|
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 19 2018 16:50 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 10:51 mierin wrote:On March 19 2018 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 19 2018 07:39 mierin wrote:
It seems like a matter of accidental vs purposeful justice. If some corrupt guy gets fired only because the president doesn't like him, is that really justice? It seems like the entire broken justice system is based on moves like these...the people deserving of guilt and innocence aren't getting punished / exonerated by a just system, but on the winds of political whims.
Unimportant people aren't given a second thought and are sent through the judicial meat grinder on a daily basis. Is one person getting fired like this really a triumph? Or more of a sad accident? I'd go with 'sad accident' presuming the sad is in reference to the pathetic nature of the just outcome in relation to the encroachments and the way it happened...and the way liberals responded. I was trying to understand where you stood on the "oh the democrats are so bad, so burn down the system" (which I agree with actually) with the "corrupt person getting fired amongst the plethora of corrupt people" train of thought. It seems like you are totally fine with a couple FBI folks fired for 'legitimate' reasons but are not fine with people's contention that voting for (I'll admit right now pretty sorry) democratic candidates is a temporary solution. If you want to burn down the whole system, burn it all down...not just from the tip top. Systems don't burn in isolation. GH isn't just touting someone like McCabe getting ransacked. He is touting McCabe getting ransacked by Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions and Donald "The Birther" Trump, and replaced by them. I don't know how he could be anymore lopsided if he tried. I get not trusting or liking American law-enforcement. It became the foster-home for America's systemic-racism, partially through policy such as the Drug War. But it's a broad subject. Homicide investigation, for example, is something that has cleaned up its act quite well over the years. But I don't think people like McCabe and Mueller are really the evil GH wants them to be. They're high-crime prosecutors, and McCabe is mostly just a spokesman (which is precisely why they were able to screw him over for making public statements, similar to Comey). Wanting improvements to the system is valid. More progressive countries than us have such better records and statistics, while we are... the police-state. But progressive is not the direction GH is touting when he applauds McCabe being fired. He is touting the other direction. The most corrupt, racist, white-supremacist, right-wing, autocratic system possible. We can see it in Moscow, what happens when a sensational right-wing autocrat "burns down the system". It was a horribly corrupt system under Gorbachev/Yeltsin (horribly corrupt before them, too). Good thing it's gone? Burn it down? At the same time Putin was locking away Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's ministers, GH would be pointing out how corrupt they were, a la McCabe (this is a terribly unfair comparison for McCabe, but it better fits GH's narrative). Except what Putin replaced it with is, of course, much worse -- especially if you're brown, Jewish, or not hetero. Moscow has incorporated its seclusion and Putin's autocracy into its culture and has become the most brazenly white-supremacist place in the world. Beauregard Sessions' usual job is escalating the war on drugs, denigrating minorities, and ruining immigrants' lives. Friday he issues a firing of an FBI spokesman days before the man's pension was due. He does so at the request of a President who began his political-career by asking Obama for his birth-certificate. And GH finds disdain for... the FBI spokesman. Look at what ICE agents are currently doing, and see what kind of people could one day replace McCabe. How bad things could actually be. If you want to burn down a system, you should really know what you're doing, because it does backfire if you don't. GH's disdain for "the liberals" (keep in mind he's not a conservative... or is he?) suggests he knows that the upcoming results in 2018 and 2020 aren't going to be a Bernie revolution, albeit he refuses to appreciate why that is. The Trump-era is just going to make Democrats more conservative, or at least broader-based. Instead of being able to argue about whether or not Hillary's policies were really progressive and such, we're dealing with a crisis. Instead of seeing Democrats and liberals debate Hillary's policies, we're begging for FBI stiffs and Washington-insiders to save us like they're angels of mercy. This is why instead of burning shit down, you need to just vote for the person most ideologically-aligned to you -- because regardless of everything they do, they move the goalposts. It's boring and disappointing and sometimes hard, but it's never stupid. Being an "anti-racist" that spends his time denying the crimes of the Trump administration -- that is fucking stupid.
Well it’s a key difference between progressives and revolutionaries that for the formers, their closest parents on the political spectrum are not people to work and compromise with but the biggest foes. You’ll see that attitude everywhere throughout history.
It doesn’t change much that the Berniebros are opperetta revolutionaries; they still care more about demolishing the progressives than prevent complete lunatics take over the country. GH obsession with the DNC and crooked Hillary throughout the election wasn’t even dented by the fact that a white supremacist, proto fascist populist wave was sweeping the country. To care to what happens to actual people, not in a vacuum but concretely, requires some kind of political maturity that he seems to completely lack.
