|
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 June 16 2017 12:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 12:08 Nevuk wrote:On June 16 2017 12:01 Plansix wrote:
Trump demanding someone say he isn't under investigation. Since the mentioned tweet isn't embedded: Why is it an odd statement when it is merely reiterating longstanding policy in the face of repeated breaches of that policy? Hell, Comey already crapped on the accuracy of these anonymous leaks during his testimony last week.
Well, crapped on the accuracy of one story and confirmed countless others. Like the ones that said he took memos.
I think these leaks are more likely coming from within the White House than anywhere else, though. They only seemed to pop up in connection with people being questioned rather than getting ready to be questioned and everyone in there hates one another
|
On June 16 2017 09:51 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 08:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 16 2017 01:58 IgnE wrote:On June 16 2017 00:10 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 19:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 15 2017 12:11 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 09:26 biology]major wrote:On June 15 2017 09:17 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 08:54 biology]major wrote:
That's the thing, we have an idiot president who is going out of his way to out do his own idiocy at every turn and a bureaucracy that is invested in bringing him down. They are both happening simultaneously, and this time, I don't give a damn if the deepstate or the boogeyman takes trump down. We get pence, a much more polished politician, and we already have Gorsuch. Tax reform, healthcare are dependent on congress anyways so Trump is a net negative to the USA as of right now. So you would count as allies a bureaucracy gunning to depose its boss because you favor the outcome of Trump leaving office? I'm a bit horrified at that application of the ends justify the means. We also get an emboldened 4th branch that provably can claim a scalp that elected officials cannot ... which is a far greater threat to the Republic and democracy than you realize. Trump could have played his hand as 45 a million times better, won over both democrats and republicans, and made real change. He has all branches of government on his side. Instead he squanders an opportunity, disgraces the office with his constant lies and hypocrisy, and has not a single shred of decency. Why would I feel sorry for this buffoon? He was given a chance of a lifetime, and has so far been a crooked mess. Sad! I wouldn't even mind if he was just bad at his job, it's his blatant immorality that irks me. Sure he might not have done anything illegal, but crooked trump and crooked hillary are both cut from same cloth. One has the temperament of a child and the other a grown woman. I'm with DEB & xDaunt on that one. He couldn't have had the bureaucracy on his side; he was elected to shake it up and his entire brash character was aimed at upsetting the established order of the agencies. It should also be clear that his campaign promise of a temporary travel ban did not put the courts on his side; who have so much unrestrained activism that they think foreign policy is under judicial purview (but we've probably covered that one enough in this thread already). He took TONS of shots at establishment Republicans before joining hands on this and that, so you could also make the argument that the legislature was against him from the start, though it's so fractionally divided anyways that it's of weaker significance. No, no, and no, impossible! And don't flee to "feel sorry," I neither implied it nor ask it. I say instead you are foolish to join a dangerous party to unseat Trump. Do you have anything to say about the main point of the post you quoted? You know, reading you, sometimes I wonder : what will it take for you to admit that Trump is a disgraceful, dishonest incompetent fool that ridicules his function and that this administration is a giant shitshow? To paraphrase Cooper, at that point it looks like Trump could go to your place and take a dump on your desk, you would defend him. I voted for a guy in France in 2012 who ended up being a pathetically weak, spineless president. Well I fucked it up. He was from my party, but he and his government were shit, and I won't vote for the PS until his goons have been cleared up because they clearly can't run a country. Is it too much cognitive dissonance for you to endure to admit your guy is a fucking disaster? Maybe you missed when I've routinely criticized Trump on issues where we disagree. It still doesn't excuse acting like court jesters inventing laws and peddling conspiracy theories when he can be legitimately criticized on any number of fronts from AHCA to twitter to inappropriate conversation