Nothing would surprise me anymore. And I quite literally mean nothing. The utter disdain shown for rule of law, principles, heck, basic human decency in the last few months has me fantasizing about DC floating off into the ocean and sinking.
During the course of my adult life, I've tried to hold true to that and other principles, only to have life show me with increasing discomfort and personal loss that, no, really, that's not the way the world works.
It has not worked that way and it does not today work that way. Nor does it even appear to be a realistic ideal towards which the world is striving.
Much of moral sentiment (as opposed to actual, demonstrated moral behavior) appears -- increasingly apparently, to me -- to be used to dupe the willing into sacrificing their own best interests.
Sad story is, perhaps, that in the long run this may also create or at least exacerbate larger conflagrations. Because people have not been taking care of their own affairs and their own neighborhoods.
At least, that's the approach I now, belatedly, consider. Nothing else is going to work for me, if my own life is not in some sort of reasonable state. Regardless of what some law, educator, or religious authority has to say.
I agree that the world unfortunately does work that way. On the other hand, I do believe in the basic goodness of people. [For every bad cop there are probably a 1000 really good ones.] The "trick" to happiness is to surround yourself with nice people and maintain a "good world" bubble around yourself.
;-)
The Saudis are largely responsible for the spread of Wahhabism, which in turn has fueled extremist islamic ideology.
Both the left and the right have ties to KSA. And they've been major donors to both parties, but especially the democrats. Sad that the MSM willfully ignores this topic.
Not too long ago, the Republicans pushed a law allowing families of 9/11 victims to sue the KSA. Obama vetoed the bill and the GOP overrode the veto. Not long afterwards, the GOP whip[1] was regretting the law and blaming Obama for not pushing back enough(!). Now, I don't think there's a conspiracy going on, it's just realpolitik/ nation-state equivalent of having a friend who is a dick but lets you play with his nice toys.
1. Might have been "senate majority leader" I'm on mobile and haven't looked it up the correct title.
Edit: I am assuming that the Saudi government wasn't involved in 9/11 and that it was the actions of religious extremists. Publicly blaming the Saudi government might not be the most prudent thing to do, just as Uganda shouldn't blame the US government for the actions of American Christian evangelicals stoking homophobia in Uganda. I know it's comparing Apples to ghost pepper
You should read about Bandar bin Sultan, AKA "Bandar Bush", Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States for 20+ years [1]. Zacarias Moussaoui stated under oath that Bandar bin Sultan and the Saudi government financed 9/11, and the redacted 28 pages of the 9/11 Comission Report detail how two of the 9/11 hijackers received $130,000 in payment from Bandar's checking account. His nickname comes from his close affiliation with the Bush family. Bob Woodward claims that W. Bush told Bandar about the invasion of Iraq before Colin Powell.
It is very likely that the Saudi government was involved in 9/11, and it is worth investigating whether Bush and / or Cheney had foreknowledge of the attacks [2].
If Trump wants to end speculation, just release his tax returns.
Huh? It's been widely reported that the Saudi government has made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. See:
[1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
So I stand by my statement that it wasn't "proven". That implies that it took an investigation to reveal.
If you want to directly give any amount of money directly to Trump not subject to any kind of campaign donation limitations, just buy a hotel room for some duration.
If you want someone in U.S. custody released, take the principle operating officers of the president's hotels into custody without trial.
And I also wonder whether Trump owned/named buildings are possible targets in the same way American embassies can be targets; and then who pays for the ensuing security evaluations, monitoring, and reinforcement of all of those buildings. Is an attack on any of those buildings an attack on merely the Trump organization, or is it an attack on the president, and indirectly on the U.S.?
The differences in liability and unknowns between the incoming president and all previous presidents is qualitatively extremely different, and likely in unpredictable ways.
edit: It looks like it's not a legal requirement, just a tradition. I suppose time will tell.
A US presidential candidate who was the wife of a former President, an influential Senator and Secretary of State would be expected to have a significant relationship with the Saudis.
That's not to say that HRC didn't ride or cross the ethical line. But that is much different than what Trump is implied to be doing.