US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5354

On October 06 2016 12:58 Nebuchad wrote:
One of the great mysteries of my life is why nobody is using the term Social Injustice Warriors (or SIWs).

On October 06 2016 12:58 Nebuchad wrote:
One of the great mysteries of my life is why nobody is using the term Social Injustice Warriors (or SIWs).

On October 06 2016 12:58 Nebuchad wrote:
One of the great mysteries of my life is why nobody is using the term Social Injustice Warriors (or SIWs).

WASHINGTON — For more than a decade, Suleiman Anwar Bengharsa has served as a Muslim cleric in Maryland, working as a prison chaplain and as an imam at mosques in Annapolis and outside Baltimore. He gave a two-week course in 2011 on Islamic teachings on marriage at the Islamic Society of Baltimore, where President Obama made a much-publicized visit this year.

But in the last two years, Imam Bengharsa’s public pronouncements have taken a dark turn. On Facebook, he has openly endorsed the Islamic State, posted gruesome videos showing ISIS fighters beheading and burning alive their enemies and praised terrorist attacks overseas. The “Islamic Jurisprudence Center” website he set up last year has condemned American mosques as un-Islamic and declared that homosexual acts should be punished by death.

That is not all. An affidavit filed in federal court by the F.B.I. says that Imam Bengharsa, 59, supplied $1,300 in June 2015 to a Detroit man who used it to expand his arsenal of firearms and grenades. The man, Sebastian Gregerson, 29, a Muslim convert who sometimes calls himself Abdurrahaman Bin Mikaayl, was arrested in late July and indicted on explosives charges.

Nearly a year ago, in fact, the F.B.I. said in a court filing — accidentally and temporarily made public in an online database — that agents suspected the two men were plotting terrorism. “Based on the totality of the aforementioned information and evidence, there is reason to believe that Bengharsa and Gregerson are engaged in discussions and preparations for some violent act on behalf of” the Islamic State, an agent wrote.

Yet Imam Bengharsa has not been arrested or charged. It appears that the authorities do not have clear evidence that he has broken the law. His inflammatory statements are protected by the First Amendment, and agents appear to have no proof that he knew Mr. Gregerson planned to buy illegal explosives. In his checkbook, next to the notation for the $1,300 check, Imam Bengharsa wrote “zakat,” or charity, the documents show.

On October 06 2016 13:07 Danglars wrote:

It will probably be coined by SJW's at some point, have no fear! Of course right now I think 'warriors' might be too associated with toxic masculinity/gender roles for use.

Politicization of the FBI Threatens American Democracy

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the storied FBI, is the world’s leading law enforcement agency, but it’s also America’s secret police—though most citizens don’t like to think of it that way. As such, the FBI has enormous power. Any democracy which wants to remain one needs to place strict controls on what the secret police can (and can’t) do—and above all, that they remain untainted by raw politics.

The Obama years have witnessed nothing less than the FBI becoming a partisan tool of the Democrats. This has been made painfully clear by the unprecedented hash that Director James Comey’s Bureau made of the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email problems as secretary of state. I’ve previously used the term “sham” to apply to the FBI’s highly irregular and unethical conduct in EmailGate, and with each new revelation of how the Bureau never really wanted to prosecute anyone in this sordid case, that conclusion gets reinforced.

Neither is this mess confined to cases that involve top Democrats. We see similar forces at work in domestic terrorism, where the FBI follows the lead of the White House and its highly politicized Justice Department, assiduously avoiding any discussions of jihadism unless they are so obvious that they can’t be hidden from the public any longer. In case after case since 2009, the FBI has professed a remarkable inability to detect terrorism—even when it’s obviously Islamist terrorism that we’re talking about—that ought to trouble citizens.

Americans aren’t especially fond of corrupt politicians or Islamist terrorists, so the FBI is siding with the wrong people here. To be clear: the Bureau is made up of Americans of all views and backgrounds, who by and large are the same dedicated civil servants they have always been. The problem, as they say inside the Beltway, isn’t the Indians—it’s the chiefs.

