|
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. |
A person with knowledge of recent conversations said they wanted Mr. Comey to “say those three little words: ‘There’s no ties.’”
Honest question, is "there's" one word, or two? Learned in school that it's two, was that wrong?
Nixon was happy to fire people investigating him to try to impede the investigation. Was Nixon too dumb to understand point 3?
No. But his words weren't best enough, that's why he got caught.
|
I will say I really hope we find out what negative outcome Trump believed firing Comey and setting off this firestorm was worth preventing.
Unless it really is true that the White House thought nobody would give a shit about firing the FBI director for reasons you've contradicted in the past and having him find out in front of a speech he was giving at the FBI. Like, that last bit is just so spicy you can't make it up!
I can't fathom them really being that mind-bogglingly inept, but I couldn't fathom a lot of their mistakes when it came to campaign organization and not getting on ballots/registering delegates either.
For that matter, if they didn't see how this would make a firestorm happen, I'm really not sure they understand that firing him won't stop an investigation.
|
"Who knew firing someone in charge of investigating me could be so complicated?"
at the very least they could have waited a few days.
|
On May 10 2017 09:24 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 08:51 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 08:49 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 08:36 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 08:33 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 08:29 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 08:23 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 07:45 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 07:42 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:55 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Again I'm going to play "if I understand you correctly".
You're saying that a law that the author said was intended to "establish white supremacy in this state" (and incidentally was and still is used for exactly that) isn't unconstitutional because although they specified that it was to apply only to black people when talking about it they left that part out when they wrote it down.
And that you want the people of the state that has just established white supremacy as their constitutional foundation to end that themselves in the ballot box which they have just deprived to the African American population? We're only a little bit short of asking the slaves to vote against slavery at this point.
And it wasn't one author, it was the president of the constitutional convention who said that it was to establish white supremacy. Following the end of slavery they feared losing political control so while they enshrined felon disenfranchisement in order to use their control of the legal system to systematically disenfranchise African Americans. It's a historical fact.
How are you not able to condemn this as unconstitutional?
Honestly I set the Alabama example up as an easy situation for you to go "yeah, sure, obviously some things aren't constitutional but campaign speeches are a different case". I wasn't expecting you to go full "white supremacy is a state's rights issue and the white supremacist state should decide for itself whether it needs to allow black people to vote". You've disappointed me. You're opening this up into a whole can of worms that I don't have the time nor inclination to address. You have a lot of debatable points couched in "if I understand you correctly." It would take nothing short of a history exploration on the civil war and reconstruction. We fought a giant war on the issue. I'm not expecting current conflicts in the law and representatives to be resolved in the same way. When I pointed out that the fourteenth amendment expressly says voting rights may be restricted, that's the constitution. You want it unconstitutional, amend the constitution. So restricting voting rights of African Americans as part of a deliberate effort to create a white supremacist state is constitutional and legal until such a time as that white supremacist state decides to stop. Got it. LOL You always did find a way to keep it classy. But why fight a civil war if Kwark's constitutional theory involves neither the people, nor the president, nor the legislature, but judges making up what's constitutional or not constitutional as they go along? I mean you're morally bankrupt and all that, but at least you're consistent in one respect. The constitution is a paper meant to be rewritten or ignored at leisure and governments do not derive their power from the consent of the governed. Morally bankrupt? I'm not the one defending white supremacy here Danglars. It's not an especially difficult issue to condemn and I really didn't think you'd struggle this hard to say that introducing laws for the specific purpose of establishing white supremacy isn't constitutional. Apparently fighting a war on the subject is insufficient grounds to conclude there's more forces at work here than constitutional law? Or were judges the way out of the civil war? And how to do you expect slaveholding states to sign on to a constitution in the first place? I mean Kwark, colonial governor has a certain historical perspective I suppose. Your stance on this is the same as the stance of the Confederate south on slavery. You argued that the access of African Americans to the ballot is purely a state's rights issue and that only the state that has enshrined white supremacy into its state constitution has the power to end it. You were wrong in 1861 and you're wrong now. You lump absurdity upon absurdity. I have never talked about state right's issues. Nor did I hear from you just one constitutional violation contrary to the 14th amendment's permissive attitude towards denying felons the right to vote. You're asserting irrationally white supremacist notions when a whole bloody war was fought on the unresolved conflict no judge could solve or constitution correct. We have the constitutional amendment process for precisely the reasons you brought up. And it's entirely disingenuous to play fast and loose with constitutional theory to declare someone a white supremacist. Did you not say it was the responsibility of the people of the state with the white supremacist constitution to amend it themselves? Funny how that works out. If you care about constitutionality, which it's becoming clear that you don't, you don't inflict your thoughts on the morality of the results with conflicts of the legal nature. Of course prior civil war and reconstruction laws were absolutely horrifying. You bring it up like we didn't lose millions of lives precisely over things a judge couldn't declare unconstitutional and solve everything. So if we're done with this pin the tail on the racist exercise in futility, I suggest you drop it or PM me.
