|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 07 2018 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:This whole thing has shown we should have a special counsel for every administration. Mueller's office should just become a permanent part of government. Mueller is basically doing what should have been happening to begin with. If a democrat wins in 2020, I would fully support Mueller being hired to investigate every fucking detail of the entire cabinet. Imagine a world where everyone knew as soon as they are president, every dollar they've ever spent would be investigated? It would be amazing. The elite would finally answer to someone. We have no accountability in government and Mueller is proving that.
most administrations don' tdo stuff this bad, and don't hire such lousy people; so someone like mueller wouldn't be finding that much in them.
|
On March 07 2018 03:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:This whole thing has shown we should have a special counsel for every administration. Mueller's office should just become a permanent part of government. Mueller is basically doing what should have been happening to begin with. If a democrat wins in 2020, I would fully support Mueller being hired to investigate every fucking detail of the entire cabinet. Imagine a world where everyone knew as soon as they are president, every dollar they've ever spent would be investigated? It would be amazing. The elite would finally answer to someone. We have no accountability in government and Mueller is proving that. most administrations don' tdo stuff this bad, and don't hire such lousy people; so someone like mueller wouldn't be finding that much in them.
Yeah, but I bet they'd find something. And if people saw what Mueller did to Trump's administration, people would naturally be cleaner on arrival. People like Flynn won't even try when Mueller is licking his lips.
On March 07 2018 02:40 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2018 02:24 brian wrote:
Mueller <> OSC, and the OSC is actually a permanent federal agency.
that said i don’t know how to understand their loyalties without a memo from Nunes. Clearly we need to begin discrediting them ASAP.
but i am also on board for lowering the potential for rampant corruption in the cabinet. Yeah well apparently the OSC is kinda lacking. It isn't effective. that’s what i’m talking about. now to get Nunes on task.. i kid, i generally agree. and i also appreciate your follow up post in spirit and wish in a perfect world that it made sense. but at some point federal employees also have their own civil rights. I don’t know if signing up for office is akin to waiving away your right to privacy, or your probable cause or anything like that. They need to be able to still be private citizens in their off time, not subject to investigation just because they want to serve their country(well, in other administrations.)
I disagree. Public service is an honor, but a burden. It is an acceptable cost. The room for abuse is too huge.
How many lives do you think would have been saved if cigarette legislation wasn't impaired by tobacco special interests? Let's be conservative and say 1000. If we can say that those 1000 people died from legislative inaction, you could say government corruption killed 1000 people.
If someone killed 1000 people in a mass shooting, how would we view them? But they do it indirectly, so it's not bad. There are very real human costs to special interest bullshit. We all suffer because of it.
|
On March 07 2018 03:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 03:01 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:This whole thing has shown we should have a special counsel for every administration. Mueller's office should just become a permanent part of government. Mueller is basically doing what should have been happening to begin with. If a democrat wins in 2020, I would fully support Mueller being hired to investigate every fucking detail of the entire cabinet. Imagine a world where everyone knew as soon as they are president, every dollar they've ever spent would be investigated? It would be amazing. The elite would finally answer to someone. We have no accountability in government and Mueller is proving that. most administrations don' tdo stuff this bad, and don't hire such lousy people; so someone like mueller wouldn't be finding that much in them. Yeah, but I bet they'd find something. And if people saw what Mueller did to Trump's administration, people would naturally be cleaner on arrival. People like Flynn won't even try when Mueller is licking his lips.
they'd maybe find a few things, but not nearly as much; and not of nearly as much import. normal administrations do enough vetting that these kinds of thins don't happen so much.
I mean, I support more accountability in gov't; just don't expect to get much out of this kind of investigation vs a normal administration.
consider: if the republicans could've sicced mueller on obama's cabinet and actually found stuff, why wouldn't they have? yes, there are reasons they might not have, but there's also plenty of reasons to think they would've if they could've found something.
flynn wouldn't have been hired in the first place by a normal admin (not at that point in his career).
|
These people have no shame. This is a fleecing of the tax payers
.
|
Yeah? What are they going to do about it?
