|
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 November 04 2016 06:48 biology]major wrote:
I will say that Trump has a low chance of being a good president, but sometimes you gotta go backwards before you go forward. This is entirely the fault of the establishment failing to produce anyone with integrity. Couldn't even produce a candidate better than Trump. So Hopefully if Trump wrecks the country, the next cycle will have more seasoned candidates who can learn from the mistakes of these two (hint: integrity and honesty)
This was the argument Fiwifaki made before he ditched the thread in the wake of Trump's trainwreck debate performances. I'm going to make the same argument I did then, which is that if the political establishment is as morally defunct as you say, then expecting them to change anything in the aftermath of a Trump presidency is pure wishful thinking not grounded in reality. The far more likely outcome is that they simply rationalize away the Trump phenomenon and go back to business as usual. In that case we didn't get 4 years of a bad presidency leading to change for the better. We just got 4 years of a bad presidency.
Why do you think people like Ryan are maintaining such a safe distance from Trump? It's so that they can ride on his coattails while still being ready to ditch him if he fucks up. The entire Republican establishment strategy with Trump has been "suck up to him enough so we can get what we want from him, but be ready to ditch him on a moment's notice so we can go back to business as usual".
|
On November 04 2016 06:48 biology]major wrote:
Yo guys, relax, everyone on attack mode recently. Panicking about the election?
It will be great to take some time digging up all the best instances of "Trump is finished" and "Trump has no chance" if he pulls off a win.
|
On November 04 2016 06:55 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 06:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 06:48 biology]major wrote:
Yo guys, relax, everyone on attack mode recently. Panicking about the election?
I will say that Trump has a low chance of being a good president, but sometimes you gotta go backwards before you go forward. This is entirely the fault of the establishment failing to produce anyone with integrity. Couldn't even produce a candidate better than Trump. So Hopefully if Trump wrecks the country, the next cycle will have more seasoned candidates who can learn from the mistakes of these two (hint: integrity and honesty) Spoken like someone who isn't left in the gutter when the country walks backwards. That's true, but when I vote, I vote for myself and not for others. Everyone should do the same.
Translation: I am willing to fuck over brown people, sick people, gay people and women in this elections since I know there is little chance I will be hurt.
As I said before, your understanding of civics is pretty weak. If you think voting is all about you, you missed the point.
|
On November 04 2016 06:55 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 06:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 06:48 biology]major wrote:
Yo guys, relax, everyone on attack mode recently. Panicking about the election?
I will say that Trump has a low chance of being a good president, but sometimes you gotta go backwards before you go forward. This is entirely the fault of the establishment failing to produce anyone with integrity. Couldn't even produce a candidate better than Trump. So Hopefully if Trump wrecks the country, the next cycle will have more seasoned candidates who can learn from the mistakes of these two (hint: integrity and honesty) Spoken like someone who isn't left in the gutter when the country walks backwards. That's true, but when I vote, I vote for myself and not for others. Everyone should do the same.
why? what if the problems of other Americans are much more immediate and severe than anything I face? Fuck em so that I can live a tiny bit more comfortably?
|
On November 04 2016 06:54 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 06:20 xDaunt wrote:
You're the one making the asinine point that the chain of command should always be followed. It's not exactly hard to conjure up a scenario showing how dumb that is. I'm sure that the war criminals at Nuremberg would have loved having you as their judge. lol where did i say coc should always be followed? though in this case the stake is more than chain of command it is a host of issues from political meddling to due process
The logical implication is right here:
On November 04 2016 05:30 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:07 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:46 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just set the record straight. We don't know what the FBI has evidence-wise. We don't know whether Hillary or the Clinton Foundation did anything illegal. All we know is that 1) the FBI agents very strongly believe that they have actionable evidence that warrants further investigation, 2) there very clearly is a dispute between the FBI agents on the ground and their political superiors both at the top of the FBI and with elements of the Justice Department with regards to how to proceed, and 3) that the Justice Department is actively obstructing the investigation of the FBI agents. Maybe the Justice Department is correct to interfere with the investigation. But I'm guessing that's probably not the case. you forget to mention all evidence were presented to senior officers and doj officials, and neither thought they merited aggressive investigation.