On October 06 2016 13:38 KwarK wrote:

Ah yes, the old "I disagree with the decision made by the professionals whose job it is to know more than me so they must be out to get me".

On October 06 2016 13:06 oBlade wrote:

The whole point of the pejorative use of SJW is to describe people who think they're being progressive but are either fighting about nothing or going backwards, who have called themselves SJWs proudly to begin with. To have an analogous meaning, if you wanted to say "SIW" it would have to talk about people who think they're doing wrong but are actually having a positive impact. Otherwise we don't need a new word, because to many people "right-wing" is already an adequate pejorative to describe those fighting for injustice.

On October 06 2016 14:14 Nebuchad wrote:


You're overthinking this. I was more into the line of "hey, you're using a stupid term to dismiss people and arguments, why not use a stupid term to dismiss you."

On October 06 2016 16:47 JW_DTLA wrote:


This guy's article is the real politicization. He tries to turn a result he doesn't like for partisan reasons (punishing HRC) into proof of partisanship. Comey said, previous cases don't support prosecution. Comey specificlaly contrasted the Chappaqua server with Patreaus's biographer handoff. They weren't equivalent and Patraeus lied during the investigation. Comey + unanimous FBI high ups recommended against prosecution. The DOJ agreed. Then this article says the thing is a "sham" and calls the case "sordid" without actually arguing the merits. That he doesn't even try to argue the merits proves that the article itself is politicization through and through.

If you really want to know about the Chappaqua server, you must read this long form Politico report on the complete release of the FBI investigation. The tale of the server is one of a backwards agency struggling with how to balance electronic communications with a Secretary that can't work a desktop. If you actually read what the notes said, the idea of concocting charges is ridiculous.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-emails-2016-server-state-department-fbi-214307

EDIT: if you disagree, then you need to go through the article on the FBI notes and put together the elements of a crime. It isn't enough to spout from the sidelines that the process was irregular (how do you know? Are you FBI?). Read the report. Read the FBI notes. Put together the elements from the facts.

On October 06 2016 12:11 Nyxisto wrote:


I think most of the populist movements here try to paint themselves as conservatives whereas Trump just openly blurts stuff out that would end your career over here. I also think a good bunch of the populist movements here don't actually want to govern and love the opposition bait role. The stakes are also very different, most European populist parties don't actually have the power to govern, Trump with the whole Congress is quite scary.

On October 06 2016 16:55 Yoav wrote:
But what scares me about Trump as prez is the stuff that doesn't require congress' consent. .

Brennan:
"Hi Madam Secretary. I'm Brennan and I'm 15 years old. At my school, body image is a really big issue for girls my age. I see with my own eyes the damage Donald Trump does when he talks about women and how they look. As the first female president how would you undo some of that damage and help girls understand that they're so much more than just what they look like?"
And here was Hillary's attempt at knocking the soft ball out of the park...it's almost like she knew the question was coming.

Hillary:
"I'm so proud of you for asking that question. You are right -- my opponent has just taken this concern to a new level of difficulty and meanness. And, it's shocking when women are called names and judged solely on the basis of physical attributes.

"My opponent insulted Miss Universe. I mean, how do you get more acclaimed than that? But, it wasn't good enough. So we can't take any of this seriously any more. We need to laugh at it. We need to refute it. We need to ignore it. And we need to stand up to it."

On October 06 2016 16:55 GreenHorizons wrote:


I didn't see anything in there about the immunity deals, that's what I'm particularly curious about at the moment?

I for one don't think it was a particularly partisan thing other than it happened to be a Democrat at the center, but it just as easily could have been a Republican imo.

On October 06 2016 17:13 JW_DTLA wrote:


This is exactly the kind of idle sideline complaining I was talking about. Are you FBI? Do you know how they give out immunity for testimony? Do you know they did it wrong? By what standard do you know they did it wrong? Do you have any knowledge of immunity deals beyond what you saw on Law and Order or NCIS? Just tossing out "immunity deals" is not enough to overcome the expertise of actual FBI workers.