It pains me to say that because I am probably nearly perfectly aligned with him ideologically. But I think that politics is an art of patience, compromise and incremental changes. And that people like him contribute indirectly to make the world a much worse place by lacking the humility to instead try to make it a tiny bit better.
At the end of the day and with a historical perspective, no one will ever care that Nader had a better vision than Al Gore, just as none will remember Berniebros for anything else than the guys who helped Trulp win an election. The concrete result of Nader, his contribution to history will have been 8 years of neocons rule, and indirectly the ruin of the Middle East, the explosion of inequalities, and all the niceties of the Bush era.
|
On March 19 2018 18:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 04:04 Kyadytim wrote:On March 19 2018 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
Do liberals really think McCabe shouldn't have been fired or just that Republicans are being blindly tribal and hypocritical about it? No. If McCabe did what he was theoretically fired for, then he should have been fired. But that should have happened a while ago - the alleged malfeasance was in the summer of 2016. Instead, he got fired just before he would have qualified for his pension, after having announced his retirement due to pressure from Trump, and Trump continuing to gun for him. The problem isn't necessarily that McCabe was fired, it's how and when he was fired that I object to. In the context of tweets like this, McCabe getting fired right before he qualifies for his pension looks like retaliation against McCabe for not kowtowing to Trump, and that's not acceptable. I'm a bit confused why people have their panties in a bundle about this. The way one side is presenting this is that McCabe broke the law and got fired for it. Excellent, wish more people were held accountable in a similar manner, but at least it's one less scumbag (and this is regardless of timing). The way the other side presents it is that he hasn't really done anything wrong, but disagreed with his boss. The tweets seem to back that up. It looks like a wrongful termination lawsuit waiting to happen. So why not just wait for that instead of this mass hysteria?
For the same reason Comey couldn't sue for a wrongful termination.
The President is free to sack anyone working a top position under his perview. No reason is required.
|
On March 19 2018 19:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 16:50 Leporello wrote:On March 19 2018 10:51 mierin wrote:On March 19 2018 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 19 2018 07:39 mierin wrote:
It seems like a matter of accidental vs purposeful justice. If some corrupt guy gets fired only because the president doesn't like him, is that really justice? It seems like the entire broken justice system is based on moves like these...the people deserving of guilt and innocence aren't getting punished / exonerated by a just system, but on the winds of political whims.
Unimportant people aren't given a second thought and are sent through the judicial meat grinder on a daily basis. Is one person getting fired like this really a triumph? Or more of a sad accident? I'd go with 'sad accident' presuming the sad is in reference to the pathetic nature of the just outcome in relation to the encroachments and the way it happened...and the way liberals responded. I was trying to understand where you stood on the "oh the democrats are so bad, so burn down the system" (which I agree with actually) with the "corrupt person getting fired amongst the plethora of corrupt people" train of thought. It seems like you are totally fine with a couple FBI folks fired for 'legitimate' reasons but are not fine with people's contention that voting for (I'll admit right now pretty sorry) democratic candidates is a temporary solution. If you want to burn down the whole system, burn it all down...not just from the tip top. Systems don't burn in isolation. GH isn't just touting someone like McCabe getting ransacked. He is touting McCabe getting ransacked by Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions and Donald "The Birther" Trump, and replaced by them. I don't know how he could be anymore lopsided if he tried. I get not trusting or liking American law-enforcement. It became the foster-home for America's systemic-racism, partially through policy such as the Drug War. But it's a broad subject. Homicide investigation, for example, is something that has cleaned up its act quite well over the years. But I don't think people like McCabe and Mueller are really the evil GH wants them to be. They're high-crime prosecutors, and McCabe is mostly just a spokesman (which is precisely why they were able to screw him over for making public statements, similar to Comey). Wanting improvements to the system is valid. More progressive countries than us have such better records and statistics, while we are... the police-state. But progressive is not the direction GH is touting when he applauds McCabe being fired. He is touting the other direction. The most corrupt, racist, white-supremacist, right-wing, autocratic system possible. We can see it in Moscow, what happens when a sensational right-wing autocrat "burns down the system". It was a horribly corrupt system under Gorbachev/Yeltsin (horribly corrupt before them, too). Good thing it's gone? Burn it down? At the same time Putin was locking away Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's ministers, GH would be pointing out how corrupt they were, a la McCabe (this is a terribly unfair comparison for McCabe, but it better fits GH's narrative). Except what Putin replaced it with is, of course, much worse -- especially if you're brown, Jewish, or not hetero. Moscow