I get the argument for white supremacy, I get the racist disregard for black people's constitutional rights, what I don't get is how you think you get to accuse other people of "not caring about constitutionality" as if you do (when it doesn't suit your perspective), like you're not making an absolutely despicable and morally repugnant argument in the first place.
|
On May 10 2017 13:18 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +A person with knowledge of recent conversations said they wanted Mr. Comey to “say those three little words: ‘There’s no ties.’” Honest question, is "there's" one word, or two? Learned in school that it's two, was that wrong?
"There's" is a contraction of two words into one. So one word I reckon.
|
Politico comes up with pure gold on Comey's firing.
Some excerpts:
President Donald Trump weighed firing his FBI director for more than a week. When he finally pulled the trigger Tuesday afternoon, he didn't call James Comey. He sent his longtime private security guard to deliver the termination letter in a manila folder to FBI headquarters.
He had grown enraged by the Russia investigation, two advisers said, frustrated by his inability to control the mushrooming narrative around Russia. He repeatedly asked aides why the Russia investigation wouldn’t disappear and demanded they speak out for him. He would sometimes scream at television clips about the probe, one adviser said.
Trump had grown angry with the Russia investigation — particularly Comey admitting in front of the Senate that the FBI was investigating his campaign — and that the FBI director wouldn't support his claims that President Barack Obama had tapped his phones in Trump Tower.
Bipartisan criticism of Comey had mounted since last summer after his lengthy statement outlining why he was closing the investigation into Clinton’s private email server.
But the fallout seemed to take the White House by surprise. Trump made a round of calls around 5 p.m., asking for support from senators. White House officials believed it would be a "win-win" because Republicans and Democrats alike have problems with the FBI director, one person briefed on their deliberations said.
Instead, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told him he was making a big mistake — and Trump seemed "taken aback," according to a person familiar with the call.
Two White House officials said there was little communications strategy in handling the firing, and that staffers were given talking points late Tuesday for hastily arranged media appearances. Aides soon circulated previous quotes from Schumer hitting Comey. After Schumer called for a special prosecutor, the White House huddled in press secretary Sean Spicer's office to devise a strategy and sent "fresh faces" to TV, one White House official said.
By Tuesday night, aides were using TV appearances to spin the firing as a simple bureaucratic matter and call for an end to the investigation. "It's time to move on," Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the deputy press secretary, said on Fox News.
|
This current election matter aside, Comey is actually a rather popular figure. Though a lot of people are rightly annoyed with him for his involvement in the election, he probably has more loyal allies than Trump does.
|
Just another example of Trump's extreme pettiness.
|
At that point, I think that there are only two rational explanations:
Either Trump is panicking and is ready to pay the political prize of firing someone investigating him. That smells like Nixon and I don't give him long.
Either he is not but he didn't even realize how suspicious this look and how much of a firestorm was gonna fall on his head. But then he is even more stupid than what he did the last three months could let one forsee.
