***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[frenchbreadbuilds]

My point is that if his intent is to embolden racists and retain their support, why not be unambiguous and say that he is making these statements based on race? Why condemn white supremacy? Like what is the point of him doing that, if he is indeed a racist and/or comfortable pandering to racists?

Have you ever skimmed though r/the_donald?

 

[dwalk31]

Have you ever skimmed though r/the_donald?

I have not, you?

 

[wavycrocket]

Ya'll are all aware of dude's tactics and that he has no interest in productive discourse by now, yet still engage.

I will never understand man smh

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

I have not, you?

Dig around that cesspool and see how actual racists respong to those “condemnations”. Even they recognize that trump attacks the likes of Maxine Waters more fervently than he condemns white supremacy.

 

[130122]

Yall have to ignore dwalk,he swears the thread is an echo chamber but never contributes worthy opinions to spark debates. He preaches civility but won't call out the lock her up chants. He himself can't even decipher parody and violent rhetoric. I've had that fool blocked, haven't read any of his posts and I can probably guess the argument

It's the same schtick every time:

1. A healthy conversation is going on about the wrong doings of politicians, generally about some stupid **** the GOP is feeding to the general population

2. Dwalk deep dives to find a post where someone says "(insert any bad republican) is racist/terrible/pedophile/rapist and needs to slapped " ignoring all irrefutable evidence that proves person in question is a terrible person in the sea of posts in this thread,

3. dwalk quotes it and says "this is malicious rhetoric and you guys don't address it on the democrat end" or " whatever happened isn't true/happened behind closed doors thus should be inadmissible"

4. Everyone replies to his inept statement with their jimmies reasonably rustled

5.Dwalk replies with a sly remark and calls the thread an echo chamber then abruptly disappears from the thread when people continue to call him out on his b.s.

Yall just have to ignore him, I'm open for legitimate debate about political affairs in the US but it's the same damb bait every time. IDK how yall still do it smh

 

[dwalk31]

Dig around that cesspool and see how actual racists respong to those “condemnations”. Even they recognize that trump attacks the likes of Maxine Waters more fervently than he condemns white supremacy.

I can agree that idiotic racists probably believe and react to all manners of things in a nonsensical way. These are the same people, after all, who feel they are superior to others based on the color of their skin. But I don’t think that you can impose those idiotic views on Trump when he has consistently condemned them. The fact that they are too dumb to realize they are being condemned and disavowed doesn’t seem like any real fault on the part of Trump. I imagine they are too dumb to realize a lot.

 

[dwalk31]

Yall have to ignore dwalk,he swears the thread is an echo chamber but never contributes worthy opinions to spark debates. He preaches civility but won't call out the lock her up chants. He himself can't even decipher parody and violent rhetoric. I've had that fool blocked, haven't read any of his posts and I can probably guess the argument

It's the same schtick every time:

1. A healthy conversation is going on about the wrong doings of politicians, generally about some stupid **** the GOP is feeding to the general population

2. Dwalk deep dives to find a post where someone says "(insert any bad republican) is racist/terrible/pedophile/rapist and needs to slapped " ignoring all irrefutable evidence that proves person in question is a terrible person in the sea of posts in this thread,

3. dwalk quotes it and says "this is malicious rhetoric and you guys don't address it on the democrat end" or " whatever happened isn't true/happened behind closed doors thus should be inadmissible"

4. Everyone replies to his inept statement with their jimmies reasonably rustled

5.Dwalk replies with a sly remark and calls the thread an echo chamber then abruptly disappears from the thread when people continue to call him out on his b.s.

Yall just have to ignore him, I'm open for legitimate debate about political affairs in the US but it's the same damb bait every time. IDK how yall still do it smh

People who are actually reading this thread will ignore reality and pretend this just happened.

 

[Belgium]

My point is that if his intent is to embolden racists and retain their support, why not be unambiguous and say that he is making these statements based on race? Why condemn white supremacy? Like what is the point of him doing that, if he is indeed a racist and/or comfortable pandering to racists?

What on earth is this argument? Again, completely detached from the concept of a dog whistle.
In the context of Trump, he's the president of the United States. He or anyone else holding that office is representing arguably the most high profile and important position across the globe.