this decision is not made by the field agent. there is such a thing as the chain of command and following the structure of organization or you dont have a fbi you have a bunch of feuding agents. this is the very definition of going rogue No, see point Number 2. that is the point. field office team made their presentation, got turned down. they have to defer to rank in this kind of policy decision. Don't be so obtuse. You know what my point is. The FBI agents aren't deferring to their superiors because they are convinced that their superiors are deliberately obstructing the investigation for corrupt reasons. 1.you are guessing as to nature and quality of evidence and case 2. it is still going rogue 3. it is an extremely bad judgment of timing on going rogue 1) Correct. 2) Correct. 3) Not necessarily. If the evidence truly is damning, then it's not bad judgment. wtf? there is a big tradition of military and intelligence independence from civilian political meddling and this is not only a threat to the integrity of the fbi but to democracy itself
We both agree 1) that it is unclear what the nature of the evidence that the FBI has is and 2) that the FBI agents are going rogue. Where we differ is that you are making categorical statements that the FBI agents should not be going rogue, regardless of how good the evidence actually is, whereas I am saying that if the evidence is good enough, they should go rogue. My point isn't even controversial (which is why I find most of the responses to it from other posters to be utter jokes), so I'm not sure why you're having a hard time swallowing it. The only possibilities are 1) you believe in complete adherence to the chain of command, or 2) you're just utterly in the tank for Hillary and won't even consider anything that possibly reflects poorly on her. I went with the former. Should I have gone with the latter?
|
On November 04 2016 06:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 06:55 biology]major wrote:On November 04 2016 06:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 06:48 biology]major wrote:
Yo guys, relax, everyone on attack mode recently. Panicking about the election?
I will say that Trump has a low chance of being a good president, but sometimes you gotta go backwards before you go forward. This is entirely the fault of the establishment failing to produce anyone with integrity. Couldn't even produce a candidate better than Trump. So Hopefully if Trump wrecks the country, the next cycle will have more seasoned candidates who can learn from the mistakes of these two (hint: integrity and honesty) Spoken like someone who isn't left in the gutter when the country walks backwards. That's true, but when I vote, I vote for myself and not for others. Everyone should do the same. Translation: I am willing to fuck over brown people, sick people, gay people and women in this elections since I know there is little chance I will be hurt. As I said before, your understanding of civics is pretty weak. If you think voting is all about you, you missed the point.
? If all brown,sick, gay people, women vote for their own interests according to you Trump will not win. So why would I consider anyone else's perspective when voting? They are capable of representing themselves, and the majority should be represented in aggregate.
|
On November 04 2016 07:02 biology]major wrote:
They are capable of representing themselves, and the majority should be represented in aggregate.
What you are describing is tyranny of the majority.
At this point, I'm going to have to agree with Plansix in questioning your civics education.
|
On November 04 2016 07:02 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 06:59 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 06:55 biology]major wrote:On November 04 2016 06:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 06:48 biology]major wrote:
Yo guys, relax, everyone on attack mode recently. Panicking about the election?
I will say that Trump has a low chance of being a good president, but sometimes you gotta go backwards before you go forward. This is entirely the fault of the establishment failing to produce anyone with integrity. Couldn't even produce a candidate better than Trump. So Hopefully if Trump wrecks the country, the next cycle will have more seasoned candidates who can learn from the mistakes of these two (hint: integrity and honesty) Spoken like someone who isn't left in the gutter when the country walks backwards. That's true, but when I vote, I vote for myself and not for others. Everyone should do the same. Translation: I am willing to fuck over brown people, sick people, gay people and women in this elections since I know there is little chance I will be hurt. As I said before, your understanding of civics is pretty weak. If you think voting is all about you, you missed the point. ? If all brown,sick, gay people, women vote for their own interests according to you Trump will not win. So why would I consider anyone else's perspective when voting? They are capable of representing themselves, and the majority should be represented in aggregate.
while that group would represent a majority, not every group would. And a minority may need protection. That is one of the foundations of a functioning democracy. preventing the tyranny of the majority.
|
On November 04 2016 07:02 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 06:59 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 06:55 biology]major wrote:On November 04 2016 06:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 06:48 biology]major wrote:
Yo guys, relax, everyone on attack mode recently. Panicking about the election?
