EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 10084
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Guess in all that blind tribalism we forgot about that tiny problem. As a brief sidenote, "drone king" is pretty debatable. I wouldn't call the guy acknowledging drone strikes "a drone king", but the ones who ordered it a decade before he came into office. That's just me though. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On March 18 2018 18:35 m4ini wrote: Well it's not like you could cheer for a spineless republican politician to threaten the sitting president, like they did when another one had his dick sucked. Guess in all that blind tribalism we forgot about that tiny problem. As a brief sidenote, "drone king" is pretty debatable. I wouldn't call the guy acknowledging drone strikes "a drone king", but the ones who ordered it a decade before he came into office. That's just me though. Speaking of blind tribalism, what's up with the cult of personality around that mass murderer and corporate fraud that's running the defense department? Secretary of Defense James Mattis is implicated in one of the largest business scandals of the past decades, described by the Securities and Exchange Commission as an “elaborate, years-long fraud” through which Theranos, led by CEO Elizabeth Holmes and president Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, “exaggerated or made false statements about the company’s technology, business, and financial performance.” SourceBasically, their biotech startup was founded on the promise of faster, cheaper, painless blood tests. But their technology was fake. Mattis not only served on Theranos’s board during some of the years it was perpetrating the fraud after he retired from US military service, but he earlier served as a key advocate of putting the company’s technology (technology that was, to be clear, fake) to use inside the military while he was still serving as a general. Holmes is settling the case, paying a $500,000 fee and accepting various other penalties, while Balwani is fighting it out in court. Of course, you're gonna say "but maybe he didn't know the technology was a fraud". Sounds like an excellent person to lead the largest most destructive military force in the history of mankind, then, yes? The "warrior-monk" didn't know he was selling fake goods, so it's fine! Just like "he didn't know it was a wedding" is a fine excuse to bomb the shit out of these people. Gotta kill a whole bunch of people if you're bringing freedom and democracy to a country right (what was I saying about "fake goods" again?). USMC Major General James Mattis even said the idea of a wedding was implausible, "How many people go to the middle of the desert ... to hold a wedding 80 miles (130km) from the nearest civilization? These were more than two dozen military-age males. Let's not be naive." The Rakats and the Sabahs were residents of Mukaradeeb. He later added that it had taken him 30 seconds to deliberate on bombing the location. SourceIn the aftermath, Kimmitt said, "There was no evidence of a wedding: no decorations, no musical instruments found, no large quantities of food or leftover servings one would expect from a wedding celebration. There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too." Video footage obtained by the Associated Press seems to contradict this view. The video shows a series of scenes of a wedding celebration, and footage from the following day showing fragments of musical instruments, pots and pans and brightly colored beddings used for celebrations, scattered around a destroyed tent. Not to mention the borderline unhinged approach at Iran he held while serving under Obama (before being fired As former President Barack Obama's top commander in the Middle East, then-Gen. James Mattis pushed for military strikes to punish Iran for arming anti-American militias in Iraq. Source Apparently he wasn't done bombing innocent Iraqi Muslims, he desperately had to bomb some Iranian ones as well (which is more or less why he got fired). Darkest timeline indeed. It's frightening how so many Americans seem to worship him. It reminds me of another certain person. One that's even more hawkish than him towards Iran, to be fair, but that's not really a boon on Mattis' part. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23172 Posts
On March 18 2018 18:45 a_flayer wrote: Speaking of blind tribalism, what's up with the cult of personality around that mass murderer and corporate fraud that's running the defense department? Source Of course, you're gonna say "but maybe he didn't know the technology was a fraud". Sounds like an excellent person to lead the largest most destructive military force in the history of mankind, then, yes? The "warrior-monk" didn't know he was selling fake goods, so it's fine! Just like "he didn't know it was a wedding" is a fine excuse to bomb the shit out of these people. Gotta kill a whole bunch of people if you're bringing freedom and democracy to a country right (what was I saying about "fake goods" again?). Source Not to mention the borderline unhinged approach at Iran he held while serving under Obama (before being fired Source Apparently he wasn't done bombing innocent Iraqi Muslims, he desperately had to bomb some Iranian ones as well (which is more or less why he got fired). Darkest timeline indeed. It's frightening how so many Americans seem to worship him. It reminds me of another certain person. One that's even more hawkish than him towards Iran, to be fair, but that's not really a boon on Mattis' part. 9 out of 10 people killed by Obama's drone strikes weren't the target, Doesn't everyone remember the huge liberal/Democrat complaints? Me neither... Back to the FBI: So I demonstrated how they dramatically expanded their reach since 1972 by incorporating DEA actions and becoming an international organization. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=10080#201599 We already covered lordawesomess 2nd point before he posted it. And your last point on the FISA court: 3. The FISA court was established as a result of the Church Committee hearings. It's goal was to provide vital judicial oversight of things like wiretaps, instead of the FBI wiretapping whoever Hoover felt like. The very existence of the court represents a direct check on the FBI's power in 2018 as opposed to 1972. Has put zero criminals from the FBI into prison and also somehow missed multiple illegal spying programs. So we have a 1. the CIA isn't the FBI. 2. Something that was already acknowledged. 3. A court that approves virtually everything before it and has never held anyone accountable for a crime they committed. You can call those notable improvements that prove the FBI isn't a corrupt criminal organization, but the multiple/massive violations of people's rights (made easier and far more expansive, thanks to the internet) and complete lack of accountability says something very different. If you have long lists of FBI agents and leaders charged and sentenced for the crimes they committed I'll be very receptive, if all you have is to point to a 1975 effort that led to some of the most massive violations of US citizens rights and was made those violations exponentially worse by having access to the internet I'm going to strongly disagree that your position is stronger than mine. Here's a massive violation of law oversaw by Mueller: A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans. A former federal agent in the northeastern United States who received such tips from SOD described the process. “You’d be told only, ‘Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle.’ And so we’d alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it,” the agent said. After an arrest was made, agents then pretended that their investigation began with the traffic stop, not with the SOD tip, the former agent said. The training document reviewed by Reuters refers to this process as “parallel construction.” The unit of the DEA that distributes the information is called the Special Operations Division, or SOD. Two dozen partner agencies comprise the unit, including the FBI, CIA, NSA, Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Homeland Security. It was created in 1994 to combat Latin American drug cartels and has grown from several dozen employees to several hundred. About interfering in Latin America.... The unit of the DEA that distributes the information is called the Special Operations Division, or SOD. Two dozen partner agencies comprise the unit, including the FBI, CIA, NSA, Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Homeland Security. It was created in 1994 to combat Latin American drug cartels and has grown from several dozen employees to several hundred. So they got 10+x bigger since 1972 (regarding this covert anti-Drug force), and they act internationally instead of domestically as the FBI did in prior to the 1980's. I vehemently disagree that Lord's post proves the FBI hasn't gotten worse/more expansive since the 70's based on the clearly noted expansion of both the laws they were meant to enforce and which countries they could operate in, and complete lack of punishment for their crimes. You're going to need to better than toothless committees that saw multiple FBI leaders flout the law and did nothing to punish them in order to convince me they are being held accountable or that they aren't more expansive than they were before. Source | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On March 18 2018 15:41 Tachion wrote: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/378980-mueller-gives-trumps-legal-team-questions-for-potential-interview If someone who acts this incredibly guilty actually turns out to be innocent, it's really gonna fuck with my social perceptions. He almost certainly is. I think part of the problem is that nobody's dealt with someone like Trump at such a high level. He has no ability to just quietly take something and let it play out. He must always attack, always always always. This Mueller thing is a sustained 'attack' on him, so he must sustain an attack in return. True false or indifferent doesn't matter. He's not 'acting guilty' he's acting like Trump would act in almost any circumstance when attacked by anybody. It's just that coincidentally that looks a lot like guilty behaviour. I'm relatively confident of Trump's innocence; but I think some people close to him are probably less so. Of course he might cross the line of obstruction of justice, which I think is all you really need to impeach him. But if he does so it's part of his 'always attack, all the time' strategy rather than actual guilt. On March 18 2018 19:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Here's a massive violation of law oversaw by Mueller: About interfering in Latin America.... So they got 10+x bigger since 1972 (regarding this covert anti-Drug force), and they act internationally instead of domestically as the FBI did in prior to the 1980's. I vehemently disagree that Lord's post proves the FBI hasn't gotten worse/more expansive since the 70's based on the clearly noted expansion of both the laws they were meant to enforce and which countries they could operate in, and complete lack of punishment for their crimes. You're going to need to better than toothless committees that saw multiple FBI leaders flout the law and did nothing to punish them in order to convince me they are being held accountable or that they aren't more expansive than they were before. Source I'm glad this discussion is happening. It's very informative. Did this information/drug info gathering operation work? Or did it lead to a lot of fraudulent arrests? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23172 Posts