Dog whistles have been a key part of language in the context of politics for many decades. Again, Lee Atwater's 1981 quote excellently lays out the principle. Even in those days, politicians were finding and utilising ways to pander to racists without directly stating whatever point they wanted to get across to that specific group. They sought to pander to those groups while still offering themselves enough room for deniability to still be able to connect with more moderate and/or complacent whites.

I don't mind arguing with you at all but this argument is just utterly ridiculous on all fronts.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

I can agree that idiotic racists probably believe and react to all manners of things in a nonsensical way. These are the same people, after all, who feel they are superior to others based on the color of their skin. But I don’t think that you can impose those idiotic views on Trump when he has consistently condemned them. The fact that they are too dumb to realize they are being condemned and disavowed doesn’t seem like any real fault on the part of Trump. I imagine they are too dumb to realize a lot.

That doesn’t absolve trump of social responsibility. And it doesn’t change the fact that he uses intentionally inflammatory language and rhetoric, especially when it comes immigration (both illegal and illegal). Trump continues to advocate for increasingly more drastic, radical and expensive immigration reform in a time where illegal immigration hasn’t been less of a problem in the past decade. You can pretend that all of trumps actions are in isolation of eachother, dog whistles aren’t real, and nuance is a product of this echo chamber, but I’m not hear for it.

 

[goledensilence]

Never knew Candace Owens had origins in some Gamergate nonsense

Black Conservative woman calling her out for being a fake black conservative woman. Tree of Logic be going in on her lol.

 

[boris]

People who are actually reading this thread will ignore reality and pretend this just happened.

Great bait, mate.

 

[Belgium]

I included an older article about Arron Banks regarding a Kremlin proposal made to Banks shortly before the launch of his Leave.EU campaign.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...cy-over-suspected-offences-in-brexit-campaign
Arron Banks faces criminal inquiry over Brexit campaign
MPs call for Brexit process to be paused as NCA investigates £2.9m spent by leave campaign

The National Crime Agency is to investigate allegations of multiple criminal offences by Arron Banks and his unofficial leave campaign in the Brexit referendum, prompting calls from some MPs for the process of departing the European Union to be suspended.

The NCA would look into suspicions that a “number of criminal offences may have been committed”, the Electoral Commission said in a statement, saying there were reasonable grounds to suspect Banks was “not the true source” of £8m in funding to the Leave.EU campaign.

The commission said the cases involve Banks, the insurance millionaire who heavily backed leave; Elizabeth Bilney, one of his key associates; Leave.EU itself; the company used to finance it; and “other associated companies and individuals”.

News of the investigation prompted anti-Brexit campaigners to call for a delay to the process of leaving the EU. The Labour MP David Lammy saidBrexit “must be put on hold until we know the extent of these crimes against our democracy”.

A series of other Labour MPs echoed the call, while the Lib Dems said Brexitcould not go ahead based on “a leave campaign littered with lies, deceit and allegations of much worse”.

Downing Street said it could not comment on a live investigation, but dismissed the idea of a pause: “The referendum was the largest democratic exercise in this country’s history and the PM is getting on with delivering its result.”

Banks and Bilney, who chaired the Leave.EU campaign, said they rejected any allegations of wrongdoing, and argued the investigation was motivated by political considerations.

The commission said the investigations would focus on £2m reported to have been lent to Better for the Country (BFTC), a company that was used to finance Leave.EU, and £6m more reportedly provided to the organisation, on behalf of Leave.EU, by Banks.

Of the total, £2.9m was used to fund referendum spending on behalf of Leave.EU.

A statement said: “Due to multiple suspected offences, some of which fall outside the commission’s remit, the commission has referred this matter and handed its evidence to the National Crime Agency.”

The NCA confirmed it had begun an investigation connected to “suspected electoral law offences covered by that referral, as well as any associated offences”.

It said: “While electoral law offences would not routinely fall within the NCA’s remit, the nature of the necessary inquiries and the potential for offences to have been committed other than under electoral law led us to consider an NCA investigation appropriate in this instance.”

Banks, formerly a major bankroller of Ukip, said in a statement he was pleased at the news. He said: “I am confident that a full and frank investigation will finally put an end to the ludicrous allegations levelled against me and my colleagues.