I will say that Trump has a low chance of being a good president, but sometimes you gotta go backwards before you go forward. This is entirely the fault of the establishment failing to produce anyone with integrity. Couldn't even produce a candidate better than Trump. So Hopefully if Trump wrecks the country, the next cycle will have more seasoned candidates who can learn from the mistakes of these two (hint: integrity and honesty) Spoken like someone who isn't left in the gutter when the country walks backwards. That's true, but when I vote, I vote for myself and not for others. Everyone should do the same. Translation: I am willing to fuck over brown people, sick people, gay people and women in this elections since I know there is little chance I will be hurt. As I said before, your understanding of civics is pretty weak. If you think voting is all about you, you missed the point. ? If all brown,sick, gay people, women vote for their own interests according to you Trump will not win. So why would I consider anyone else's perspective when voting? They are capable of representing themselves, and the majority should be represented in aggregate.
Yet you agree you are voting to screw them over just because you feel like it. You can't name a way it will benefit you, you simply want to see the goverment implode in the hopes it will turn out better. You have freely admitted you know you are safe and don't mind if they get screwed over.
You have the right to choose who you vote for, but that right does not absolve if your reasoning is that you don't really give a shit who gets hurt under a Trump administration. Minorities deserve protection and you seem to feel that it shouldnt' matter to you. Yet you complained when mean SJWs at your school gave you shit for saying you were voting for Trump. You want the protection to think what you want, but then turn around and freely say you don't are if they lose their rights and freedoms.
Edit: Seriously, who taught you are democracy and how it works? I need to talk to whoever is running that school.
|
On November 04 2016 07:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 06:54 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 06:20 xDaunt wrote:
You're the one making the asinine point that the chain of command should always be followed. It's not exactly hard to conjure up a scenario showing how dumb that is. I'm sure that the war criminals at Nuremberg would have loved having you as their judge. lol where did i say coc should always be followed? though in this case the stake is more than chain of command it is a host of issues from political meddling to due process The logical implication is right here: Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 05:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:07 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:46 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just set the record straight. We don't know what the FBI has evidence-wise. We don't know whether Hillary or the Clinton Foundation did anything illegal. All we know is that 1) the FBI agents very strongly believe that they have actionable evidence that warrants further investigation, 2) there very clearly is a dispute between the FBI agents on the ground and their political superiors both at the top of the FBI and with elements of the Justice Department with regards to how to proceed, and 3) that the Justice Department is actively obstructing the investigation of the FBI agents. Maybe the Justice Department is correct to interfere with the investigation. But I'm guessing that's probably not the case. you forget to mention all evidence were presented to senior officers and doj officials, and neither thought they merited aggressive investigation.
this decision is not made by the field agent. there is such a thing as the chain of command and following the structure of organization or you dont have a fbi you have a bunch of feuding agents. this is the very definition of going rogue No, see point Number 2. that is the point. field office team made their presentation, got turned down. they have to defer to rank in this kind of policy decision. Don't be so obtuse. You know what my point is. The FBI agents aren't deferring to their superiors because they are convinced that their superiors are deliberately obstructing the investigation for corrupt reasons. 1.you are guessing as to nature and quality of evidence and case 2. it is still going rogue 3. it is an extremely bad judgment of timing on going rogue 1) Correct. 2) Correct. 3) Not necessarily. If the evidence truly is damning, then it's not bad judgment. wtf? there is a big tradition of military and intelligence independence from civilian political meddling and this is not only a threat to the integrity of the fbi but to democracy itself We both agree 1) that it is unclear what the nature of the evidence that the FBI has is and 2) that the FBI agents are going rogue. Where we differ is that you are making categorical statements that the FBI agents should not be going rogue, regardless of how good the evidence actually is, whereas I am saying that if the evidence is good enough, they should go rogue. My point isn't even controversial (which is why I find most of the responses to it from other posters to be utter jokes), so I'm not sure why you're having a hard time swallowing it. The only possibilities are 1) you believe in complete adherence to the chain of command, or 2) you're just utterly in the tank for Hillary and won't even consider anything that possibly reflects poorly on her. I went with the former. Should I have gone with the latter?
whereas I am saying that if the evidence is good enough, they should go rogue
Then let them show us.
Do not expect people to believe the word of a basic agent and assume that the heads of the FBI, DoJ, and internal corruption agents are compromised.