|
On March 07 2018 01:41 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 00:55 Danglars wrote:On March 07 2018 00:45 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:31 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:19 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:13 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:10 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2018 23:29 zlefin wrote:On March 06 2018 23:28 LegalLord wrote:
Trump did good. Guess he’s more effective than Obama at this peace talk thing after all. good joke; was worth a helpful laugh. Shortly after Obama's election and after no noteworthy accomplishments to merit it, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (which is admittedly not historically credible as being merit-based to begin with). Why? For political reasons, a show of good faith, and for a speech he gave committing to nuclear nonproliferation. During his presidency the DPRK tested nuclear weapons 4 times, and we are coming up (in May) on the date when the DPRK will have had a monopoly on nuclear testing, 100% of worldwide nuclear tests having been conducted there, for the last 20 years. This isn't a joke or meme, everyone since Clinton has gravely failed, dropped the ball. no indication that trump has done any better; and therefore legallord's remark was a joke. while the issue is serious; I rightly noted that a joke was a joke. I'm not sure what the rest of your points have to do with my remark. i.e. while your points have merit on their own, they don't seem pertinent as a response to me; unless it's on the narrow point that you don' tlike to hear people joke about such a serious issue. When was the last time ROK envoys met with the DPRK in Pyongyang? When is the last time someone met with Kim Jong Un? what is the relevance of those questions to my point? I don't see you providing any. you'll need to explain your point, cuz it's no tclear at all. I'll answer them for you because I don't want to go through the application process of fulfilling whatever your criteria will end up being to justify my responding to your elaborate treatise, "good joke." 11 years and never. My point is it's fatuous to feign ignorance at the suggestion Trump could have a modicum of responsibility in anything that might even be slightly be good. Does that make sense? LegalLord's post is only a troll from the perspective of he's clever enough to realize mention of Trump and Obama in the same sentence is guaranteed to send you sputtering. The record is clear that Obama completely failed. I was promised a whole presidency of fingers twitching near the nuke button based on Trumps tweeting at KJU and his personality. Now, I’ll be enjoying the takes that this was inevitable and Trump deserves zero credit (and just forget that I told you last month that this was all impossible because Trump screwed the pooch with provocations). to call anything inevitable with regards to NK would be a mistake don’t you think? (understanding i think that this is paraphrasing and not your own words) would you care to lay out what moves by DJT led us to this point specifically? I’m especially interested in something where you can tie in a forethought that leads us here.
Clearly, Trumps threatening tweets induced Kim Jong Un to come to the bargaining table. The only thing the US needed in addition to military displays and sanctions to get Kim Jong Un to the bargaining table was Donald Trump’s threats of nucleur annihilation. This is negotiation 101.
|
On March 07 2018 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Yeah? What are they going to do about it?
Get angry and vote come November.
|
Unless it's another smokescreen for food, it's more like the Koreas are just another addition to a long list of countries like the EU where they realize that, at least under the current administration, the USA could/should not be expected to be involved at a reasonable level and they need to start taking a more hands on approach to their own problems.
|
On March 07 2018 04:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Yeah? What are they going to do about it? Get angry and vote come November.
That oughta fix it.
But when it doesn't?
|
Trump trying some jokes at the joint press brief that just falls def because nobody thought it was a joke
|
Stefan Lofven
Unsustainable legislation (allowing refugee influx)
163,000 refugees seeking refuge. Country of 10 million. 77% September to December (big influx).
Put pressure on other EU nation countries to take more.
"It's not like we have no-go zones."
The questioner cited the NYT story to start the question on the violence and what Sweden's government will do/what their thought on. The NYT decided recently it's okay for the American left to talk about the problems that Sweden is going through, whereas before Trump was totally out of line drawing attention to them.
All things considered, good performance on a couple questions from Sweden's PM ... acknowledges the size of the problem and aims to combat it. I don't know about the European reporting, but America's reporting could've done much better acknowledging the facts from the start and simply observing the responses and their efficacy/lack.
|
On March 07 2018 06:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Stefan Lofven
Unsustainable legislation (allowing refugee influx)
163,000 refugees seeking refuge. Country of 10 million. 77% September to December (big influx).
Put pressure on other EU nation countries to take more.
"It's not like we have no-go zones." The questioner cited the NYT story to start the question on the violence and what Sweden's government will do/what their thought on. The NYT decided recently it's okay for the American left to talk about the problems that Sweden is going through, whereas before Trump was totally out of line drawing attention to them. https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/970278486815465473All things considered, good performance on a couple questions from Sweden's PM ... acknowledges the size of the problem and aims to combat it. I don't know about the European reporting, but America's reporting could've done much better acknowledging the facts from the start and simply observing the responses and their efficacy/lack.
Does it matter that the NYT was reporting on gang crime and that the majority of the members are born in Sweden and the weapons are coming from 'white' countries?
|
Don’t let facts get in the way of a good anti-migrant narrative. If crime is on the rise, it is the fault of the Other, who moved into the nation recently.
|
On March 07 2018 06:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 06:12 Danglars wrote:Stefan Lofven
Unsustainable legislation (allowing refugee influx)
163,000 refugees seeking refuge. Country of 10 million. 77% September to December (big influx).
Put pressure on other EU nation countries to take more.
"It's not like we have no-go zones." The questioner cited the NYT story to start the question on the violence and what Sweden's government will do/what their thought on. The NYT decided recently it's okay for the American left to talk about the problems that Sweden is going through, whereas before Trump was totally out of line drawing attention to them. https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/970278486815465473All things considered, good performance on a couple questions from Sweden's PM ... acknowledges the size of the problem and aims to combat it. I don't know about the European reporting, but America's reporting could've done much better acknowledging the facts from the start and simply observing the responses and their efficacy/lack. Does it matter that the NYT was reporting on gang crime and that the majority of the members are born in Sweden and the weapons are coming from 'white' countries?
Does it matter that the police are finding it hard to investigate in immigrant neighborhoods, or a veteran police officer angrily wrote that “violent crimes he was investigating were committed by immigrants from “Iraq, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Somalia, Syria again, Somalia, unknown country, unknown country, Sweden?”” Does it matter that he was investigated for racial hatred for that remark? Or maybe you presume 24% and 42% are percentages that reflect majorities from the article?