to foreign policy to going overboard on fake news. The search function is open to you want to correct your understanding of my posting history. you know dangles i am kind of surprised you and dauntless are so in the hole on this one. if i may, remember the discussion around the ferguson shooting with michael brown? and how dauntless said things like "maybe cops shouldnt be shooting people in various situations, but michael brown is not the hill you outraged people want to die on?" isn't this an analogous case? maybe theres some argument both ways about foreign policy and leaks and executive privilege and the ability to appoint agency executives. but Trump is still a fucking crook with no integrity who has been stealing and fucking people over his whole life. he's the opposite of all the small town american values you always go on about. when do you just wash your hands and say, "the democrats are acting hysterical but trump is still garbage" i just don't see the point in wasting so much energy to defend him What hill am I dying on? I've never argued that Trump is some paragon of virtue, and I've been quite candid about his numerous shortcomings. Of all posters, you are one of the best positioned to understand my overall argument that it's counterproductive to attack Trump over all of the superfluous bullshit (like this Russia crap and obstruction of justice crap) when there's ample, legitimate avenues of attack. This is particularly true when allegations of criminal and impeachable conduct are being so frivolously thrown around. id have to go back and collect posts to be thorough on this, and i say all this in full understanding that you generally make reasonable points (dangles only sometimes does). it just seems like the general timbre of your posting indicates unseemly support. like why is dangles talking about how mueller is connected to comey as if we didnt know that the former fbi directors might know each other? the problem isn't just the paranoia. its the selectiveness of the paranoia. lets be as reciprocally paranoid and crazy as all these democrats talking about russia. we will be paranoid about everyone except those with an R by their name.
We are in an environment in which any support for Trump is being perceived as "unseemly support." The problem is that the "Trump is Putin's cock holster" crowd is running amok and unchecked like a bunch of social media jacobins. Are we really going to pretend that there is literally nothing positive that can be said about Trump or in his favor? This situation should be facially ridiculous to any reasonable person.
I'll let Danglars speak for himself, but I don't know how your comments about selective paranoia apply to me. Hell, my harshest criticisms have been reserved for republicans over the past year. As for Mueller specifically, I'll reserve judgment for him like I did with Comey last year. However, only the willfully ignorant would miss the significance of whom he is appointing to his team (they're all major democrat donors). I have enough respect for the law that I'm not going to presume that the process is corrupt, but let's not pretend that the warning signs aren't there.
whether or not the russia thing goes anywhere i think trump is almost certainly a criminal who might end up getting impeached for money laundering or scandalous self-serving deals in china. if you think its "counterproductive" to attack trump over all the obstruction stuff then maybe rather than defending him and sending people off into the weeds you should say, "yeah but this other thing about him actually matters." at some point delving into statutory interpretations and "i hope" utterances as if this case were a legal algorithm to solve rather than a bueaucratic power struggle can only be said to be even more counterproductive. mueller will find what he will find.
So you're ready to lube up and brandish the guillotine, too, eh? Let me remind you and everyone else that, despite the steady drumbeat of this nonsense since the election, we still haven't seen anything resembling criminal action by Trump. Take a step back and consider the extraordinary nature of what is being claimed about what Trump has done. The simplest and most logical explanation has been and continues to be that Trump didn't do any of what he has been accused of. Yes, Mueller is going to find what he will find, but convicting and damning Trump purely on bullshit innuendo should be offensive to anyone who values the rule of law. Due process exists for a reason.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I personally take the "wait for official results" approach to investigations like these. In the court of public opinion Trump is guilty and sentenced to death already, based on leaks that may or may not be from real people of worth - and many are not despite the "but anonymous sources are the foundation of journalism" folk.