has incorporated its seclusion and Putin's autocracy into its culture and has become the most brazenly white-supremacist place in the world. Beauregard Sessions' usual job is escalating the war on drugs, denigrating minorities, and ruining immigrants' lives. Friday he issues a firing of an FBI spokesman days before the man's pension was due. He does so at the request of a President who began his political-career by asking Obama for his birth-certificate. And GH finds disdain for... the FBI spokesman. Look at what ICE agents are currently doing, and see what kind of people could one day replace McCabe. How bad things could actually be. If you want to burn down a system, you should really know what you're doing, because it does backfire if you don't. GH's disdain for "the liberals" (keep in mind he's not a conservative... or is he?) suggests he knows that the upcoming results in 2018 and 2020 aren't going to be a Bernie revolution, albeit he refuses to appreciate why that is. The Trump-era is just going to make Democrats more conservative, or at least broader-based. Instead of being able to argue about whether or not Hillary's policies were really progressive and such, we're dealing with a crisis. Instead of seeing Democrats and liberals debate Hillary's policies, we're begging for FBI stiffs and Washington-insiders to save us like they're angels of mercy. This is why instead of burning shit down, you need to just vote for the person most ideologically-aligned to you -- because regardless of everything they do, they move the goalposts. It's boring and disappointing and sometimes hard, but it's never stupid. Being an "anti-racist" that spends his time denying the crimes of the Trump administration -- that is fucking stupid. Well it’s a key difference between progressives and revolutionaries that for the formers, their closest parents on the political spectrum are not people to work and compromise with but the biggest foes. You’ll see that attitude everywhere throughout history. It doesn’t change much that the Berniebros are opperetta revolutionaries; they still care more about demolishing the progressives than prevent complete lunatics take over the country. GH obsession with the DNC and crooked Hillary throughout the election wasn’t even dented by the fact that a white supremacist, proto fascist populist wave was sweeping the country. To care to what happens to actual people, not in a vacuum but concretely, requires some kind of political maturity that he seems to completely lack. It pains me to say that because I am probably nearly perfectly aligned with him ideologically. But I think that politics is an art of patience, compromise and incremental changes. And that people like him contribute indirectly to make the world a much worse place by lacking the humility to instead try to make it a tiny bit better. At the end of the day and with a historical perspective, no one will ever care that Nader had a better vision than Al Gore, just as none will remember Berniebros for anything else than the guys who helped Trulp win an election. The concrete result of Nader, his contribution to history will have been 8 years of neocons rule, and indirectly the ruin of the Middle East, the explosion of inequalities, and all the niceties of the Bush era.
I like my response to his post a lot better than yours.
Pretty sure the people lining up behind Clinton and defending her tooth and nail are going to get more credit for Trump than the Naders and 'Berniebros' (a sexist [also has racial undertones, but, you know...] term that erases millions of women and their agency/support) of history in the long run. At least outside of neoliberal bubbles.
As someone much closer to being both directly effected and to have friends and family directly impacted by things like Trump ICE actions, War on poor people, or anything else I also find the
GH obsession with the DNC and crooked Hillary throughout the election wasn’t even dented by the fact that a white supremacist, proto fascist populist wave was sweeping the country. To care to what happens to actual people, not in a vacuum but concretely, requires some kind of political maturity that he seems to completely lack.
Especially offensive and irresponsibly wrong.
The focus on the DNC is because it doesn't go away with Trump (and literally every other poster besides occasionally the conservatives posts almost exclusively about Trump/Russia). For example, sure maybe ICE slows down in an imaginary Clinton presidency (Obama deported more people than Bush and bragged about it), but they have no intention of whittling this issue down to nothing any more than they have anything else, besides people's will to stand up to them.
As I said, this incremental change that nets out to negligible improvements (if that) that are essentially impossible to quantify only makes sense in the context of staving off the impending Trumpocolypse.
That's how you're able to distract liberals from the absurdity that is backing someone with 100% rating from the NRA this close to trying to exploit student activism inspired by horrific gun violence and attacking Bernie/the kids for being swamped with support/enthralled with Bernie and his D from the NRA.
|
Pretty sure you seeing people here "defending Clinton tooth and nail" is you hallicunating. Barely anyone here truely liked Clinton, most would still take her over Trump in a heartbeat and defended her therefore against Trump.
Calling everyone neoliberal that doesn't feel as strong as you about the status quo is also not helpfull... And you barely ever tell anyone what you actually want... Apart from some nonsense like "abolish the police and replace it with something terrific".
All you achieve with such statements is that no one takes you seriously anymore... "oh look, GH going on a crazy tirade again".