“There is no evidence of any wrongdoing from the companies I own. I am a UK taxpayer and I have never received any foreign donations. The Electoral Commission has produced no evidence to the contrary. The Electoral Commission has referred me to the National Crime Agency under intense political pressure from anti-Brexit supporters.”

Bilney told BBC Radio 4’s World at One on Thursday that the Electoral Commission had consistently taken “a biased approach”, saying this was owing to its previous funding from the EU.

A series of reports, led by the Observer’s Carol Cadwalladr, have uncovered links by Banks and his leave campaign to Russia, prompting speculation about this being the source of some of the funding.

But Bilney rejected the idea, telling the BBC: “I can confirm it wouldn’t have come from Russia … I run the group companies where the money was from and we don’t have any transactions that are from Russia.”

Theresa May’s spokeswoman said that to date the government had “not seen successful interference in UK democratic processes”.

She added: “We of course remain vigilant and we will continue to work to strengthen our democracy against potential interference.”

The investigation centres on allegations the £8m provided to the campaign involved money from a “non-qualifying or impermissible company” based in the Isle of Man, and that Banks, Bilney and others involved in BFTC, Leave.EU and others sought to cover up the origin of the funding.

Bob Posner, the Electoral Commission’s director of political finance and regulation, said: “We have reasonable grounds to suspect money given to Better for the Country came from impermissible sources and that Mr Banks and Ms Bilney, the responsible person for Leave.EU, knowingly concealed the true circumstances under which this money was provided.

“This is significant because at least £2.9m of this money was used to fund referendum spending and donations during the regulated period of the EU referendum.

“Our investigation has unveiled evidence that suggests criminal offences have been committed which fall beyond the remit of the commission. This is why we have handed our evidence to the NCA to allow them to investigate and take any appropriate law enforcement action. This is now a criminal investigation.”

In a report on the investigation published alongside its statement, the commission said BFTC spent at least £2.9m of the money in question – £750,000 on payments for Leave.EU and £2.2m donated to other campaigners. Both Leave.EU and BFTC had said all the money came only from Banks, it added.

However, the investigations found parties involved in the transactions included Rock Holdings Limited, a company majority-owned by Banks, which is incorporated in the Isle of Man. Under electoral law, companies based outside the UK are not allowed to donate or loan to political campaigns.

When asked about the circumstances, Banks and Bilney “gave us unsatisfactory explanations about these transactions, and we have reasonable grounds to suspect that they knowingly concealed and sought to conceal the true circumstances”, the report said.

Of the money provided to other organisations, the report said, £1.9m was donated to Grassroots Out, with smaller sums going to Trade Unionists Against the EU, Ukip, Veterans for Britain, and the TV station Wag TV, which made a pro-Brexit documentary.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-deal-offered-to-arron-banks-in-brexit-run-up August 9th 2018
Revealed: details of exclusive Russian deal offered to Arron Banks in Brexit run-up
Leaked document lays out for first time deal proposed to Leave.EU backer, sparking new questions over Moscow’s role

The full details of Russia’s gold deal offer to Arron Banks ahead of the EU referendum are revealed in a leaked document which mentions exclusive “opportunities not available to others” and support from a Kremlin bank.

A seven-slide presentation, seen for the first time, shows how Banks – the main donor behind Leave.EU – was offered the chance of making potentially enormous profits in a deal featuring a Russian gold company.

The offer was made through Alexander Yakovenko, Russia’s ambassador in London.

Some MPs have said it raises new questions about Moscow’s role in Brexit, and whether the Kremlin sought to enrich leading Brexit campaigners in the run-up to the 2016 referendum via a series of covert business deals.

Banks has consistently denied receiving money from Russia, but the source of his wealth has been under scrutiny since he gave £9m to Leave.EU, the largest political donation in British history.

Leave.EU is currently appealing against a £70,000 fine by the Electoral Commission in connection with campaign spending offences.

Though Banks consistently downplayed his contacts with senior Russians before and after the referendum, in recent weeks he has been forced to concede there were a number of meetings – including with Alexander Udod, a diplomat later expelled from the UK for suspected spying.

Earlier this year the Observer revealed that in October 2015, Udod invited Banks and his business partner Andy Wigmore to meet the ambassador; they shared a “six-hour boozy lunch” at the ambassador’s Kensington mansion a few weeks later.