Extraordinaire claims require extraordinaire evidence.
|
On November 04 2016 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 07:02 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 06:54 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 06:20 xDaunt wrote:
You're the one making the asinine point that the chain of command should always be followed. It's not exactly hard to conjure up a scenario showing how dumb that is. I'm sure that the war criminals at Nuremberg would have loved having you as their judge. lol where did i say coc should always be followed? though in this case the stake is more than chain of command it is a host of issues from political meddling to due process The logical implication is right here: On November 04 2016 05:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:07 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:46 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just set the record straight. We don't know what the FBI has evidence-wise. We don't know whether Hillary or the Clinton Foundation did anything illegal. All we know is that 1) the FBI agents very strongly believe that they have actionable evidence that warrants further investigation, 2) there very clearly is a dispute between the FBI agents on the ground and their political superiors both at the top of the FBI and with elements of the Justice Department with regards to how to proceed, and 3) that the Justice Department is actively obstructing the investigation of the FBI agents. Maybe the Justice Department is correct to interfere with the investigation. But I'm guessing that's probably not the case. you forget to mention all evidence were presented to senior officers and doj officials, and neither thought they merited aggressive investigation.
this decision is not made by the field agent. there is such a thing as the chain of command and following the structure of organization or you dont have a fbi you have a bunch of feuding agents. this is the very definition of going rogue No, see point Number 2. that is the point. field office team made their presentation, got turned down. they have to defer to rank in this kind of policy decision. Don't be so obtuse. You know what my point is. The FBI agents aren't deferring to their superiors because they are convinced that their superiors are deliberately obstructing the investigation for corrupt reasons. 1.you are guessing as to nature and quality of evidence and case 2. it is still going rogue 3. it is an extremely bad judgment of timing on going rogue 1) Correct. 2) Correct. 3) Not necessarily. If the evidence truly is damning, then it's not bad judgment. wtf? there is a big tradition of military and intelligence independence from civilian political meddling and this is not only a threat to the integrity of the fbi but to democracy itself We both agree 1) that it is unclear what the nature of the evidence that the FBI has is and 2) that the FBI agents are going rogue. Where we differ is that you are making categorical statements that the FBI agents should not be going rogue, regardless of how good the evidence actually is, whereas I am saying that if the evidence is good enough, they should go rogue. My point isn't even controversial (which is why I find most of the responses to it from other posters to be utter jokes), so I'm not sure why you're having a hard time swallowing it. The only possibilities are 1) you believe in complete adherence to the chain of command, or 2) you're just utterly in the tank for Hillary and won't even consider anything that possibly reflects poorly on her. I went with the former. Should I have gone with the latter? Show nested quote +whereas I am saying that if the evidence is good enough, they should go rogue Then let them show us. Do not expect people to believe the word of a basic agent and assume that the heads of the FBI, DoJ, and internal corruption agents are compromised. Extraordinaire claims require extraordinaire evidence.
I'd love to see the FBI agents leak the evidence for my own personal gratification, but I understand that they don't want to compromise their investigation. Like I said, they're in a tough spot. That said, I can see a lot of people being fired if the FBI agents are barking up the wrong tree.
|
On November 04 2016 07:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 07:02 biology]major wrote:On November 04 2016 06:59 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 06:55 biology]major wrote:On November 04 2016 06:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 06:48 biology]major wrote:
Yo guys, relax, everyone on attack mode recently. Panicking about the election?
I will say that Trump has a low chance of being a good president, but sometimes you gotta go backwards before you go forward. This is entirely the fault of the establishment failing to produce anyone with integrity. Couldn't even produce a candidate better than Trump. So Hopefully if Trump wrecks the country, the next cycle will have more seasoned candidates who can learn from the mistakes of these two (hint: integrity and honesty) Spoken like someone who isn't left in the gutter when the country walks backwards. That's true, but when I vote, I vote for myself and not for others. Everyone should do the same. Translation: I am willing to fuck over brown people, sick people, gay people and women in this elections since I know there is little chance I will be hurt. As I said before, your understanding of civics is pretty weak. If you think voting is all about you, you missed the point. ? If all brown,sick, gay people, women vote for their own interests according to you Trump will not win. So why would I consider anyone else's perspective when voting? They are capable of representing themselves, and the majority should be represented in aggregate. Yet you agree you are voting to screw them over just because you feel like it. You can't name a way it will benefit you, you simply want to see the goverment implode in the hopes it will turn out better. You have freely admitted you know you are safe and don't mind if they get screwed over. You have the right to choose who you vote for, but that right does not absolve if your reasoning is that you don't really give a shit who gets hurt under a Trump administration. Minorities deserve protection and you seem to feel that it shouldnt' matter to you. Yet you complained when mean SJWs at your school gave you shit for saying you were voting for Trump. You want the protection to think what you want, but then turn around and freely say you don't are if they lose their rights and freedoms. Edit: Seriously, who taught you are democracy and how it works? I need to talk to whoever is running that school.