Btw: The people voting against Trump somehow are to blame for his victory? Keep telling yourself that, just keep in mind how ridiculous you sound.
|
On March 19 2018 19:16 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 17:17 Nebuchad wrote:I'm going to ignore all the grandstanding cause it's par for the course at that point, let's try something else: On March 19 2018 16:50 Leporello wrote:
he knows that the upcoming results in 2018 and 2020 aren't going to be a Bernie revolution, albeit he refuses to appreciate why that is. The Trump-era is just going to make Democrats more conservative, or at least broader-based. So, why? Because that's clearly what happened when Obama got elected as a progressive liberal black man. The conservatives all started leaning towards liberalism, social justice, racial equality and so forth. That's what happened, yes it did, uh-huh.
That would certainly be part of my response, but I'd like to hear it from him, I don't want to put reasonings in his mouth.
|
On March 19 2018 11:15 Plansix wrote:A lot of former government attorney and staff are weighing on on the NDAs. A lot of folks are questioning if they are enforceable and if they don't run afoul of existing regulations. The White House employees don't work for Trump, they work for the public. And executive privilege already exists, so a further deed for protection is unnecessary. Edit: Also - damn facebook has stepped in it this time. Not only did that not tell users about their data beings stolen by Cambridge analytics, but they also threatened to sue the papers for publishing the story that they new to be 100% true. And suspended the whistle blowers Facebook account because why not. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/18/us/cambridge-analytica-facebook-privacy-data.html
Enforceable isn't really the point, many contracts in the US are written up by actual lawyers that wont stand up in a court of law. The point in many of those isn't enforcement but the perception that it could be enforced. If you can make the person think the option of using our legal system wont work, you've already won. Which can be considered fraud or bad faith but it tends to be difficult to prove when public perception isn't aligned with it. All you need is a flimsy legal standing in which you can attest you thought made it valid. Along with many clients are just happy to get out from under a bad contract they don't think of addition civil options to punish them.
|
On March 19 2018 20:30 Velr wrote:
Pretty sure you seeing people here "defending Clinton tooth and nail" is you hallicunating. Barely anyone here truely liked Clinton, most would still take her over Trump in a heartbeat and defended her therefore against Trump.
Calling everyone neoliberal that doesn't feel as strong as you about the status quo is also not helpfull... And you barely ever tell anyone what you actually want... Apart from some nonsense like "abolish the police and replace it with something terrific".
All you achieve with such statements is that no one takes you seriously anymore... "oh look, GH going on a crazy tirade again".
Btw: The people voting against Trump somehow are to blame for his victory? Keep telling yourself that, just keep in mind how ridiculous you sound.
lol. Instead of addressing much of anything this is what you come up with and say I'm not serious?
People seriously tried to say the whole "Extremely careless" wasn't to intentionally avoid using the words "gross negligence" though the only difference was whether they could prove intent like that matters to the substance of being grossly negligent or extremely careless in the first place outside of a strict interpretation of the law.
People were incredibly gracious with the interpretation that:
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,"
and
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
to mean she didn't screw up significantly.
Or if it did mean she screwed up big in their view, to immediately pivot to how that's not as bad as Trump.
You can defend people while acknowledging some of their short comings too. Perhaps I could use a better turn of phrase to describe it but needless to say folks like kwiz, oneofthem, p6 and others went pretty far in their defenses of everything from hiring famed character assassin and instrumental tool in giving us Justice Thomas, David Brock, to seeking the endorsement of notorious war criminal Henry Kissinger and anything in between, around, or beyond.
You say "Barely anyone here truely liked Clinton" but that's not what they said. If that were the case the simplest way to win would be combine the energy and excitement of the huge grassroots support for Sanders with the people that didn't really like Clinton and were settling for 'better than Trump' behind the guy with the excitement, and grassroots support, not the one that feels they need to hire Brock and court Kissinger.
They made a lot of arguments but if "Trump is apocalypse" you settle with giving the bratty kids their milkshake and staving off certain doom. You don't argue till you r blue about why your unpopular, untrusted, establishment diehard should be embraced with enthusiasm by the kids throwing the tantrum
That is just to say if 'Berniebros' are the worst of their descriptions it's still on y'all. You're supposed to be the responsible adults staving off the hell hounds and you got beat because you wouldn't give the kids some candy. Kudos to you standing by your principles I guess, but was it worth it 'adults'?
It's clownish that you're supposedly able to wipe away my entire argument (went beyond the RS article but you didn't even address that much) regarding fundamentally changing policing in this country to
nonsense like "abolish the police and replace it with something terrific".