But wait, maybe you failed to read about the gang of immigrants led by a Tunisian man, to which four paragraphs are devoted? Or the quote from the Swede who blames the lack of a response ... that Swedes naively wish the rest of the world to be like Sweden, in contrast to reality?
|
How is this relevant to US politics? Sweden has crime that they need to deal with. Some of it is related to poor immigrants. I’m sure they will figure it out.
|
On the bright side, they've eliminated the revolving door between government work and private work. That it's been replaced by a banquet hall where people can gorge themselves on the bounty of both worlds at the same time really isn't something we should pay attention to. /s
|
There's no contradiction between the two articles. I think I get why you think there is, but I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.
|
On March 07 2018 06:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 06:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2018 06:12 Danglars wrote:Stefan Lofven
Unsustainable legislation (allowing refugee influx)
163,000 refugees seeking refuge. Country of 10 million. 77% September to December (big influx).
Put pressure on other EU nation countries to take more.
"It's not like we have no-go zones." The questioner cited the NYT story to start the question on the violence and what Sweden's government will do/what their thought on. The NYT decided recently it's okay for the American left to talk about the problems that Sweden is going through, whereas before Trump was totally out of line drawing attention to them. https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/970278486815465473All things considered, good performance on a couple questions from Sweden's PM ... acknowledges the size of the problem and aims to combat it. I don't know about the European reporting, but America's reporting could've done much better acknowledging the facts from the start and simply observing the responses and their efficacy/lack. Does it matter that the NYT was reporting on gang crime and that the majority of the members are born in Sweden and the weapons are coming from 'white' countries? Does it matter that the police are finding it hard to investigate in immigrant neighborhoods, or a veteran police officer angrily wrote that “violent crimes he was investigating were committed by immigrants from “Iraq, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Somalia, Syria again, Somalia, unknown country, unknown country, Sweden?”” Does it matter that he was investigated for racial hatred for that remark? Or maybe you presume 24% and 42% are percentages that reflect majorities from the article? But wait, maybe you failed to read about the gang of immigrants led by a Tunisian man, to which four paragraphs are devoted? Or the quote from the Swede who blames the lack of a response ... that Swedes naively wish the rest of the world to be like Sweden, in contrast to reality?
Yes (note you didn't answer my question), but that's notably different than what Trump and others on Fox were claiming.
I mistakenly (it appears) combined the percentages thinking that they were referencing 2 distinct groups.
There are plenty of issues contributing to gangs in Sweden (not that I'm an expert in their domestic affairs) but immigration is only part of it (and not core problem that you and others would like to make it out to be). That you can find bigots in Sweden who will blame everything on immigrants doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
There is a pretty basic thing at work here though. Refugees and new immigrants are vulnerable populations and prime candidates for recruitment. Not because they came to be criminals, but because they can make good money quickly, don't understand differing social norms, can be 'off-the-grid' pretty easily and lack a feeling of security.
Sure, you could address that by simply cutting off the immigrants/refugees, but that doesn't address the underlying social issues that will eventually find Swedish nationals replacing the now missing immigrants/refugees (or new waves of increasingly desperate ones).
Though Sweden is a small enough, homogenized enough, and wealthy enough it could probably get crime pretty low without having to deal with any other cultures.
But hey, I'm all for Sweden not supporting the governments responsible for destabilizing the ME in the first place, so there wouldn't be an influx of migrants
|
On March 07 2018 06:53 Plansix wrote:
How is this relevant to US politics? Sweden has crime that they need to deal with. Some of it is related to poor immigrants. I’m sure they will figure it out.
One of Hillary's most despised platforms for the Right was her running on bringing in 65,000 Syrian refugees. Their guy wanted to ban all Muslims. It's a pretty stark contrast.
Immigration reform is one of the most important positions of the current Republican party. You need only look at the recent DACA negotiations to see that. The European migrant crisis is starting to give rise to more right-wing populism there, and right-wingers in America look at Europe as ground zero for why America can't allow the same kind of mass immigration. What happens in Sweden affects how Americans look at their own immigration policies.
|
On March 07 2018 07:35 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 06:53 Plansix wrote:
How is this relevant to US politics? Sweden has crime that they need to deal with. Some of it is related to poor immigrants. I’m sure they will figure it out. One of Hillary's most despised platforms for the right was her running on bringing in 65,000 Syrian refugees. Their guy wanted to ban all Muslims. It's a pretty stark contrast. Immigration reform is one of the most important positions of the current Republican party. You need only look at the recent DACA negotiations to see that. The European migrant crisis is starting to give rise to more right-wing populism there, and right-wingers in America look at Europe as ground zero for why America can't allow the same kind of mass immigration. What happens in Sweden affects how Americans look at their own immigration policies.
It is a rhetorical question. The post I was responded to was pure bait, with the victimization of how the overly broad left doesn’t let Trump talk about a thing.
Which is completely bullshit, since no one put Baby in the corner. Trump talks about what he pleases, even it it is complete lies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