You are being extremely hyperbolic regarding the negative effects on women, gays and brown people if Trump wins.
|
United States43953 Posts
On November 04 2016 07:14 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 07:07 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 07:02 biology]major wrote:On November 04 2016 06:59 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 06:55 biology]major wrote:On November 04 2016 06:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 06:48 biology]major wrote:
Yo guys, relax, everyone on attack mode recently. Panicking about the election?
I will say that Trump has a low chance of being a good president, but sometimes you gotta go backwards before you go forward. This is entirely the fault of the establishment failing to produce anyone with integrity. Couldn't even produce a candidate better than Trump. So Hopefully if Trump wrecks the country, the next cycle will have more seasoned candidates who can learn from the mistakes of these two (hint: integrity and honesty) Spoken like someone who isn't left in the gutter when the country walks backwards. That's true, but when I vote, I vote for myself and not for others. Everyone should do the same. Translation: I am willing to fuck over brown people, sick people, gay people and women in this elections since I know there is little chance I will be hurt. As I said before, your understanding of civics is pretty weak. If you think voting is all about you, you missed the point. ? If all brown,sick, gay people, women vote for their own interests according to you Trump will not win. So why would I consider anyone else's perspective when voting? They are capable of representing themselves, and the majority should be represented in aggregate. Yet you agree you are voting to screw them over just because you feel like it. You can't name a way it will benefit you, you simply want to see the goverment implode in the hopes it will turn out better. You have freely admitted you know you are safe and don't mind if they get screwed over. You have the right to choose who you vote for, but that right does not absolve if your reasoning is that you don't really give a shit who gets hurt under a Trump administration. Minorities deserve protection and you seem to feel that it shouldnt' matter to you. Yet you complained when mean SJWs at your school gave you shit for saying you were voting for Trump. You want the protection to think what you want, but then turn around and freely say you don't are if they lose their rights and freedoms. Edit: Seriously, who taught you are democracy and how it works? I need to talk to whoever is running that school. You are being extremely hyperbolic regarding the negative effects on women, gays and brown people if Trump wins.
Have you read the Republican platform?
|
On November 04 2016 06:48 biology]major wrote:
I will say that Trump has a low chance of being a good president, but sometimes you gotta go backwards before you go forward....So Hopefully if Trump wrecks the country, the next cycle will have more seasoned candidates...
Some awe inspiring theories Trump supporters dream up to justify their support.
|
On November 04 2016 07:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 07:14 biology]major wrote:On November 04 2016 07:07 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 07:02 biology]major wrote:On November 04 2016 06:59 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 06:55 biology]major wrote:On November 04 2016 06:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 06:48 biology]major wrote:
Yo guys, relax, everyone on attack mode recently. Panicking about the election?
I will say that Trump has a low chance of being a good president, but sometimes you gotta go backwards before you go forward. This is entirely the fault of the establishment failing to produce anyone with integrity. Couldn't even produce a candidate better than Trump. So Hopefully if Trump wrecks the country, the next cycle will have more seasoned candidates who can learn from the mistakes of these two (hint: integrity and honesty) Spoken like someone who isn't left in the gutter when the country walks backwards. That's true, but when I vote, I vote for myself and not for others. Everyone should do the same. Translation: I am willing to fuck over brown people, sick people, gay people and women in this elections since I know there is little chance I will be hurt. As I said before, your understanding of civics is pretty weak. If you think voting is all about you, you missed the point. ? If all brown,sick, gay people, women vote for their own interests according to you Trump will not win. So why would I consider anyone else's perspective when voting? They are capable of representing themselves, and the majority should be represented in aggregate. Yet you agree you are voting to screw them over just because you feel like it. You can't name a way it will benefit you, you simply want to see the goverment implode in the hopes it will turn out better. You have freely admitted you know you are safe and don't mind if they get screwed over. You have the right to choose who you vote for, but that right does not absolve if your reasoning is that you don't really give a shit who gets hurt under a Trump administration. Minorities deserve protection and you seem to feel that it shouldnt' matter to you. Yet you complained when mean SJWs at your school gave you shit for saying you were voting for Trump. You want the protection to think what you want, but then turn around and freely say you don't are if they lose their rights and freedoms. Edit: Seriously, who taught you are democracy and how it works? I need to talk to whoever is running that school. You are being extremely hyperbolic regarding the negative effects on women, gays and brown people if Trump wins. Have you read the Republican platform?