On March 18 2018 19:31 iamthedave wrote: He almost certainly is. I think part of the problem is that nobody's dealt with someone like Trump at such a high level. He has no ability to just quietly take something and let it play out. He must always attack, always always always. This Mueller thing is a sustained 'attack' on him, so he must sustain an attack in return. True false or indifferent doesn't matter. He's not 'acting guilty' he's acting like Trump would act in almost any circumstance when attacked by anybody. It's just that coincidentally that looks a lot like guilty behaviour. I'm relatively confident of Trump's innocence; but I think some people close to him are probably less so. Of course he might cross the line of obstruction of justice, which I think is all you really need to impeach him. But if he does so it's part of his 'always attack, all the time' strategy rather than actual guilt. I'm glad this discussion is happening. It's very informative. Did this information/drug info gathering operation work? Or did it lead to a lot of fraudulent arrests? This is what I'm talking about with the FBI being in the news every day, but liberals are focused on the unimpeachable record of a known supervisor of criminal activity. As a practical matter, law enforcement agents said they usually don’t worry that SOD’s involvement will be exposed in court. That’s because most drug-trafficking defendants plead guilty before trial and therefore never request to see the evidence against them. If cases did go to trial, current and former agents said, charges were sometimes dropped to avoid the risk of exposing SOD involvement. Current and former federal agents said SOD tips aren’t always helpful - one estimated their accuracy at 60 percent. But current and former agents said tips have enabled them to catch drug smugglers who might have gotten away. Also regarding Hoovers ~500k records. Today, the SOD offers at least three services to federal, state and local law enforcement agents: coordinating international investigations such as the Bout case; distributing tips from overseas NSA intercepts, informants, foreign law enforcement partners and domestic wiretaps; and circulating tips from a massive database known as DICE. The DICE database contains about 1 billion records... Now this isn't just FBI, but DEA, FBI, CIA, and the NSA, all of which have been caught violating US citizens rights and none of them have been arrested or imprisoned. That's simply not accountability by any measure I know. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21641 Posts
On March 18 2018 12:01 NewSunshine wrote: I find it impressive that Trump and his base continue to say these things after they've been proven false. As though continuing to cry foul about FISA and the dossier will magically make it true. Give me a break. Its not for us, its for his followers. And they believe it despite the evidence that it is false. Because that's just fake news. On March 18 2018 13:24 Danglars wrote: We went through this before. Political motivations does not convey that one presidential candidate is funding state surveillance on her presidential opponent's campaign. That one raises red flags. Unless you're a liberal. Then police-state stuff is chucked and who cares about civil liberties anyways, it's all the same. I won't say people went in with the goal or openness to trample on civil rights, but the conclusion of their logic (if it can be truly called logic) made those considerations fade. Oh well. Wow, you managed to get every fact wrong. Impressive. The Steele dossier was not 'state surveillance'. Its was a candidate hiring a private US firm for opposition research. This is legal. The company then hired a foreign ex intelligence agent to do the actual ground work. This is again perfectly fine. That agent, when he found disturbing information, reported it to the FBI. This is not abnormal and again, perfectly fine. This dossier was then used as part of the justification for a state surveillance of someone involved. The note that detailed the origin of the Steele dossier info was "The identified US person (this is someone from Fusion GPS) was likely looking for information that could discredit Candidate #1's (Trump) campaign." (See the democratic memo which directly quotes the FISA application) Its absolutely clear this was opposition research. Unless your trying to claim all the judges were utter morons. At no point did Hillary fund state surveillance into Trump's campaign. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On a satellite image, they drew shapes around the crime scenes, marking the coordinates on the map. Then they convinced a Wake County judge they had enough probable cause to order Google to hand over account identifiers on every single cell phone that crossed the digital cordon during certain times. In at least four investigations last year – cases of murder, sexual battery and even possible arson at the massive downtown fire in March 2017 – Raleigh police used search warrants to demand Google accounts not of specific suspects, but from any mobile devices that veered too close to the scene of a crime, according to a WRAL News review of court records. These warrants often prevent the technology giant for months from disclosing information about the searches not just to potential suspects, but to any users swept up in the search. Source Next time a cop "smells something that might be marijuana" on a routine stop, maybe they get to look not only in your own phone and your vagina, they'll thoroughly search anyone's data who was within your vicinity for "evidence of criminal activity" or something. Or maybe they "smell some fear" (from their own upper lips) and just start shooting. It's this same kind of judgment that US courts approve of consistently to allow cops to run rampant. I don't like that you're using the Trump stuff to fight this battle Danglars. It's dumb at best (one might say "politically motivated" instead), malicious at worst (you don't seem to care much about certain other kinds of legal abuse by law enforcement), and disingenuous somewhere in between those options considering your own perspective. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8054 Posts
On March 18 2018 13:18 GreenHorizons wrote: You know Comey didn't blink into existence just before the 2016 election right? Can we please stop these non-arguments? These are just vague statements which only happens to be correct because it's so blindingly obvious, and adds nothing to the conversation other than to help yourself pretend you're smarter than the other party without actually bothering to say anything. This happens to every third post I make here. If you have nothing to say but still feel like you have to say something so you can pretend to feel smart; don't. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On March 18 2018 15:04 Danglars wrote: See, you have almost a Trumpian perspective on truth. You say what I believe without asking or showing. All you got is my perspective on unchallenged parts of the FISA scandal. So, you straight up lie about what I believe about McCabe. That's kind of a central point with you. Does it matter that I state the ways in which the FBI has gotten worse since the Hoover era? Nope, these are used simply as a "associating the anti-law enforcement stories together." Next up: I discuss the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima, and Doodsmack draws the point that I've only talked about nuclear weapons in US-Japan relations. Sometimes you just gotta laugh at this half-hearted attempts. You say you only voiced a perspective on the unchallenged parts of the FISA scandal, but in fact you backed up the central and most challenged part, by saying that Hillary funded state surveillance. Even though you didn't use the words "I agreed with the most challenged part of the FISA scandal," you still did agree. Just because someone points out to you the logical implications of what you said doesn't mean they're lying about what you said. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On March 19 2018 00:41 Doodsmack wrote: Note, yesterday was the first time Trump used the word "Mueller" in a tweet. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/975350027169206273 Ironic that his first tweet with "Mueller" in the text is something not even Danglars could argue to be true. Trump didn't even have the decency to say "conservatives" to allow the ol' No True Scotsman defense. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23172 Posts
On March 18 2018 20:48 Excludos wrote: Can we please stop these non-arguments? These are just vague statements which only happens to be correct because it's so blindingly obvious, and adds nothing to the conversation other than to help yourself pretend you're smarter than the other party without actually bothering to say anything. This happens to every third post I make here. If you have nothing to say but still feel like you have to say something so you can pretend to feel smart; don't. That's why I followed it with why I think his participation and supervision of criminal activity at the FBI prior to 2016 doesn't go away just because he's juxtaposed to Trump. But I would be perfectly content for people to stop making those types of posts. Good luck with that though. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On March 19 2018 00:51 TheTenthDoc wrote: Ironic that his first tweet with "Mueller" in the text is something not even Danglars could argue to be true. Trump didn't even have the decency to say "conservatives" to allow the ol' No True Scotsman defense. Isn't Mueller himself a Republican? | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8054 Posts
He was up until Trump was elected, yes. I don't know about now | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
'Republican' here means a part of the conservatainment consuming tribe. If you don't toe the FOX/TRUMP line, you become a Democrat. McCabe, lifelong Republican, turned into a Democrat the moment he crossed Trump. Mueller, also a lifelong Republican, turned into a Democrat when he was appointed to lead the investigation. Comey, when he wouldn't swear that he was loyal to Trump, turned into a Democrat on the spot. In the liberal-evidence-based-universe, all these men are still Republicans. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On the other hand, Session's lies under oath will be tolerated. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23172 Posts
| ||
| ||