|
On June 16 2017 12:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 09:51 IgnE wrote:On June 16 2017 08:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 16 2017 01:58 IgnE wrote:On June 16 2017 00:10 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 19:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 15 2017 12:11 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 09:26 biology]major wrote:On June 15 2017 09:17 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 08:54 biology]major wrote:
That's the thing, we have an idiot president who is going out of his way to out do his own idiocy at every turn and a bureaucracy that is invested in bringing him down. They are both happening simultaneously, and this time, I don't give a damn if the deepstate or the boogeyman takes trump down. We get pence, a much more polished politician, and we already have Gorsuch. Tax reform, healthcare are dependent on congress anyways so Trump is a net negative to the USA as of right now. So you would count as allies a bureaucracy gunning to depose its boss because you favor the outcome of Trump leaving office? I'm a bit horrified at that application of the ends justify the means. We also get an emboldened 4th branch that provably can claim a scalp that elected officials cannot ... which is a far greater threat to the Republic and democracy than you realize. Trump could have played his hand as 45 a million times better, won over both democrats and republicans, and made real change. He has all branches of government on his side. Instead he squanders an opportunity, disgraces the office with his constant lies and hypocrisy, and has not a single shred of decency. Why would I feel sorry for this buffoon? He was given a chance of a lifetime, and has so far been a crooked mess. Sad! I wouldn't even mind if he was just bad at his job, it's his blatant immorality that irks me. Sure he might not have done anything illegal, but crooked trump and crooked hillary are both cut from same cloth. One has the temperament of a child and the other a grown woman. I'm with DEB & xDaunt on that one. He couldn't have had the bureaucracy on his side; he was elected to shake it up and his entire brash character was aimed at upsetting the established order of the agencies. It should also be clear that his campaign promise of a temporary travel ban did not put the courts on his side; who have so much unrestrained activism that they think foreign policy is under judicial purview (but we've probably covered that one enough in this thread already). He took TONS of shots at establishment Republicans before joining hands on this and that, so you could also make the argument that the legislature was against him from the start, though it's so fractionally divided anyways that it's of weaker significance. No, no, and no, impossible! And don't flee to "feel sorry," I neither implied it nor ask it. I say instead you are foolish to join a dangerous party to unseat Trump. Do you have anything to say about the main point of the post you quoted? You know, reading you, sometimes I wonder : what will it take for you to admit that Trump is a disgraceful, dishonest incompetent fool that ridicules his function and that this administration is a giant shitshow? To paraphrase Cooper, at that point it looks like Trump could go to your place and take a dump on your desk, you would defend him. I voted for a guy in France in 2012 who ended up being a pathetically weak, spineless president. Well I fucked it up. He was from my party, but he and his government were shit, and I won't vote for the PS until his goons have been cleared up because they clearly can't run a country. Is it too much cognitive dissonance for you to endure to admit your guy is a fucking disaster? Maybe you missed when I've routinely criticized Trump on issues where we disagree. It still doesn't excuse acting like court jesters inventing laws and peddling conspiracy theories when he can be legitimately criticized on any number of fronts from AHCA to twitter to inappropriate conversation to foreign policy to going overboard on fake news. The search function is open to you want to correct your understanding of my posting history. you know dangles i am kind of surprised you and dauntless are so in the hole on this one. if i may, remember the discussion around the ferguson shooting with michael brown? and how dauntless said things like "maybe cops shouldnt be shooting people in various situations, but michael brown is not the hill you outraged people want to die on?" isn't this an analogous case? maybe theres some argument both ways about foreign policy and leaks and executive privilege and the ability to appoint agency executives. but Trump is still a fucking crook with no integrity who has been stealing and fucking people over his whole life. he's the opposite of all the small town american values you always go on about. when do you just wash your hands and say, "the democrats are acting hysterical but trump is still garbage" i just don't see the point in wasting so much energy to defend him What hill am I dying on? I've never argued that Trump is some paragon of virtue, and I've been quite candid about his numerous shortcomings. Of all posters, you are one of the best positioned to understand my overall argument that it's counterproductive to attack Trump over all of the superfluous bullshit (like this Russia crap and obstruction of justice crap) when there's ample, legitimate avenues of attack. This is particularly true when allegations of criminal and impeachable conduct are being so frivolously thrown around. id have to go back and collect posts to be thorough on this, and i say all this in full understanding that you generally make reasonable points (dangles only sometimes does). it just seems like the general timbre of your posting indicates unseemly support. like why is