I actually would tend to go for option two: I thought that Trump was a total monster but savy in his own way, but I start to think americans have elected an utter and total idiot at the white house.
|
Or it could just be both: He didn't understand the situation and thought he could use it to get rid of him
|
So far it seems to me pretty obvious that he's a moron. He thought being President means he's the king of America. He could run things like he runs one of his shitty companies, do whatever he wants whenever he wants for whatever reason he likes. It seems pretty clear to me he's believes as President he has total impunity. How dare these fucking judges stop my orders?! How dare these people investigate me?! How dare these peons laugh in my face?!
|
On May 10 2017 16:41 Toadesstern wrote:
Or it could just be both: He didn't understand the situation and thought he could use it to get rid of him
Who knew it could be so complicated.
I'm amazed, really. Trump thought he could get a win by removing the person investigating his campaign? I get that Comey couldn't stay on for what would have been the remainder of his term because of his floundering over the summer and fall of 2016, but Trump should have let him finish the investigation at least. How is that not clear in Trumps mind? How far removed from the reality of the situation is that man?
|
The letter is a monument of stupidity, he can't help but make an oblique reference to the russian investigation. When you are gonna sell that it has to fo with Clinton, that's one hell of a bad idea.
After reading a bit the papers, I would put my chips on Trump not finishing his mandate. It really doesn't smell good.
|
On May 10 2017 13:08 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2017 10:03 ChristianS wrote:On May 10 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2017 09:42 ChristianS wrote:
Serious question for those ITT who think Trump was justified on this one (so far, xDaunt and Danglars are in this category at least). What possible explanation is there for this happening right now? There's an ongoing investigation into matters that implicate Trump's campaign, and Comey is set to testify to Congress about the investigation tomorrow. All of the rationales for his firing offered by the administration are events from last year.
I figured the juicier allegations about Trump were probably false just because reality isn't usually that excitingk but I'm seriously wondering now, why would he do this if there wasn't something to hide? There are any number of reasons why Trump would get rid of Comey now, some of which are set forth in the letters attached to Trump's termination letter. I'm not going to pretend to know why Trump did it. However, I find it highly amusing that so many are jumping to the conclusion that Comey's termination is the product of some nefarious motive of Trump's to halt whatever investigation is going on into Trump's campaign or other affairs of his. If anything, I find this particular conclusion to be one of the hardest to believe. Trump simply isn't that stupid. Wait wait wait I need to walk through this one. You're starting from the assumption that Trump is smart. Because he's smart, he obviously knows that firing the FBI director in the middle of an ongoing investigation that implicates Trump is going to make everyone think he's guilty. If he was guilty, he would obviously never do that. So therefore Trump firing the FBI director in the middle of an ongoing investigation that implicates Trump clearly proves that he's not guilty. Did I miss any steps in that logic, or is that pretty much it? No, you pretty much have it backwards. There's a critical difference between presuming that someone is above a certain threshold of stupidity and then presuming that someone is smart. The logic is basically this: 1) Trump fired Comey either for a) legitimate reasons, or b) to cover up the investigation (an illegitimate reason). 2) Trump would only have reason to fire Comey to cover up the investigation if there was something to that investigation. 3) However, if there is something to the investigation, then firing Comey won't stop the investigation. 4) Only someone who is really stupid wouldn't understand Point 3 and would try to fire Comey to stop the investigation. 5) I find it highly unlikely that Trump is stupid enough to not understand Point 3. 6) For this reason, I think that it is more likely that than not that Trump fired Comey for legitimate reasons. Just wanted to make sure we weren't going full "this looks super incriminating, which is why he's OBVIOUSLY not guilty." Okay, so followup question. Nixon was happy to fire people investigating him to try to impede the investigation. Was Nixon too dumb to understand point 3?
