|
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 17 2018 10:29 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 10:20 Plansix wrote:
And the lay offs begin. There is a reason we don't do this. So getting back to a discussion worth having; given Trump's platform - such as it is - is all about the economy, what's his response to this? What's the right move? The cynical right move is to point at the effect these tariffs have on those making steel and aluminium and to not talk about the effect it has on the much larger number of those making products that use steel and aluminium.
|
On March 17 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 09:10 ChristianS wrote:On March 17 2018 08:35 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 08:19 ChristianS wrote:On March 17 2018 08:13 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:52 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 07:25 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:22 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2018 07:17 Danglars wrote:A lot of internet tryhards with all their self-righteous fury don’t show up to vote. 40% would’ve meant Clinton in the White House. Who’s in the White House? Who in this forum voted for Trump in the general? I’ll wait. Are you for real right now? Can you tell the difference between people who voted for Trump and Trump's polled approval rating today? This isn't a widespread skill, given the latest question-response. You're not even trying. If 35% of the population actually vote, and 50% vote for Trump, that's not 50% of the population, is it? Once he's in the office, of course the percentage of population that has an opinion on him is going to increase. He's the president. You know as well as everyone else does that Trump's approval ratings have mostly been record lows, so stop trying to pretend everybody wanted him. Even people on your side held their nose while voting for Trump, and it's generally considered that anybody but Hilary would have beat him. We have a reading comprehension gap. Please review my actual words, and point out to me where I said something was 50% of the population. You see to be convinced some other person with a name similar to mine was making outrageous claims. "50% of the country at large"? Is this a trick question? Kinda smelled out your game, but you're well known. 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large Now tell me, how do we usually quote percentage of votes received by each candidate? This is like one last shot to establish some reasonable grounds here. "My game"? Jesus Christ. Your grudge holding has made discussing anything with you consistently a chore. Okay, so you didn't say ~50% of the voting population. You said ~50% of the country at large, which any reasonable observer would interpret as "the whole country," not "the part of the country that voted in 2016." Here's the stupid thing, this doesn't actually matter. Your underlying point, that Trump has more support in the country as a whole than in this thread, is 100% correct. But you said the number wrong, and somebody corrected you. Since it doesn't matter to your point, you could have just accepted the correction, but you're so combative you couldn't accept that, so you're making a fuss over wanting to use 2016 voting results instead of 2018 approval numbers for how large Trump's support is. That's a stupid statistical argument - you're trying to use data from before he was president - but again, it doesn't matter to your original point anyway. So what the hell are we even arguing about? You could just say "I meant of voters, not of voting-age adults" and this whole stupid thing could be skipped. Nope. It's clear from context I was talking about the proportion of Trump voters here vs Trump voters in the country. You're venturing into some pretty post-factual blind territory here. I hate to say it, but it seems the left is projecting when they call Trump voters tenuously connected to reality. You can't even let somebody point out just how much of the voting population went for Trump, compared to how poorly representative and left-wing-spin-zone this forum is. It's nothing but waaaaaah as far as the eye can see. I quoted it, and you're still wailing Show nested quote + ChristianS interprets: 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to omg what follows here cannot realistically be seen as a contrast with 5-8% of Trump voters, it must only be taken to mean the population at large, bam take that racist
Ugh. ~46% of the voting population picked Trump in 2016. I'm fine with acknowledging that. I'm also fine with acknowledging that the thread is more anti-Trump than the country as a whole. Literally all this boils down to is using the phrase "country at large," a very clearly broad term. We can play the game where I google the definition of "at large" and try to show that the idiom is, by nature, broad and all-inclusive, but that's all fucking pointless because all I need to show is that the people who were correcting you read it as "country at large = the whole country," not "country at large = the 120 million or w/e that voted in 2016."
All this other shit you're throwing out about "you're the real post-factual one, you're projecting, you're in denial" is completely irrelevant and borderline ad hominem. At this point I'm thinking you've either given up on any hope of a good-faith discussion in this thread and you just wanna score points, or you've got some grudge against me for something I said at somd point. If it's the former, be good enough to let me know so I can stop bothering to engage with you. If it's the latter, just bring up what you're mad about instead of this passive aggressive shit. I still really hope it's neither, but I'm having trouble coming up with another explanation for how perpetually aggro you've been.
Edit: to my recollection I have never called you a racist.
|
|
If the FBI didn't hate Session before, they fucking hate him now. For all his recent fuck ups McCabe had a long career of good service. That move is nothing but pure spite, plain and simple.
|
Considering that McCabe was likely fired for having agents falsify records, he got what was coming to him. Regardless, we will know when the IG report hits.
|
He also backed up James Comey, which pretty much assured he was going to get canned. One must kiss the ring to keep a job in the executive branch.
|
On March 17 2018 12:04 xDaunt wrote:Considering that McCabe was likely fired for having agents falsify records, he got what was coming to him. Regardless, we will know when the IG report hits. What evidence is there for this?
|
On March 17 2018 12:04 xDaunt wrote:Considering that McCabe was likely fired for having agents falsify records, he got what was coming to him. Regardless, we will know when the IG report hits.
Source?
Also: I'm far more inclined to believe McCabe's version of the story than anything coming from Sessions and Trump who've proven to be serial liars.
Statement by Andrew McCabe
I have been an FBI Special Agent for over 21 years. I spent half of that time investigating Russian Organized Crime as a street agent and Supervisor in New York City. I have spent the second half of my career focusing on national security issues and protecting this country from terrorism. I served in some of the most challenging, demanding investigative and leadership roles in the FBI. And I was privileged to serve as Deputy Director during a particularly tough time.