dangles talking about how mueller is connected to comey as if we didnt know that the former fbi directors might know each other? the problem isn't just the paranoia. its the selectiveness of the paranoia. lets be as reciprocally paranoid and crazy as all these democrats talking about russia. we will be paranoid about everyone except those with an R by their name. We are in an environment in which any support for Trump is being perceived as "unseemly support." The problem is that the "Trump is Putin's cock holster" crowd is running amok and unchecked like a bunch of social media jacobins. Are we really going to pretend that there is literally nothing positive that can be said about Trump or in his favor? This situation should be facially ridiculous to any reasonable person. I'll let Danglars speak for himself, but I don't know how your comments about selective paranoia apply to me. Hell, my harshest criticisms have been reserved for republicans over the past year. As for Mueller specifically, I'll reserve judgment for him like I did with Comey last year. However, only the willfully ignorant would miss the significance of whom he is appointing to his team (they're all major democrat donors). I have enough respect for the law that I'm not going to presume that the process is corrupt, but let's not pretend that the warning signs aren't there. Show nested quote +whether or not the russia thing goes anywhere i think trump is almost certainly a criminal who might end up getting impeached for money laundering or scandalous self-serving deals in china. if you think its "counterproductive" to attack trump over all the obstruction stuff then maybe rather than defending him and sending people off into the weeds you should say, "yeah but this other thing about him actually matters." at some point delving into statutory interpretations and "i hope" utterances as if this case were a legal algorithm to solve rather than a bueaucratic power struggle can only be said to be even more counterproductive. mueller will find what he will find. So you're ready to lube up and brandish the guillotine, too, eh? Let me remind you and everyone else that, despite the steady drumbeat of this nonsense since the election, we still haven't seen anything resembling criminal action by Trump. Take a step back and consider the extraordinary nature of what is being claimed about what Trump has done. The simplest and most logical explanation has been and continues to be that Trump didn't do any of what he has been accused of. Yes, Mueller is going to find what he will find, but convicting and damning Trump purely on bullshit innuendo should be offensive to anyone who values the rule of law. Due process exists for a reason.
Three members of the team he has hired so far have been reported to have made election donations to Democrats, a fact that has become another avenue of attack for Trump supporters. But one of the three also made donations to Republicans, and the proportion of Democratic supporters is not significantly out of line with the general population.
From what I can read into, it's not a partisan team. Mueller is simply taking on whoever has the most experience in whatever fields he's probing into.
I'd suspect he's also hired a similar number of republicans(and he is one himself), so I don't think that's a legitimate argument. Especially given the credentials of the people who are reported to be on his team, there are probably only a handful(if not less) of candidates for any given position to begin with.
|
I just take the track record of the publication and then decide I feel confident the reporter did their due diligence. But everyone has their own burden of proof for news stories.
|
Doesn't everyone here probably take a "wait for official results" philosophy with regards to criminal investigations? It seems like LL and xDaunt are trying to say "the difference between me and those damn liberals is that I believe in innocent until proven guilty, due process, habeas corpus, etc." I think most liberals do too? That doesn't mean we can't look at the evidence at hand and form our own opinions about what is or isn't likely.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 16 2017 13:10 ChristianS wrote:
Doesn't everyone here probably take a "wait for official results" philosophy with regards to criminal investigations? It seems like LL and xDaunt are trying to say "the difference between me and those damn liberals is that I believe in innocent until proven guilty, due process, habeas corpus, etc." I think most liberals do too? That doesn't mean we can't look at the evidence at hand and form our own opinions about what is or isn't likely.
"Wait for official results" isn't a position of legal opinion. It's a "shut the fuck up about speculation until there's something concrete to pin on people" position. I've seen enough public "trials" in my life to know that speculation based on partial evidence is more feels-driven than logical and creates more shit than the situation itself.
The "better than those damn liberals" point is a laughable non-sequitur.
|
On June 16 2017 12:49 xDaunt wrote:...
We are in an environment in which any support for Trump is being perceived as "unseemly support." The problem is that the "Trump is Putin's cock holster" crowd is running amok and unchecked like a bunch of social media jacobins. Are we really going to pretend that there is literally nothing positive that can be said about Trump or in his favor? This situation should be facially ridiculous to any reasonable person.
...
As I recall, when people sympathetic to Trump and the Republicans in this thread have in the past given direct answers about things they found positive about the Trump administration, it was stuff along the lines of the Supreme Court appointment, which understandably is not viewed positively by people sympathetic to the left.
