|
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 May 11 2017 05:07 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 05:06 zlefin wrote:On May 11 2017 05:00 biology]major wrote:On May 11 2017 04:49 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 04:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 04:13 biology]major wrote:
ashamed for voting for this dude, not that it even matters but shoulda just stayed at home on election day. Same. I should've written in Mattis. Not sure you can really pretend that you didn't see this coming before you voted. It's not like he hid who he was. He ran on being exactly the kind of person you're now saying you're ashamed to have voted for. He's doing exactly what he promised he would. To me this reeks of ![[image loading]](https://pics.onsizzle.com/adrian-bott-cavalorn-never-thought-leopards-would-eat-my-face-8342078.png) My honest expectation was a presidential pivot. Even a small correction. Instead he tweets out obama wiretap claims and fires comey... why would you have expected a presidential pivot? I thought it might happen for awhile, but by the main debates it was pretty clear that he wasn't going to be doing pivots. If someone is going to pivot, they'd start doing it after winning the primary, that they don't is a good indication. also numerous indications that he was who he was and that it wasn't going to change, for good or ill. and pretty clear he doens't play politics by the same system, so expecting a typical politican thing of him like a pivot shouldn't be done. Stepping in the oval office, looking at the history and portraits of previous presidents, being responsible for the lives of others in combat. Talking to the family members of fallen soldiers. All of these should humble a person to the ground.
I'd be willing to bet the feeling he has is more akin to "I've finally got the position I've deserved all along, why can't everyone else see how much I obviously deserve this?"
I don't think he's ever going to be anything remotely resembling humble, sadly.
EDIT: For what its worth from primarily a lurker, while Kwark may not be willing to give out credit for people hopping off the Trump Train, I admire and respect your attitude with regards to what you expected from Trump and his lack of delivery being a problem.
|
I knew he was never going to change once it became obvious that he was watching every single press briefing and sending notes to Spicer mid briefing.
|
I knew once I read what Tony Schwartz was saying.
|
On May 11 2017 04:36 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2017 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 12 2017 03:09 Sermokala wrote:On January 12 2017 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:On January 12 2017 01:44 Sermokala wrote:On January 12 2017 01:30 Doodsmack wrote:
CNN reported true information, beyond that it's just the reaction of the audience. Individual responsibility right? You say that CNN reported true information and then you say that the reaction of the audience is their responsibility? Do you understand how this is contradictory? If we were sure that what CNN reported was true then we should act on it. The problem is that we don't know for sure what part of what CNN reported is true and what isn't because they don't have a verifiable source for it. They're simply reporting on hearsay and rumors regardless of how credible those rumors are they're simply not something an organization that trades in public trust should be dealing with. The true information that CNN reported on is that Trump was briefed on the memos. CNN said the memos are not corroborated. The true information that CNN reported on was that trump was briefed ON MEMOS. CNN can't verify what the memos are nor what they contained. This means that what Trump was briefed on is rumor and hearsay. On January 12 2017 01:51 Acrofales wrote:On January 12 2017 01:44 Sermokala wrote:On January 12 2017 01:30 Doodsmack wrote:
CNN reported true information, beyond that it's just the reaction of the audience. Individual responsibility right? You say that CNN reported true information and then you say that the reaction of the audience is their responsibility? Do you understand how this is contradictory? If we were sure that what CNN reported was true then we should act on it. The problem is that we don't know for sure what part of what CNN reported is true and what isn't because they don't have a verifiable source for it. They're simply reporting on hearsay and rumors regardless of how credible those rumors are they're simply not something an organization that trades in public trust should be dealing with. What do you mean? CNN reported there was an intelligence briefing about unverified information regarding Russia having leverage over Trump. There is nothing to act on except to attempt to verify that latter information. The briefing itself is newsworthy. Just as Comey's letter to Congress was newsworthy 2 weeks before the election. Comey's letter is in a different world considering it was in response to an already made public investigation. The briefing and the memos in question are not public and have nothing behind the