 22-18 along party lines if I remember correctly.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, billvon said:

Looks like Trump got frustrated and walked out of the meeting with North Korea.

Are you sick of all the winning yet?

His initial reason was that NK wanted all sanctions removed and wouldn't allow an inspection to see progress.

Now NK responded that that's not true:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/28/north-korea-press-conference-sanctions-1196561

Wow, two useless shitfests within 24 hours.

Nobody knows who or what to believe anymore, and I think it's all by design.  That way people just say fuck it and believe whatever the hell they want, while those in charge just do whatever the hell they want without anyway accountability because we're all distracted trying to figure out what the hell is going on in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, rushmc said:

No,  only you don’t know what to think. That’s because of where you choose to get your news and what you believe.

 

Did you see that both Pelosi and Schumer supported Trump on his decision? trump was standing on the ramp of the skyvan ready to exit and realized he forgot his rig. So he decided to take the ride of humiliation down. Reluctantly Pelosi and Schumer supported Trump on his decision.

Fixed it for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, rushmc said:

No,  only you don’t know what to think. That’s because of where you choose to get your news and what you believe. 

I choose to get my news from a variety of sources, not just that which confirms my own bias.  I've found misrepresentations and outright lies from a variety of news sources from both sides, some more than others of course.  It just makes it harder to trust them, and I have to waste time fact checking everything for myself to ensure I have an accurate understanding rather than just blindly believing whatever the left/right wants you to believe, which is often written through the lens of two entirely different perspectives.

 

29 minutes ago, rushmc said:

Did you see that both Pelosi and Schumer supported Trump on his decision?

If NK really wouldn't budge on their demands, then I would agree too and I did.  What else was he really suppose to do?

But when NK now says that they were willing to give in on some of those demands, you have to wonder if Trump left a bit too prematurely, rather than sticking it out and being the great negotiator that he claimed to be. 

Maybe there was a language barrier.  Maybe NK is just lying after the fact to make Trump look bad, who knows.  But if they're willing to agree to the deal now, then why not just do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rushmc said:

Did you see that both Pelosi and Schumer supported Trump on his decision?

Heck yes.  "Give up and stop talking" is the best possible outcome for the US in this case.  Who knows what sort of damage Trump could do if he had actually had a chance to give things away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Coreece said:

I Rep. Rashida Tlaib apologized for giving the wrong impression that she was calling Meadows a racist.  

By the rules of the House, members cannot thus insult other members (e.g., call them racist).  She chose her words very carefully, and accurately, that if "someone" were to use a black person as a prop, that is a racist act.   Just because that "someone" has certain ethnic relatives or friends does not mean that he does not speak or act as a racist in other circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rushmc said:

Did you see that both Pelosi and Schumer supported Trump on his decision?

Sure - but did you see where they, and pretty much everyone else who doesn't have Trump-tingly-leg syndrome, could have told you this is what would happen without having to go through the whole dog and pony show of setting up a meeting that gives KJU more credibility than ever before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Coreece said:

Maybe there was a language barrier.  Maybe NK is just lying after the fact to make Trump look bad, who knows.  But if they're willing to agree to the deal now, then why not just do it?

That's not the situation. Just because there might have been some cross communication over these two specific sticking points doesn't mean there's a deal finished and ready to sign except for those two points. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 hours ago, headoverheels said:

 Just because that "someone" has certain ethnic relatives or friends does not mean that he does not speak or act as a racist in other circumstances.

True, however In many cases, people are confusing implicit bias with explicit racism.  There's a big difference, and I think we should be careful with that especially since pretty much everyone is susceptible to implicit racial bias.  Studies have indicated that even black police officers have shown bias against other blacks in their reaction times when perceiving a possible threat.

You deal with implicit bias by first recognizing it and then talking about it openly in a civil environment to implement measures that mitigate it's effect, not by making defamatory snap judgements and shouting "racism" just to silence others and advance your political agenda.

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jakee said:
11 hours ago, Coreece said:

Maybe there was a language barrier.  Maybe NK is just lying after the fact to make Trump look bad, who knows.  But if they're willing to agree to the deal now, then why not just do it?

That's not the situation. Just because there might have been some cross communication over these two specific sticking points doesn't mean there's a deal finished and ready to sign except for those two points.

If there really was some cross communications then they should be ironing out the details right now.  But then again, coming to an actual agreement was probably never part of this charade to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Coreece said:

True, however In many cases, people are confusing implicit bias with explicit racism.  There's a big difference, and I think we should be careful with that especially since pretty much everyone is susceptible to implicit racial bias.  Studies have indicated that even black police officers have shown bias against other blacks in their reaction times when perceiving a possible threat.

You deal with implicit bias by first recognizing it and then talking about it openly in a civil environment to implement measures that mitigate it's effect, not by making defamatory snap judgements and shouting "racism" just to silence others and advance your political agenda.

I don't think there is very much explicit racism out there as you define it there.  Certainly, Meadows does not see himself as racist, and truly believes that he is the fairest of the fair because he has black friends.  However, "talking about it openly in a civil environment to implement measures that mitigate it's effect" has been going on for about 70 years now, and often has zero effect.  Heck, I bet Meadows himself has talked about that, how mitigating it is important, and he will take the lead there because he's not racist in any way.  (In fact I am sure Meadows supporters have already found quotes that support that.)