During that meeting on 6 November, the Russians discussed with Banks a potential gold deal. Eleven days later Yakovenko introduced Banks to the Moscow businessman Siman Povarenkin.

The exact details of the offer are revealed for the first time in a document obtained by the Dossier Center, an investigative unit funded by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an exiled critic of Vladimir Putin.

A copy of the presentation, first published by the Russian website Tsur, is understood to have been circulated to a number of people, including Banks. He ultimately did not invest.

Titled “Russian gold sector consolidation play”, it features photos of shiny gold bars stamped with “Russia” in Cyrillic, next to the Russian flag.

The slides set out how investors could reap huge profits from a possible scheme to streamline Russia’s gold industry. Povarenkin’s Moscow-based company GeoProMining – which owns mines in Siberia and Armenia – would merge with “six or seven” rival gold firms.

The new $8bn (£6.2bn) super-company would be similar in scale to Russia’s biggest gold producer, Polyus Gold. Russia, it said, had the “second largest gold ore reserves” in the world. Gold companies could get cheap credit since gold was priced internationally in dollars, the document explained.

The Labour MP Ben Bradshaw has queried in parliament Russia’s involvement in Brexit. He said these “new revelations beg the question why the Kremlin would offer Mr Banks sweetheart business deals”.

Bradshaw said the government should establish an inquiry, similar to the investigation in the US led by the special prosecutor Robert Mueller into Russia’s role in subverting the 2016 presidential election. Failing that, it should task the National Crime Agency and the police to investigate.

“Mr Banks has not been fully open about the extent of his dealings with the Russian embassy and the people they put him in touch with,” Bradshaw said.

Banks replied: “No Russian Gold deals, sweet heart or otherwise. A small cabal of anti-Brexit journalists from Ch4, the BBC and Guardian newspaper are engaged in a smear campaign against me.”

He added: “I am glad I backed Brexit along with 17.4m Brits who believed in Britain.”

It has already been reported that Banks responded positively to the gold offer, discussed with the ambassador over a cup of tea. The following day, 18 November 2015, he is reported to have emailed Povarenkin saying he had “passed [on] the presentation to Andrew Umbers of Oakwell Capital, a company that I own a substantial stake in”.

He has admitted sharing it with fellow Leave campaigner Jim Mellon, who was copied into an email in which Banks signed off with: “I am very bullish on gold and so keen to take a look!”

The pitch made through the ambassador to Banks spelled out in blunt terms that the deal was backed by powerful Kremlin entities. Sberbank, a Russian state bank, owned a third of Povarenkin’s company and could therefore give better terms to select investors, the presentation indicated.

The final slide says: “Sberbank Capital (subsidiary of Sberbank which is N1 bank in Russia) is a shareholder in GeoProMining and it leads to certain opportunities not available to others.”

By 2015 Sberbank was under western sanctions. The bank’s CEO, Herman Gref, is an influential former economics minister. In 2013 Gref had dinner with Donald Trump during his visit to Moscow, praising him afterwards, and Sberbank was a sponsor of Trump’s Miss Universe contest.

Bob Seely, a Conservative MP, said Banks’s links to the Russian state have yet to be fully explained. “What was he offered, when and why? I don’t believe Russian officials offer sweetheart deals for investment to any random individual,” he said.

He added: “Why did they offer this deal to Banks, and were there quid pro quos?”

An investigation by Dossier suggests Yakovenko and Povarenko coordinated their pitch to Banks.

For two years Banks said he only met the ambassador once. He later admitted to three meetings, revising this to four in a recent interview with the New York Times. The “gold play” pitch was made the same week as Leave.EU’s launch.

Giving evidence to the digital, culture, media and sport select committee, Banks admitted meeting Povarenkin and added: “I’m a businessman, why shouldn’t I?” However, he said he had done no deals in Russia.

In fact, Banks seems to have engaged with the offer for several months, according to emails that have already been leaked to the New York Times.

They suggest that in January 2016 he invited Nick van den Brul, an investment banker and family friend of Wigmore’s, to meet with the ambassador. “I intend to pop in and see the ambassador as well,” Banks wrote, copying in Udod, the alleged spy.