I would not be so sure. Trump is not a politician, he is a businessman, who has conned, lied and bullied to get his ways his whole life. It is the way he knows, and what has made him what he is. Firing a person who could cause him trouble is an obvious thing to do for a man like him. Maybe he can even select a puppet in his place to get more control over those pesky investigators?
Shame on the Americans who voted for him. I hope you some day realize how much you have harmed your country.
|
On May 10 2017 17:27 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 13:08 ChristianS wrote:On May 10 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2017 10:03 ChristianS wrote:On May 10 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2017 09:42 ChristianS wrote:
Serious question for those ITT who think Trump was justified on this one (so far, xDaunt and Danglars are in this category at least). What possible explanation is there for this happening right now? There's an ongoing investigation into matters that implicate Trump's campaign, and Comey is set to testify to Congress about the investigation tomorrow. All of the rationales for his firing offered by the administration are events from last year.
I figured the juicier allegations about Trump were probably false just because reality isn't usually that excitingk but I'm seriously wondering now, why would he do this if there wasn't something to hide? There are any number of reasons why Trump would get rid of Comey now, some of which are set forth in the letters attached to Trump's termination letter. I'm not going to pretend to know why Trump did it. However, I find it highly amusing that so many are jumping to the conclusion that Comey's termination is the product of some nefarious motive of Trump's to halt whatever investigation is going on into Trump's campaign or other affairs of his. If anything, I find this particular conclusion to be one of the hardest to believe. Trump simply isn't that stupid. Wait wait wait I need to walk through this one. You're starting from the assumption that Trump is smart. Because he's smart, he obviously knows that firing the FBI director in the middle of an ongoing investigation that implicates Trump is going to make everyone think he's guilty. If he was guilty, he would obviously never do that. So therefore Trump firing the FBI director in the middle of an ongoing investigation that implicates Trump clearly proves that he's not guilty. Did I miss any steps in that logic, or is that pretty much it? No, you pretty much have it backwards. There's a critical difference between presuming that someone is above a certain threshold of stupidity and then presuming that someone is smart. The logic is basically this: 1) Trump fired Comey either for a) legitimate reasons, or b) to cover up the investigation (an illegitimate reason). 2) Trump would only have reason to fire Comey to cover up the investigation if there was something to that investigation. 3) However, if there is something to the investigation, then firing Comey won't stop the investigation. 4) Only someone who is really stupid wouldn't understand Point 3 and would try to fire Comey to stop the investigation. 5) I find it highly unlikely that Trump is stupid enough to not understand Point 3. 6) For this reason, I think that it is more likely that than not that Trump fired Comey for legitimate reasons. Just wanted to make sure we weren't going full "this looks super incriminating, which is why he's OBVIOUSLY not guilty." Okay, so followup question. Nixon was happy to fire people investigating him to try to impede the investigation. Was Nixon too dumb to understand point 3? Shame on the Americans who voted for him. I hope you some day realize how much you have harmed your country.
Don't let yourself forget the context under which Trump was elected. In a vacuum he is a completely and utterly terrible choice, that much is true. But in a vacuum the same thing could be said for all of his Republican opposition and his Democratic opponent. People were forced to make a choice that ended quite badly amongst a slew of choices, all of which would have ended badly.
Quite simply, if not Trump then who would it be? Probably Hillary Clinton, who I'm sure you all would be ok with but whom most of the country very strongly dislikes. Voting Clinton was the least pleasant vote I cast in a long, long time. With such strong disdain even a dangerous fool seems like the "lesser evil" to too many people.
|
On May 10 2017 17:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 17:27 Slydie wrote:On May 10 2017 13:08 ChristianS wrote:On May 10 2017 10:17 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2017 10:03 ChristianS wrote:On May 10 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2017 09:42 ChristianS wrote:
Serious question for those ITT who think Trump was justified on this one (so far, xDaunt and Danglars are in this category at least). What possible explanation is there for this happening right now? There's an ongoing investigation into matters that implicate Trump's campaign, and Comey is set to testify to Congress about the investigation tomorrow. All of the rationales for his firing offered by the administration are events from last year.