allegation of what they contain(ed). They could have been in truth about anything else and nothing would change about what CNN reported on thats the problem. Comey makes an announcement that next week he has dirt on Hillary. Next week comes by and he shows us emails related to Weiner. Once again, the information was fairly meaningless because there was no dirt on Hillary. Comey knew that. But he presented it as evidence against Hillary before even telling us what it was, and even though the investigation was over since July, he decided to wait until November to announce. The anger was from how he attempted to create a feeling of there being evidence against Hillary to rile up anti-hillary sentiments. Not the actual emails he shared because, once again, there were no emails showing any wrongdoing. I didn't like that Comey published that letter in the week before the election without backing it up with serious evidence. However, I understand why Comey did it as a purely CYA move for himself. He was damned if he released the letter and damned if he didn't. His circumstances were very different from those faced by a news organization such as CNN deciding whether to publish what is, on its face, a gossip column. Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 12:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 03 2016 12:07 Doodsmack wrote:
Saying that the private server was for the purpose of concealing a giant State/CF corruption scandal is one giant assumption. Scandal exhaustion is a function of the profit driven media that is making scandals out of innocuous emails. The only real potential instances of corruption that I'm aware of are Morocco/Mosaic, Uranium One, donors getting State jobs, and the DNC. To say we have a daily cascade of scandals or a disqualifying cybersecurity transgression is a bit biased. Much of this information is coming from "FBI sources" (whatever that means), so I wouldn't count it out as being speculative or a "giant assumption." Fox is also reporting that FBI sources are telling them that an indictment is likely. I'm thinking that it's more and more likely that Comey was forced to write that letter to Congress to save his own ass. Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 14:21 Danglars wrote:Deep divisions inside the FBI and the Justice Department over how to handle investigations dealing with Hillary Clinton will probably fester even after Tuesday’s presidential election and pose a significant test for James B. Comey’s leadership of the nation’s chief law enforcement agency.
The internal dissension has exploded into public view recently with leaks to reporters about a feud over the Clinton Foundation, an extraordinary airing of the agency’s infighting that comes as the bureau deals with an ongoing threat of terror at home and a newly aggressive posture from Russia.
Comey, meanwhile, has come under direct fire for his decision to tell Congress that agents were resuming their investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server — a revelation that put him at odds with his Justice Department bosses and influenced the presidential campaign.
“He’s got to get control of the ship again,” said Robert Anderson, a former senior official in the FBI who considers Comey a friend. “There’s a lot of tension in the organization, and there’s a lot of tension in Congress and the Senate right now, and all that counts toward how much people trust the FBI.” [...]
Not long after Comey’s new letter to Congress was made public last week, multiple media outlets reported that he had sent the missive against the advice of top Justice Department officials, who felt that commenting publicly on the inquiry would violate a long-standing policy not to take overt steps in investigations that could have an impact so close to an election. Before the weekend was over, the Wall Street Journal revealed there was a different, ongoing feud between FBI agents in New York and career public integrity prosecutors at the Justice Department over whether there was cause to investigate the Clinton Foundation. [...]
“I don’t know what your parents taught you, but mine always taught me you can’t care what people think about you. I do,” he said at a recent conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the Justice’s Department’s National Security Division. “I do because the institution I’m lucky enough to lead depends upon the American people believing that we are honest, competent and independent.” WaPoComey might just survive this as a conflicted but stalwart defender of the institution.
It turns out the CYA attitude did not enable him to survive. I thought Hillary would win and he could show everyone he didn't a) lie to Congress about the investigation being over and b) absolutely shill for Hillary for recommending no charges be brought, when he isn't prosecutor and Lynch didn't recuse and appoint another. Aka win back the trust of Congress, and keep a low profile enough to keep Hillary from firing him (shrewd political calculus might mean a purely political appointment here by Hillary isn't as much political capital as keeping the guy that cleared her and keeping with tradition).