As such youir statement that disapproving of everything about Trump "should be facially ridiculous to any reasonable person" requires further justification to be valid.
(I can certainly come up with statements about Trump that give bounds on how bad he's been, but I don't think that qualifies as a "positive" statement.)
|
Realized the actual tweet wasn't quoted.
On June 16 2017 09:15 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
On June 16 2017 09:27 ShoCkeyy wrote:
But the Senate voted 97 out of 100 for the bill?
haha. Because it was part of a deal with Democrats to let the senate's healthcare bill go through some more steps unmolested by Democrats.
So basically a bipartisan deal in the senate telling house Republicans to go fuck themselves.
|
On June 16 2017 13:15 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 13:10 ChristianS wrote:
Doesn't everyone here probably take a "wait for official results" philosophy with regards to criminal investigations? It seems like LL and xDaunt are trying to say "the difference between me and those damn liberals is that I believe in innocent until proven guilty, due process, habeas corpus, etc." I think most liberals do too? That doesn't mean we can't look at the evidence at hand and form our own opinions about what is or isn't likely. "Wait for official results" isn't a position of legal opinion. It's a "shut the fuck up about speculation until there's something concrete to pin on people" position. I've seen enough public "trials" in my life to know that speculation based on partial evidence is more feels-driven than logical and creates more shit than the situation itself. The "better than those damn liberals" point is a laughable non-sequitur.
So if news came out that a hypothetical president had recorded tapes of everyone in the white house, but then destroyed them when they got subpoenaed, it is inappropriate to speculate on whether that makes them look guilty? We should just say "I await the justice system's decision regarding this individual's innocence or guilt"?
Edit: or if you're just saying we need to wait until there's solid evidence, presumably the debate is how solid the evidence currently is.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 16 2017 13:34 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 13:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 16 2017 13:10 ChristianS wrote:
Doesn't everyone here probably take a "wait for official results" philosophy with regards to criminal investigations? It seems like LL and xDaunt are trying to say "the difference between me and those damn liberals is that I believe in innocent until proven guilty, due process, habeas corpus, etc." I think most liberals do too? That doesn't mean we can't look at the evidence at hand and form our own opinions about what is or isn't likely. "Wait for official results" isn't a position of legal opinion. It's a "shut the fuck up about speculation until there's something concrete to pin on people" position. I've seen enough public "trials" in my life to know that speculation based on partial evidence is more feels-driven than logical and creates more shit than the situation itself. The "better than those damn liberals" point is a laughable non-sequitur. So if news came out that a hypothetical president had recorded tapes of everyone in the white house, but then destroyed them when they got subpoenaed, it is inappropriate to speculate on whether that makes them look guilty? We should just say "I await the justice system's decision regarding this individual's innocence or guilt"? Edit: or if you're just saying we need to wait until there's solid evidence, presumably the debate is how solid the evidence currently is.
Well do we have anything of the sort? Or just a bunch of vaguely suspicious looking stuff from a shitty president?
|
On June 16 2017 13:37 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 13:34 ChristianS wrote:On June 16 2017 13:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 16 2017 13:10 ChristianS wrote:
Doesn't everyone here probably take a "wait for official results" philosophy with regards to criminal investigations? It seems like LL and xDaunt are trying to say "the difference between me and those damn liberals is that I believe in innocent until proven guilty, due process, habeas corpus, etc." I think most liberals do too? That doesn't mean we can't look at the evidence at hand and form our own opinions about what is or isn't likely. "Wait for official results" isn't a position of legal opinion. It's a "shut the fuck up about speculation until there's something concrete to pin on people" position. I've seen enough public "trials" in my life to know that speculation based on partial evidence is more feels-driven than logical and creates more shit than the situation itself. The "better than those damn liberals" point is a laughable non-sequitur. So if news came out that a hypothetical president had recorded tapes of everyone in the white house, but then destroyed them when they got subpoenaed, it is inappropriate to speculate on whether that makes them look guilty? We should just say "I await the justice system's decision regarding this individual's innocence or guilt"? Edit: or if you're just saying we need to wait until there's solid evidence, presumably the debate is how solid the evidence currently is. Well do we have anything of the sort? Or just a bunch of vaguely suspicious looking stuff from a shitty president?