I figured the juicier allegations about Trump were probably false just because reality isn't usually that excitingk but I'm seriously wondering now, why would he do this if there wasn't something to hide? There are any number of reasons why Trump would get rid of Comey now, some of which are set forth in the letters attached to Trump's termination letter. I'm not going to pretend to know why Trump did it. However, I find it highly amusing that so many are jumping to the conclusion that Comey's termination is the product of some nefarious motive of Trump's to halt whatever investigation is going on into Trump's campaign or other affairs of his. If anything, I find this particular conclusion to be one of the hardest to believe. Trump simply isn't that stupid. Wait wait wait I need to walk through this one. You're starting from the assumption that Trump is smart. Because he's smart, he obviously knows that firing the FBI director in the middle of an ongoing investigation that implicates Trump is going to make everyone think he's guilty. If he was guilty, he would obviously never do that. So therefore Trump firing the FBI director in the middle of an ongoing investigation that implicates Trump clearly proves that he's not guilty. Did I miss any steps in that logic, or is that pretty much it? No, you pretty much have it backwards. There's a critical difference between presuming that someone is above a certain threshold of stupidity and then presuming that someone is smart. The logic is basically this: 1) Trump fired Comey either for a) legitimate reasons, or b) to cover up the investigation (an illegitimate reason). 2) Trump would only have reason to fire Comey to cover up the investigation if there was something to that investigation. 3) However, if there is something to the investigation, then firing Comey won't stop the investigation. 4) Only someone who is really stupid wouldn't understand Point 3 and would try to fire Comey to stop the investigation. 5) I find it highly unlikely that Trump is stupid enough to not understand Point 3. 6) For this reason, I think that it is more likely that than not that Trump fired Comey for legitimate reasons. Just wanted to make sure we weren't going full "this looks super incriminating, which is why he's OBVIOUSLY not guilty." Okay, so followup question. Nixon was happy to fire people investigating him to try to impede the investigation. Was Nixon too dumb to understand point 3? Shame on the Americans who voted for him. I hope you some day realize how much you have harmed your country. Don't let yourself forget the context under which Trump was elected. In a vacuum he is a completely and utterly terrible choice, that much is true. But in a vacuum the same thing could be said for all of his Republican opposition and his Democratic opponent. People were forced to make a choice that ended quite badly amongst a slew of choices, all of which would have ended badly. Quite simply, if not Trump then who would it be? Probably Hillary Clinton, who I'm sure you all would be ok with but whom most of the country very strongly dislikes. Voting Clinton was the least pleasant vote I cast in a long, long time. With such strong disdain even a dangerous fool seems like the "lesser evil" to too many people.
A shitload of people voted Trump enthusiastically, said and repeated he was great and went to his meetings to chant "lock her up". And there are still many of them supporting him.
I'm sick of blame deflection to anyone but the folks who voted for the guy. If I follow this thread, it's not Danglar, xDaunt and Biologymajor who are to blame for this shitshow, but the DNC or the liberal elites. What about blaming the guys who voted for that grotesque narcissistic batman villain?
|
They're victims, Biff. Growing up with poor basic education, manipulated by propaganda and subsequently tricked by a conman.
|
On May 10 2017 18:00 a_flayer wrote:
They're victims, Biff. Growing up with poor basic education, manipulated by propaganda and subsequently tricked by a conman.
Well, that's true for many, certainly; but we have a few example on this very thread of articulated, educated and not particularly poor people who just thought he was great and agreed with the man and his method.
I'm all for some liberal introspection about how the left botched this election, but I'd like to get things straight: Trump won because people liked and agreed with him. Which is a big fucking problem.
|
On May 10 2017 08:20 Nevuk wrote:
I'm enjoying the new trend of chanting shame at GOP congress critters when they have to go into the public.
Yeah. It's fun until he fills the cellars with wildfire and blows up all of DC. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