I really do appreciate the reminder of how close Clinton got to the presidency.
|
On May 11 2017 04:51 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 04:23 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 04:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
If he's that low, then that should raise awareness in congress to start the process of getting a real investigation going no? If they grow spines... The Senate Intelligence Committee and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence apparently aren't conducting real investigations in Congress. I wonder how many more are needed until you're happy. Surely we should be surpassing Benghazi, an issue about which some people in the administration lied as to what they knew and said.
In what way surpassing?
Noted that at least someone can recognize that senior Obama administration figures lied after four Americans died. The Republicans did their best with endless digressions and political attacks to make people forget the core issue.
|
Really, what would the reaction of republicans be if HRC won, and terminated comey while we knew she was under investigation for her email server? I don't care if she fired him day 1 or now, that would have caused an uproar so large, it would actually be a constitutional crisis.
|
Wow, that got a lot of replies.
@all: When another election comes around, I will definitely take into account what I've learned from this one.
@Kwark
I have repeatedly said that you are a smart person but a terrible persuader and this is just more evidence of it.
@zlefin
I honestly heard almost nothing about Russia and Trump prior to the election. There was Michael Flynn, who I knew was highly suspect to say the least, but that was just one man, or so it appeared at the time. I thought once Trump assumed office, Flynn would be gone because of the vetting requirements. The appointment of him as NSA was when I lost all faith in Trump's administration. But that was all in the future at that time.
I heard a lot about the Access Hollywood tape and the Comey letter debacle. The overriding narrative about Trump before the election was that he was a racist/sexist/misogynist/ableist/transphobic/homophobic bigoted evil person but it didn't matter because Clinton was inevitably going to win.
Examination of Trump's Russian ties simply wasn't a very big deal back then, as hard as that may be to remember now.
@plansix
Agreed, but it wasn’t like the warnings were not there. Many of the core criticisms of Trump have played out. Complete disregard for the rule of law, systems and offices that exist in government. A dislike for hard work. Completely uneducated on how international relations work and why we provide weapons to our allies. And most importantly, a complete distrust of professionals in a field that don’t tell him exactly what he wants to here.
These are all very good points. The next election, I will be voting with this experience in mind.
@opisska
That's a rather hypocritical excuse, don't you think? What "platform they run on" can't be the only way to evaluate your candidates, unless you magically teleport into a world when everyone is honest and perfect.
Trump wasn't even secretive about how big of an idiot he is during the campaign, as evidence by the fact that he was willing to open his mouth in public. You can't ask to not be held accountable for not expecting him to actually act idiotically.
Platforms are the primary part of evaluating any candidate. I always thought Trump was ethically challenged (Trump University, stiffing contractors) and not very bright (as you said, every time he spoke). On the other hand, I agreed with him on the main issues (tax reform, wall, immigration reform, trade deals). My alternative was someone who I considered intelligent but just as crooked and whose platform I disagreed with in the extreme.
|
|
|
On May 11 2017 05:27 biology]major wrote:
Really, what would the reaction of republicans be if HRC won, and terminated comey while we knew she was under investigation for her email server? I don't care if she fired him day 1 or now, that would have caused an uproar so large, it would actually be a constitutional crisis.
They'd be up in arms, needless to say. Trump fired the head of the FBI with bogus, pretext reasoning while the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation of Trump's campaign. His White House is leaking like a sieve that the real reasons have to do with the investigation.
|
On May 11 2017 05:27 biology]major wrote:
Really, what would the reaction of republicans be if HRC won, and terminated comey while we knew she was under investigation for her email server? I don't care if she fired him day 1 or now, that would have caused an uproar so large, it would actually be a constitutional crisis.
Right, which is why we should hold the Republican party to the same standard now. You cannot fire the FBI director when he is investigating you.
|
On May 11 2017 05:31 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 05:27 biology]major wrote:
Really, what would the reaction of republicans be if HRC won, and terminated comey while we knew she was under investigation for her email server? I don't care if she fired him day 1 or now, that would have caused an uproar so large, it would actually be a constitutional crisis. They'd be up in arms, needless to say. Trump fired the head of the FBI with bogus, pretext reasoning while the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation of Trump's campaign. His White House is leaking like a sieve that the real reasons have to do with the investigation.