The answer to that is going to be no.
Biomajors default is to be hyped about Trump until someone points out all the shitty things the Republicans and Trump stand for and then leave. Or claim it won't be that bad(since it won't effect him)
|
On November 04 2016 07:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 07:15 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2016 07:14 biology]major wrote:On November 04 2016 07:07 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 07:02 biology]major wrote:On November 04 2016 06:59 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 06:55 biology]major wrote:On November 04 2016 06:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 06:48 biology]major wrote:
Yo guys, relax, everyone on attack mode recently. Panicking about the election?
I will say that Trump has a low chance of being a good president, but sometimes you gotta go backwards before you go forward. This is entirely the fault of the establishment failing to produce anyone with integrity. Couldn't even produce a candidate better than Trump. So Hopefully if Trump wrecks the country, the next cycle will have more seasoned candidates who can learn from the mistakes of these two (hint: integrity and honesty) Spoken like someone who isn't left in the gutter when the country walks backwards. That's true, but when I vote, I vote for myself and not for others. Everyone should do the same. Translation: I am willing to fuck over brown people, sick people, gay people and women in this elections since I know there is little chance I will be hurt. As I said before, your understanding of civics is pretty weak. If you think voting is all about you, you missed the point. ? If all brown,sick, gay people, women vote for their own interests according to you Trump will not win. So why would I consider anyone else's perspective when voting? They are capable of representing themselves, and the majority should be represented in aggregate. Yet you agree you are voting to screw them over just because you feel like it. You can't name a way it will benefit you, you simply want to see the goverment implode in the hopes it will turn out better. You have freely admitted you know you are safe and don't mind if they get screwed over. You have the right to choose who you vote for, but that right does not absolve if your reasoning is that you don't really give a shit who gets hurt under a Trump administration. Minorities deserve protection and you seem to feel that it shouldnt' matter to you. Yet you complained when mean SJWs at your school gave you shit for saying you were voting for Trump. You want the protection to think what you want, but then turn around and freely say you don't are if they lose their rights and freedoms. Edit: Seriously, who taught you are democracy and how it works? I need to talk to whoever is running that school. You are being extremely hyperbolic regarding the negative effects on women, gays and brown people if Trump wins. Have you read the Republican platform? The answer to that is going to be no. Biomajors default is to be hyped about Trump until someone points out all the shitty things the Republicans and Trump stand for and then leave. Or claim it won't be that bad(since it won't effect him)
I'm not going to support their anti-gay stance, but there's more important things to worry about.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if you think these agents are up against deep corruption they'll be able to use whistleblower process and eventually get congress to do the investigation
|
On November 04 2016 07:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 07:02 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 06:54 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 06:20 xDaunt wrote:
You're the one making the asinine point that the chain of command should always be followed. It's not exactly hard to conjure up a scenario showing how dumb that is. I'm sure that the war criminals at Nuremberg would have loved having you as their judge. lol where did i say coc should always be followed? though in this case the stake is more than chain of command it is a host of issues from political meddling to due process The logical implication is right here: On November 04 2016 05:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:23 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 05:07 oneofthem wrote:On November 04 2016 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 04 2016 04:46 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
you forget to mention all evidence were presented to senior officers and doj officials, and neither thought they merited aggressive investigation.
this decision is not made by the field agent. there is such a thing as the chain of command and following the structure of organization or you dont have a fbi you have a bunch of feuding agents.