According to the New York Times, Povarenkin also offered Banks a second opportunity to invest in the diamond company Alrosa. The Russian government was planning to sell off a 10% stake. An adviser to Banks wrote to Povarenkin that Banks’s team had “not forgotten about your Alrosa project”.

Banks said he eventually decided not to take part. But a fund (OCCO Eastern European Fund), managed by Charlemagne Capital of which Mellon was a shareholder, did invest in Alrosa.

Three weeks after Brexit, the Kremlin sold its stake to a closed group of investors at a discount to the market price, including OCCO, the New York Times reported. Mellon says the fund was able to participate because it had previously invested in Alrosa back in 2013.

A spokesmen for Mellon said he was not involved at the time in investment decisions and had no management role. Nor was he a beneficiary of OCCO.

Van den Brul confirmed that he briefed Banks and Wigmore in January 2016 on the gold and diamond mining industries in Russia “where I lived for several years”. He said there was “limited follow-up” beyond a notification about the Alrosa IPO. No transaction happened, he said.

Last month Banks admitted making payments to a government minister in Lesotho weeks before the country reportedly granted him a diamond mining licence. He denies the money was a bribe.

The Dossier investigation uncovered fresh details of a third potentially lucrative offer to Banks, made in April 2016. An intermediary emailed Banks about the possible sale of a goldmine in Conakry, Guinea, in west Africa. Its owner was an “adventurous Russian” who “shares your passion for the yellow metal”, the intermediary wrote.

The Russian was Ilya Karas, the CEO of the Moscow-based Farafina Gold Group. Karas was described to Banks as an “inveterate entrepreneur” and “mini-oligarch”.

Karas confirmed he met Banks “in mid-2016”. Karas said he was “seeking capital for exploration” and a possible $3.5m investment to finance the production of two potential gold sites. Banks did not invest, Karas said, adding: “We didn’t have any subsequent communications.”

In April this year, the company floated a plan to hold an initial coin offering on the Gibraltar stock exchange, featuring “crypto coins nominated in grams of gold”.

The goldmines identified by Povarenkin as possible consolidation targets include Highland Gold, in which the oligarch Roman Abramovich has a 9% minority stake. Highland and another firm Nordgold said they knew nothing of the deal and were never approached.

 

[Kimchi Papi]

The dellorables in here are all the same. They don’t want to talk nuances when it doesn’t suit the thought/argument they want to make & then want to talk nuances when it does suit their needs. Just like their arguments about constitutional rights. Again “moronical”...

 

[goledensilence]

 

[deleted]

The logic in this thread assumes that if you were implying I’m an idiot, that since I’m black, you are using a racist dog whistle. And there is absolutely no other possible explanation considering the political climate.

Dat NT logic

What makes you think that he was even talking about you? He didn't explicitly state that "dwalk is an idiot" so how do you know?

That sure is a strange conclusion to reach after arguing that language should be taken at face value when it's coming from Trump

 

[RIP sleazyy]

What makes you think that he was even talking about you? He didn't explicitly state that "dwalk is an idiot" so how do you know?

That sure is a strange conclusion to reach after arguing that language should be taken at face value when it's coming from Trump

Hit dogs etc etc

 

[RustyShackleford]

Yeah, I'm getting hit with tons of conservative ads too.

 

[stuntman mike]

what starts with a D and ends with a K and likes to hang out and piss on everything? i can think of two.

 

[AEA18]

I just saw a "Clean Missouri is Dirty" and Vote NO on Amendment 1 ads

 

[elpablo21]

 

[RIP sleazyy]

Ads tryina make NT great again

 

[AEA18]

When did Farrakhan become a democrat

Appologizing and denouncing people that aren't even part of their party

Falling for the GOP's "What about____?" trap again

 

[130122]

the blobfish is really packing on the pounds lately, maybe they do need to ban bbq in texas

 

[AEA18]

Did she flip that over right before they took the pic or did he just not notice?

 

[rexanglorum]

Farrakhan is, by all conventional metrics, a right wing reactionary. Conservatives are just being intellectually lazy. They see most black people are Democratic voters so that must mean that Farrakhan is a liberal Democratic voter.

Also, expect conservatives to liken all critics of Israel to the antisemitic right. We have to keep in mind, you can be anti Israel and not be antisemitic and you can be pro Israel and still be antisemitic.