It's pathetic as far as arguments go and indicates I'm drilling on a nerve you would love for me to stop but you have no substantive defense against, while also refusing to change your position. I feel like this is one of those "this hurts me more than it hurts you" situations both literally and figuratively.
Btw: The people voting against Trump somehow are to blame for his victory? Keep telling yourself that, just keep in mind how ridiculous you sound.
You mean like I've been told about my vote more times than I can count?
"oh look, GH going on a crazy tirade again".
They'd be a lot shorter if I just came in sniped at an argument I only partially read and then left without responding to the counterargument presented like most of the people that prompt them.
|
You know how Trump is famous for having all his old tweets coming back to haunt him? Now it's happening to Hannity too. Only fitting really, given how much he's in the tank for The Donald.
|
The two aren't necessarily contradictory.
Sean is using "The Stewart Defense," giving news mixed with his own personal opinion, and defending himself from critics by saying he's just a host of a TV show. Stewart's was better though, because his show was clearly satire.
|
Does anyone else find it strange that today will be the first of any conversation here about the Texas terrorist/s / serial killer/ bombings?
|
You don't see Steven Colbert and John Oliver labeling their shows as news, either. The man is a worthless hack.
|
The Times and the Post have been writing about it for a while, but broadcast news has not been covering it.
|
On March 20 2018 00:10 Plansix wrote:
The Times and the Post have been writing about it for a while, but broadcast news has not been covering it.
Much like here, they have been somewhat obsessively focused on Trump/Russia. They at least mentioned it though, not that I've seen it myself, but I presume you wouldn't say it without having some examples. Surely not at this point lol.
|
I am talking about articles I read myself since the bombings started. Sorry if that was unclear. I don’t have time to look them up right now.
|
On March 20 2018 00:21 Plansix wrote:
I am talking about articles I read myself since the bombings started. Sorry if that was unclear. I don’t have time to look them up right now.
Not a great look, but I believe you. (doesn't look like they covered the first one but picked it up by the third)
Just curious if anyone found it odd that no one thought 3 bombings killing 2 injuring more in Austin where at least 2 victims from separate incidents knew each other hadn't come up. Hard to imagine seemingly semi-random bombings in an American city with no suspect in custody wouldn't get a thread let alone a post.
I'm guessing you don't find it strange since you knew about it and didn't mention it.
Did everyone know?
EDIT: Looks like 2 for knew and didn't mention it so far.
|
It was also covered in swiss newspapers and they wrote about a right wing connection, but i didn't really follow it.
No time to answer to your answer to my post GH. Maybe later, just know your wrong  .
|
On March 20 2018 00:50 Velr wrote:It was also covered in swiss newspapers and they wrote about a right wing connection, but i didn't really follow it. No time to answer to your answer to my post GH. Maybe later, just know your wrong .
Haha, I trust it will be as good as the last one
|
i’ve seen plenty of coverage on it personally. but i have friends and family in the area so perhaps seeing it is simply more memorable.
i don’t see why it should be odd that it is not discussed here. i don’t see serial bombings and think ‘USPOL thread would be a good place for this.’
i’d venture a guess this discussion of non-discussion has more room for growth and exploration than four seemingly random bombings with no suspect or really information at all(for now.)
|
I don’t specifically remember which articles I read and it would take me some time to look them up. My car has a flat tire, so changing that out is going to be my lunch break.
|
On March 20 2018 00:58 brian wrote:
i’ve seen plenty of coverage on it personally. but i have friends and family in the area so perhaps seeing it is simply more memorable.
i don’t see why it should be odd that it is not discussed here. i don’t see serial bombings and think ‘USPOL thread would be a good place for this.’
So three for knew and not surprised a serial bomber in Texas isn't US POL thread worthy.
I guess I'm the odd one out thinking it's strange to see innocent civilians killed by a serial bomber in Texas and not think there might be more attention payed to it here and elsewhere.
If three bombs, let alone 4 went off in say Greenwich Connecticut, or NYC, pretty sure that would be the only thing on the news before Trump or even after if they had the slightest inkling it could possibly be linked to the middle east or Russia.
Seriously, there is a serial bomber on the loose in Texas and no one knows when the next bomb will go off, how big it will be, where, or anything except they don't seem to have any intention of stopping and the ability to change triggering mechanisms, it didn't even turn into a conversation until I mentioned it?
Something about these bombs and these victims has made it impossible to connect in a way to imagine some potential motivations or who may be targeted next. You have friends and family there, are you concerned they could be targeted next?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
