Continuing the old Republican tradition of prolonging wars and crises, no matter how many people suffer or die, to make their opponent look bad in an election. Nixon sabotaged Vietnam peace talks to prolong the war and defeat Johnson; Reagan is said to have sabotaged talks with Iran to prevent American hostages being released, in order to defeat Carter.
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
163 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10192 readers
18 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The Reagan-Carter election is the first one I vaguely remember as a kid, and to have the news of the freed hostages get announced at the inauguration seemed so convenient even for a politically uninformed kid. Yet I heard so much of "see, he got elected and got them free!" NO, Carter did the work, dumbasses. At the cost of his reelection.
It was rumored that the same violation of the Logan act occurred with Reagan
Rumoured? Iran-Contra was well publicised and accepted as fact.
What's being discussed for Reagan is the " October Surprise" (not Iran-Contra, a different scandal).
Yeah, my bad,I thought they were linked (in the sense that the weapons from Iran Contra were promised in exchange for the hostages), but I guess they were seperate.
Iran-Contra was about the sale of weapons to Iran during Reagan's second term, not violating the Logan act before his administration.
If that happened, I sincerely hope there is proof, and that it's on its way to a capable prosecutor.
If that happened, I sincerely hope there is proof, and that it's on its way to a capable prosecutor.
Preferably before November.
When Trump left office he took classified documents with him which was illegal. Like he possessed something it was illegal to possess. it's over three years later and the prosecution is still underway.
So it's very doubtful that a crime he just committed will be prosecuted before November. Though it will be prosecuted at a future date, if people go out and vote to keep him from being President again.
Just like they did with Kissinger.
Wait...
On what charges?
No need to look very far. The answer is within the subheading of the article being discussed here. You don't even need to click the link nor to read the article, since tartigrada included this information in the quote that's part of this post's text:
Donald Trump is reportedly advising Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which would be a violation of the Logan Act.
The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes the negotiation of a dispute between the United States and a foreign government by an unauthorized American citizen. The intent behind the Act is to prevent unauthorized negotiations from undermining the government's position.
Fair... But what prosecutor will do the job?
Even if they find a prosecutor won't they just put it in front of Aileen Canon again?
Vote. Trump doesn't give a fuck about the Palestinians. You're not helping them by not voting.
Meanwhile, you have GOP names like Max Miller and Michelle Bachman saying the quiet part out loud when it comes to eradicating Gaza and everybody in it. Don't only vote for president, but make sure you get the GOP congresspeople out too!
Where are all the hexbear and .ml kids frothing at the mouth about this?
They don't really care
After all, none of them lives in Gaza
So if leftists really cared about Gaza, they'd... not protest the party currently in power? The one selling the bombs?
Because I don't think you genuinely believe any leftist, tankie or otherwise, actually likes Trump. I think you just don't like it when they protest Biden or Harris.
They can protest Biden and Harris all day every day for all I care
What I don't like is that they're planning to sit at home with their arms crossed while Trump gets elected
Putin only pays to derail Democrat energy.
Oh, sorry, and Xi.
Tankies aren't pro-Trump, and Trump isn't in office. Do you think Biden is going to actually do anything about Trump doing this (like having the DoJ investigate/charge him under the Logan Act)? He doesn't want a ceasefire either.
... if Biden had done this they would be screaming blue bloody murder.
Sure, because he is the President, and belongs to ostensibly the "Left-wing party". Trump can't send them bombs. Trump can't protect them from others intervening to stop their genocide.
Trump doesn't actually have any leverage to move Netanyahu either direction, and anyone who is being honest knows Netanyahu has had no intention of ending this any time soon, so Trump was just telling him to do what he already planned to.
The scandal here has, in reality, nothing to do with Gaza, and everything to do with the US election. Trump attempting to take any action that violates the Logan Act in order to help in the election is an attempt to subvert democracy.
The fact that he chose to violate the Logan Act just to tell someone not to do something they had no plans to, just speaks to his idiocy.
If he is giving a foreign head of state reassurance that US policy will change if he wins, he is also subverting US policy. This is far from a nothingburger.
So people need to vehemently denounce Trump once per hour or else they must obviously be siding with him...?
Seriously though, isn't it obvious? If you expect Trump to be terrible, why would you fly into a rage when he meets that expectation? By contrast, Biden is expected to be better than this, and yet isn't.
Pressure is applied where it is most effective. That is not and will never be anyone from the Republican party, because they openly and obviously do not give a fuck about any of us.
^(edited^ ^for^ ^kinder^ ^tone)^
Pressure is applied where it is most effective.
My point is, by complaining about the Dems and not about Trump you're undermining the likelihood of a Dem president.
The whole "genocide joe" narrative did not provide any benefit in Gaza, but significantly improved the chances of a Trump presidency.
Protesting outside the DNC is actively supporting a Trump presidency and worse outcomes in Gaza.
The whole “genocide joe” narrative did not provide any benefit in Gaza,
Biden's admin absolutely noticed the protests against him and it was because of that that we got a pause (however temporary) on some of the heavy ordnance sold to Israel. The uncommitted votes in the primaries did not go unnoticed either. Not to mention that absolutely none of us are suggesting Trump is a viable alternative to anyone (i.e. we are not discouraging voting against him), and that we'd protest just as fervently (if not more) if he did win.
All this however is placing the blame on us for standing up for what we believe in, and implicitly forgiving the Biden admin for the atrocities they enable — after all, if they wanted to secure their candidacy more, why not acquiesce? Everyone's all ready to criticize the people protesting to save lives, but not so much prepared to criticize the people enabling the killing?
Still, let's be generous and take this as true regardless. Once the election is over, are you willing to commit to joining us in protesting until the U.S. stops sending weapons to Israel, regardless of who wins?
I don't concede that the protests thus far have reduced any suffering I'm Gaza.
If you want to minimise suffering in Gaza, make sure Harris wins. Do these protests further that objective?
I understand you're not suggesting people vote for Trump, but that just gets lost in the noise. There's plenty of people that would see these protests and conclude that "both sides are bad" and simply not vote.
I still won't be protesting after the election. Firstly because im not in the US, but even if i was I just don't think it's a very effective use of time.
How Reagan of him.
Nixon as well. It's almost like pattern.
said PBS’s Judy Woodruff Monday night. “So, I don’t know where—who knows whether that will come about or not...
LoL, it's Trump...nothing will happen to his cheesburder ass
IIRC, he was caught withholding congressionally allocated money from Ukraine in order to extort them into an investigation on Hunter Biden, in the hope it would impact the 2020 election. And I don’t recall any repercussions.
He technically did get impeached for that, he didn't get removed from office (which is infuriating) but it was one of his impeachments.
He definitely should have faced more though
Twice impeached nonce not removed.
With or without any presidential immunity, Weird DonOLD enjoys the upper tier of privileged criminal justice that make him more equal than everybody else, or so it seems with his loyal subjects on SCOTUS who keep helping him be free to commit more crimes.
Harris needs to bring this up in the debate. Have him confess to breaking the Logan Act on live TV. Show us those prosecutor chops!
He'll deny it just like he'll deny project 2025. "fake news" and we all know he's full of shit but his brain dead cult will eat it up.
This is the grossest thing he's done yet. I literally feel nauseous.
Then maybe take a rest from Lemmy.
Is this a good source? How trustworthy is this?
I 100% believe this happened, but I don’t know if I trust this source.
Why would you not trust it, exactly? Any reason, or just casting doubt around?
Statement seems too direct to be true and never heard of the source before. Thanks for the link.