For the last year and a half, my family and I have been the targets of an unrelenting assault on our reputation and my service to this country. Articles too numerous to count have leveled every sort of false, defamatory and degrading allegation against us. The President's tweets have amplified and exacerbated it all. He called for my firing. He called for me to be stripped of my pension after more than 20 years of service. And all along we have said nothing, never wanting to distract from the mission of the FBI by addressing the lies told and repeated about us.
No more.
The investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has to be understood in the context of the attacks on my credibility. The investigation flows from my attempt to explain the FBI's involvement and my supervision of investigations involving Hillary Clinton. I was being portrayed in the media over and over as a political partisan, accused of closing down investigations under political pressure. The FBI was portrayed as caving under that pressure, and making decisions for political rather than law enforcement purposes. Nothing was further from the truth. In fact, this entire investigation stems from my efforts, fully authorized under FBI rules, to set the record straight on behalf of the Bureau, and to make clear that we were continuing an investigation that people in DOJ opposed.
The OIG investigation has focused on information I chose to share with a reporter through my public affairs officer and a legal counselor. As Deputy Director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that. It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the Director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter. It was the type of exchange with the media that the Deputy Director oversees several times per week. In fact, it was the same type of work that I continued to do under Director Wray, at his request. The investigation subsequently focused on who I talked to, when I talked to them, and so forth. During these inquiries, I answered questions truthfully and as accurately as I could amidst the chaos that surrounded me. And when I thought my answers were misunderstood, I contacted investigators to correct them.
But looking at the in isolation completely misses the big picture. The big picture is a tale of what can happen when law enforcement is politicized, public servants are attacked, and people who are supposed to cherish and protect our institutions become instruments for damaging those institutions and people.
Here is the reality: I am being singled out and treated this way become of the role I played, the actions I took, and the events I witnessed in the aftermath of the firing of James Comey. The release of this report was accelerated only after my testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed that I would corroborate former Director Comey's accounts of his discussions with the President. The OIG's focus on me and this report became a part of an unprecedented effort by the Administration, driven by the President himself, to remove me from my position, destroy my reputation, and possibly strip me of a pension that I worked 21 years to earn. The accelerated release of the report, and the punitive actions taken in response, make sens only when viewed through this lens. Thursday's comments from the White House are just the latest example of this.
This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me personally, but to tain the FBI, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals more generally. It is part of this Administration's ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the Special Counsel investigation, which continue to this day. Their persistence in this campaign only highlights the importance of the Special Counsel's work.
I have always prided myself on serving my country with distinction and integrity, and I always encouraged those around me to do the same. Just ask them. To have my career end in this way, and to be accused of lacking candor when at worst I was distracted in the midst of chaotic events, is incredibly disappointing and unfair. But it will not erase the important work I was privileged to be a part of, the results of which will in the end be revealed for the country to see.
I have unfailing faith in the men and women of the FBI and I am confident that their efforts to seek justice will not be deterred.
|
We should totally believe the White House because they don't just lie to us all the time.
And they don't leak things to their favorite news outlets to spin their abuses of power.
|
5930 Posts
On March 17 2018 12:04 xDaunt wrote:Considering that McCabe was likely fired for having agents falsify records, he got what was coming to him. Regardless, we will know when the IG report hits.
You're going to have to provide adequate sources for that claim that isn't mere conjecture. People reading between the lines isn't a proper source because this is a serious allegation and it would have been reported by just about every news agency despite everyone calling them "fake news". The New York Times, with their Whitehouse reporting being run by former Politico writers who are doing all they can do to maintain insider access, would have laid the hit on McCabe for record tampering.
I think its very safe to assume that the primary justification for McCabe's firing at this specific time would be that Trump just didn't want the man to get his pension. I say its safe because we've seen a general trend in how and why Trump fires people from Comey to Tillerson. Trump also made it clear through a December 2017 tweet that he knew that McCabe was going to retire with a pension.
|
Can't the next administration basically wave a wand and undue this, like most of the other things Trump has done? Just rehire the dude and grant him his pension then? I admit I don't really know anything on how this would work. I find it hard to believe he would have zero recourse.
Ofc, if he did do illegal things, then fuck him.
|
My guess is that in 8-12 months time, his pension will be reinstated in full, with all back pay and interest.
The white house is a clown fiesta right now, with the firing of pretty much everyone.
|
Can’t believe he actually fired him
|
|
On the one hand, some BS about McCabe being unfair to HRC and that is justification to fire him.
On the other, far more honest hand:
+ Show Spoiler +
The primary source here (DJT) makes it clear that the firing was about the connection to Comey. Any other spinning will be masturbatory fantasies.
|
|
Gosh gee willikers, this doesn't look like intimidating a witness and potentially obstructing justice at all.
Maybe that's a constitutional power of the president, I dunno.
|
"Falsifying records" is just a made up claim. Reportedly the IG's report faults McCabe for authorizing someone to speak to the media. The statement to the media, though, was overtly favorable to Republicans. The statement said that the FBI tried to investigate the Clinton Foundation further but was blocked by the Justice Department. McCabe was specifically attempting to counter reports that the FBI was biased in favor of Hillary. So if Trump's basis for firing McCabe is the IG's report, that basis is clearly pretextual. This is just a further attempt to cast doubt on the FBI and Justice Department when it comes to Hillary Clinton and the Mueller investigation etc.
|
What's really funny is the clown show that will claim Trump disagrees with McCabe's actions in relation to the Clinton Foundation. McCabe, btw, is a lifelong Republican.
|
Does firing McCabe help Trump against Mueller in some way? Seems like a really unnecessary use of political capital.
|
|
|
|