But at some point you have to say "hey, I know you think you're not racist - but you are."  An apartment owner may simply refuse to rent to blacks - not because he hates blacks, but because he doesn't want his apartments damaged.  And there's little doubt he would claim "look, I am NOT RACIST.  At ALL.  I have several black friends.  I am just making a simple business decision to protect my investment.  Anyone would do it.  You would too, and you're not racist, are you?"  And you can spend years talking about it openly in a civil environment to implement measures that mitigate it's effect.  And he will work to get around all of them to "protect his investment" as Trump and his father did.  But at some point you have to tell the guy "not renting apartments to people who are black is racist.  It's pretty much the definition of racism.  And if you do it, you are a racist."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, billvon said:

I don't think there is very much explicit racism out there as you define it there.  Certainly, Meadows does not see himself as racist, and truly believes that he is the fairest of the fair because he has black friends.  However, "talking about it openly in a civil environment to implement measures that mitigate it's effect" has been going on for about 70 years now, and often has zero effect.  Heck, I bet Meadows himself has talked about that, how mitigating it is important, and he will take the lead there because he's not racist in any way.  (In fact I am sure Meadows supporters have already found quotes that support that.)

But at some point you have to say "hey, I know you think you're not racist - but you are."  An apartment owner may simply refuse to rent to blacks - not because he hates blacks, but because he doesn't want his apartments damaged.  And there's little doubt he would claim "look, I am NOT RACIST.  At ALL.  I have several black friends.  I am just making a simple business decision to protect my investment.  Anyone would do it.  You would too, and you're not racist, are you?"  And you can spend years talking about it openly in a civil environment to implement measures that mitigate it's effect.  And he will work to get around all of them to "protect his investment" as Trump and his father did.  But at some point you have to tell the guy "not renting apartments to people who are black is racist.  It's pretty much the definition of racism.  And if you do it, you are a racist."

"True, however In many cases, people are confusing implicit bias with explicit racism.  There's a big difference, and I think we should be careful with that especially since pretty much everyone is susceptible to implicit racial bias.  Studies have indicated that even black police officers have shown bias against other blacks in their reaction times when perceiving a possible threat.

You deal with implicit bias by first recognizing it and then talking about it openly in a civil environment to implement measures that mitigate it's effect, not by making defamatory snap judgements and shouting "racism" just to silence others and advance your political agenda."3 hours ago, Coreece said:

Both of you are correct in about every point. This is why many police services make race sensitivity training mandatory.

Can Cops Unlearn Their Unconscious Biases?

“Implicit bias” training is spreading to departments around the country, the theory being it can influence officer behavior on the street. But it’s still not clear that the classes actually work. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, billvon said:

However, "talking about it openly in a civil environment to implement measures that mitigate it's effect" has been going on for about 70 years now, and often has zero effect. 

I'd have to agree with that.  Most of the research I've read revolved around implicit bias within law enforcement.

"we still have a lot to learn about the ways that biases influence people's decisions and behavior in the real world."

"We feel like we have to do something, but sometimes the action we take proves to be merely window dressing,"

"There are contractors that provide [implicit bias training], but there's zero evidence that what they do has an impact,"

"We don't know how to lastingly change implicit biases, particularly those as robust and prevalent as race and crime—and not for lack of trying."

"In two studies with more than 6,300 participants, all of the interventions reduced implicit prejudice in the short term. But none of those changes lasted more than a couple of days following the intervention—and in some cases, the effects vanished within a few hours"

 

59 minutes ago, billvon said:

An apartment owner may simply refuse to rent to blacks - not because he hates blacks, but because he doesn't want his apartments damaged.  And there's little doubt he would claim "look, I am NOT RACIST.  At ALL.  I have several black friends. 

Continually refusing to rent to blacks because they'll damage your apartment doesn't sound like implicit/unconscious bias to me, and I don't see a problem with calling it out as "a racist act."  And Rep. Rashida Tlaib is right that just because Trump hired a black women doesn't mean that Trump isn't racist.  That's not my issue.

Perhaps my perspective on this issue is a bit limited, and tho I find Meadows tacky stunt to be awkward and ineffective, I'm having a hard time understanding how it's a "racist act."  I mean for all we know, Lynne Patton could've initiated that whole charade.

Let's look at it another way.  Let's say that Patton was actually called to be character witness for Trump and testify as to why she doesn't think Trump is racist.  Would that be a racist act?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

“Implicit bias” training is spreading to departments around the country, the theory being it can influence officer behavior on the street. But it’s still not clear that the classes actually work. "

Right, there is still a lot more to learn and it's going to take time and persistence to implement more effective measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Let's look at it another way.  Let's say that Patton was actually called to be character witness for Trump and testify as to why she doesn't think Trump is racist.  Would that be a racist act?

I'd say no.  Because you are asking Patton for her words and opinions on the topic, not just having her stand there to display her skin color.

To extend your comparison, consider these two cases:

1) A law firm seems to refuse to hire women.  They claim that they are NOT SEXIST at all.  To prove it, they hire models to stand on stage at a company event, with instructions to pose but not talk.

2) A law firm seems to refuse to hire women.  They claim that they are NOT SEXIST at all.  To prove it, they bring their two female partners to the next meeting to negotiate on behalf of their client.

Which one is making a better case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2