It's a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal one.
|
On May 11 2017 05:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 05:27 biology]major wrote:
Really, what would the reaction of republicans be if HRC won, and terminated comey while we knew she was under investigation for her email server? I don't care if she fired him day 1 or now, that would have caused an uproar so large, it would actually be a constitutional crisis. Right, which is why we should hold the Republican party to the same standard now. You cannot fire the FBI director when he is investigating you.
They are being soft, and bending over backwards. Why are they so afraid of Trump? His approval ratings aren't that high, and they can control the narrative if they wanted to, but they have to do it together.
|
I feel like there's more shame for the system that enabled Donald Trump than there is for the people that fell for his message. I'm not talking strictly electoral college here, more the way CNN gave him billions in free, uncut airings of his rallies, that it's perfectly legal for politicians to flat out lie to the public while campaigning, and everything that enabled his propaganda tactics.
Also can't forget the DNC's role - both in promoting Trump and, as they've recently admitted, labeling non-democratic events democratic.
|
United States44296 Posts
On May 11 2017 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Wow, that got a lot of replies. @all: When another election comes around, I will definitely take into account what I've learned from this one. @Kwark I have repeatedly said that you are a smart person but a terrible persuader and this is just more evidence of it. @zlefin I honestly heard almost nothing about Russia and Trump prior to the election. There was Michael Flynn, who I knew was highly suspect to say the least, but that was just one man, or so it appeared at the time. I thought once Trump assumed office, Flynn would be gone because of the vetting requirements. The appointment of him as NSA was when I lost all faith in Trump's administration. But that was all in the future at that time. I heard a lot about the Access Hollywood tape and the Comey letter debacle. The overriding narrative about Trump before the election was that he was a racist/sexist/misogynist/ableist/transphobic/homophobic bigoted evil person but it didn't matter because Clinton was inevitably going to win. Examination of Trump's Russian ties simply wasn't a very big deal back then, as hard as that may be to remember now. @plansix Agreed, but it wasn’t like the warnings were not there. Many of the core criticisms of Trump have played out. Complete disregard for the rule of law, systems and offices that exist in government. A dislike for hard work. Completely uneducated on how international relations work and why we provide weapons to our allies. And most importantly, a complete distrust of professionals in a field that don’t tell him exactly what he wants to here. These are all very good points. The next election, I will be voting with this experience in mind. @opisska That's a rather hypocritical excuse, don't you think? What "platform they run on" can't be the only way to evaluate your candidates, unless you magically teleport into a world when everyone is honest and perfect.
Trump wasn't even secretive about how big of an idiot he is during the campaign, as evidence by the fact that he was willing to open his mouth in public. You can't ask to not be held accountable for not expecting him to actually act idiotically. Platforms are the primary part of evaluating any candidate. I always thought Trump was ethically challenged (Trump University, stiffing contractors) and not very bright (as you said, every time he spoke). On the other hand, I agreed with him on the main issues (tax reform, wall, immigration reform, trade deals). My alternative was someone who I considered intelligent but just as crooked and whose platform I disagreed with in the extreme.
I'm not trying to persuade people to admit they're wrong. They're wrong whether they want to admit it or not and if someone knows they're wrong but wants to keep arguing anyway to save face, well, that's on them. I won't lose any sleep over it.
The voters spent a year being flooded with information and analysis about Trump. They saw his history of political corruption, his temperament, his inability to ignore any perceived sleight, his rash and immediate responses, the endless series of failed or fraudulent businesses and so forth. If you voted for him knowing all that and now show up with buyer's remorse then you're basically outing yourself as the slow horse that gets to the end of the race months too late. I'm glad you made it there, but you already fucked shit up for everyone else because for some reason you couldn't see what was right in front of your face.
You still got there before xDaunt who appears to be morally deficient when it comes to Trump and Danglars, who is only interested in finishing the race GH is a member of, but that's not much of an accolade.