this is the very definition of going rogue No, see point Number 2. that is the point. field office team made their presentation, got turned down. they have to defer to rank in this kind of policy decision. Don't be so obtuse. You know what my point is. The FBI agents aren't deferring to their superiors because they are convinced that their superiors are deliberately obstructing the investigation for corrupt reasons. 1.you are guessing as to nature and quality of evidence and case 2. it is still going rogue 3. it is an extremely bad judgment of timing on going rogue 1) Correct. 2) Correct. 3) Not necessarily. If the evidence truly is damning, then it's not bad judgment. wtf? there is a big tradition of military and intelligence independence from civilian political meddling and this is not only a threat to the integrity of the fbi but to democracy itself We both agree 1) that it is unclear what the nature of the evidence that the FBI has is and 2) that the FBI agents are going rogue. Where we differ is that you are making categorical statements that the FBI agents should not be going rogue, regardless of how good the evidence actually is, whereas I am saying that if the evidence is good enough, they should go rogue. My point isn't even controversial (which is why I find most of the responses to it from other posters to be utter jokes), so I'm not sure why you're having a hard time swallowing it. The only possibilities are 1) you believe in complete adherence to the chain of command, or 2) you're just utterly in the tank for Hillary and won't even consider anything that possibly reflects poorly on her. I went with the former. Should I have gone with the latter? whereas I am saying that if the evidence is good enough, they should go rogue Then let them show us. Do not expect people to believe the word of a basic agent and assume that the heads of the FBI, DoJ, and internal corruption agents are compromised. Extraordinaire claims require extraordinaire evidence. I'd love to see the FBI agents leak the evidence for my own personal gratification, but I understand that they don't want to compromise their investigation. Like I said, they're in a tough spot. That said, I can see a lot of people being fired if the FBI agents are barking up the wrong tree.
Yeah, the difference is that you are willing to believe that basic agents are influencing the elections for a just cause because the heads of the FBI, DoJ and Internal Corruption are bought.
The rest of the world doesn't believe random people making extraordinary claims on their word.
|
On November 04 2016 07:23 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 07:20 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 07:15 KwarK wrote:On November 04 2016 07:14 biology]major wrote:On November 04 2016 07:07 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 07:02 biology]major wrote:On November 04 2016 06:59 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2016 06:55 biology]major wrote:On November 04 2016 06:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2016 06:48 biology]major wrote:
Yo guys, relax, everyone on attack mode recently. Panicking about the election?
I will say that Trump has a low chance of being a good president, but sometimes you gotta go backwards before you go forward. This is entirely the fault of the establishment failing to produce anyone with integrity. Couldn't even produce a candidate better than Trump. So Hopefully if Trump wrecks the country, the next cycle will have more seasoned candidates who can learn from the mistakes of these two (hint: integrity and honesty) Spoken like someone who isn't left in the gutter when the country walks backwards. That's true, but when I vote, I vote for myself and not for others. Everyone should do the same. Translation: I am willing to fuck over brown people, sick people, gay people and women in this elections since I know there is little chance I will be hurt. As I said before, your understanding of civics is pretty weak. If you think voting is all about you, you missed the point. ? If all brown,sick, gay people, women vote for their own interests according to you Trump will not win. So why would I consider anyone else's perspective when voting? They are capable of representing themselves, and the majority should be represented in aggregate. Yet you agree you are voting to screw them over just because you feel like it. You can't name a way it will benefit you, you simply want to see the goverment implode in the hopes it will turn out better. You have freely admitted you know you are safe and don't mind if they get screwed over. You have the right to choose who you vote for, but that right does not absolve if your reasoning is that you don't really give a shit who gets hurt under a Trump administration. Minorities deserve protection and you seem to feel that it shouldnt' matter to you. Yet you complained when mean SJWs at your school gave you shit for saying you were voting for Trump. You want the protection to think what you want, but then turn around and freely say you don't are if they lose their rights and freedoms. Edit: Seriously, who taught you are democracy and how it works? I need to talk to whoever is running that school. You are being extremely hyperbolic regarding the negative effects on women, gays and brown people if Trump wins. Have you read the Republican platform? The answer to that is going to be no. Biomajors default is to be hyped about Trump until someone points out all the shitty things the Republicans and Trump stand for and then leave. Or claim it won't be that bad(since it won't effect him) I'm not going to support their anti-gay stance, but there's more important things to worry about.
You are literally going to vote for anti gay candidates. Pence believes in government funded conversion therapy and outlawing abortion. Trump he is going to let Pence handle the administration while he makes America great.
If you support gay rights, you don't vote for the guy running with a man who wants to torture gays until they believe they are straight.
|
On November 04 2016 07:23 biology]major wrote:
I'm not going to support their anti-gay stance, but there's more important things to worry about.
This is why conversing with you gets frustrating. You make a claim, get proven wrong, then deflect/rationalize it away by effectively saying "oh but it doesn't really matter".
For as much as Hillary supporters get criticized (rightfully) for doing this in their defense of her wrongdoing, you are guilty of doing it incredibly often yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