Congrats for joining the rest of us on "this man should very obviously not be President" island. Glad you made it. Would have been great if you'd made it here back when it mattered because it wasn't exactly hard to find us. The point remains that Trump voters should have known better. It's good that some of them now do know better, but it doesn't change that they absolutely should have known better.
|
On May 11 2017 05:35 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 05:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 05:27 biology]major wrote:
Really, what would the reaction of republicans be if HRC won, and terminated comey while we knew she was under investigation for her email server? I don't care if she fired him day 1 or now, that would have caused an uproar so large, it would actually be a constitutional crisis. Right, which is why we should hold the Republican party to the same standard now. You cannot fire the FBI director when he is investigating you. They are being soft, and bending over backwards. Why are they so afraid of Trump? His approval ratings aren't that high, and they can control the narrative if they wanted to, but they have to do it together.
Because last year there mutterings that Paul Ryan's Mitch McConnell were in on using Russian influence towards GOP campaigns... Anyways:
|
On May 11 2017 05:27 biology]major wrote:
Really, what would the reaction of republicans be if HRC won, and terminated comey while we knew she was under investigation for her email server? I don't care if she fired him day 1 or now, that would have caused an uproar so large, it would actually be a constitutional crisis.
Uhh that investigation concluded before the election.
When I said I'd concluded, I actually am reopening it - Comey, October 28th
The new trove of emails didn't turn up anything new, guys - Comey, November 6th
Election, November 8th
|
On May 11 2017 05:34 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 05:31 Doodsmack wrote:On May 11 2017 05:27 biology]major wrote:
Really, what would the reaction of republicans be if HRC won, and terminated comey while we knew she was under investigation for her email server? I don't care if she fired him day 1 or now, that would have caused an uproar so large, it would actually be a constitutional crisis. They'd be up in arms, needless to say. Trump fired the head of the FBI with bogus, pretext reasoning while the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation of Trump's campaign. His White House is leaking like a sieve that the real reasons have to do with the investigation. It's a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal one.
Most of the reporters and other DC vets I have heard agree that Clinton would not have been able to fire Comey. Many of the issue that dogged Clinton are now issues for Trump. The difference is that Clinton would have understood the fallout that would result from firing Comey.
|
On May 11 2017 05:35 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 05:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 05:27 biology]major wrote:
Really, what would the reaction of republicans be if HRC won, and terminated comey while we knew she was under investigation for her email server? I don't care if she fired him day 1 or now, that would have caused an uproar so large, it would actually be a constitutional crisis. Right, which is why we should hold the Republican party to the same standard now. You cannot fire the FBI director when he is investigating you. They are being soft, and bending over backwards. Why are they so afraid of Trump? His approval ratings aren't that high, and they can control the narrative if they wanted to, but they have to do it together.
Because the core of unshakable Trump voters they piss off are the people they stacked the future of the party on. Without them they will not win any election.
If Trump is going down he takes the party with him, thats why they worked hard to stop him from getting the nomination in the first place.
|
On May 11 2017 05:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 05:27 biology]major wrote:
Really, what would the reaction of republicans be if HRC won, and terminated comey while we knew she was under investigation for her email server? I don't care if she fired him day 1 or now, that would have caused an uproar so large, it would actually be a constitutional crisis. Uhh that investigation concluded before the election. When I said I'd concluded, I actually am reopening it - Comey, October 28th The new trove of emails didn't turn up anything new, guys - Comey, November 6th Election, November 8th
it was a hypothetical, imagine if it didn't conclude. What would your reaction be? Similar to how you feel now? You can examine just how partisan you are by answering this question.
|
https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/862396706243137538
As far as my cursory research tells me, DeVos's family hasn't had to work for its money, her being married to the heir of a metric shitload of money, having raised children who never wanted for a penny, and ultimately bought her way into her current position, despite being woefully unqualified. All while simultaneously being against public education, throwing a lot of money at various people to do away with public schools.
Is that about the size of it? Please tell me I'm missing something important, and that the lady I just described is somehow not in charge of bringing up America's next generation. I'm happy to be told to do more research, especially if this is the shit I found.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