Oh he seems to go out of his way to make it look more suspicious/nefarious, but yeah the reason the focus is on obstruction is because there was nothing on Trump and Russia.
|
Not everyone gets the benefit of the doubt, especially after they said they fired Comey because of the Russia thing. We know Trump fired Comey to impede the Russia investigation. Trump, by his own recorded words said that the DAG memo was bullshit and he was going to fire Comey anyways. Yes, the leaks about him blabbing to the Russians in that meeting about Comey are real. He fired Comey, and "now a great pressure is off". If you choose to exist in your 'benefit of the doubt' alternate reality, that is just your bias trying to reach a preferred conclusion.
EDIT: yes, Trump gets the benefit of the doubt on (3) Collusion; but no benefit of the doubt on (2) Obstruction. For now. Wait until Mueller prods into the anonymous LLC Purchases of Trump properties. Let's see who was buying those Trump properties.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I have no particular sympathy for Trump; he is a shitty president and an even shittier human being. But until he's guilty of something, that's all he is.
|
On June 16 2017 12:11 xDaunt wrote:Why is it an odd statement when it is merely reiterating longstanding policy in the face of repeated breaches of that policy? Hell, Comey already crapped on the accuracy of these anonymous leaks during his testimony last week.
Do you have somebody remind you that water is wet?
|
On June 16 2017 13:37 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 13:34 ChristianS wrote:On June 16 2017 13:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 16 2017 13:10 ChristianS wrote:
Doesn't everyone here probably take a "wait for official results" philosophy with regards to criminal investigations? It seems like LL and xDaunt are trying to say "the difference between me and those damn liberals is that I believe in innocent until proven guilty, due process, habeas corpus, etc." I think most liberals do too? That doesn't mean we can't look at the evidence at hand and form our own opinions about what is or isn't likely. "Wait for official results" isn't a position of legal opinion. It's a "shut the fuck up about speculation until there's something concrete to pin on people" position. I've seen enough public "trials" in my life to know that speculation based on partial evidence is more feels-driven than logical and creates more shit than the situation itself. The "better than those damn liberals" point is a laughable non-sequitur. So if news came out that a hypothetical president had recorded tapes of everyone in the white house, but then destroyed them when they got subpoenaed, it is inappropriate to speculate on whether that makes them look guilty? We should just say "I await the justice system's decision regarding this individual's innocence or guilt"? Edit: or if you're just saying we need to wait until there's solid evidence, presumably the debate is how solid the evidence currently is. Well do we have anything of the sort? Or just a bunch of vaguely suspicious looking stuff from a shitty president?
I'm just trying to pin down what this ethic you've expressed actually means. I mostly don't think there's anything public yet to the collusion charge, and don't know enough about the legal requirements of obstruction of justice.
But it seems like your ethic is basically that you speculate if you think there's something there and don't if you don't, which is the same thing everyone else does but you've managed to feel superior about it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 16 2017 14:07 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 13:37 LegalLord wrote:On June 16 2017 13:34 ChristianS wrote:On June 16 2017 13:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 16 2017 13:10 ChristianS wrote:
Doesn't everyone here probably take a "wait for official results" philosophy with regards to criminal investigations? It seems like LL and xDaunt are trying to say "the difference between me and those damn liberals is that I believe in innocent until proven guilty, due process, habeas corpus, etc." I think most liberals do too? That doesn't mean we can't look at the evidence at hand and form our own opinions about what is or isn't likely. "Wait for official results" isn't a position of legal opinion. It's a "shut the fuck up about speculation until there's something concrete to pin on people" position. I've seen enough public "trials" in my life to know that speculation based on partial evidence is more feels-driven than logical and creates more shit than the situation itself. The "better than those damn liberals" point is a laughable non-sequitur. So if news came out that a hypothetical president had recorded tapes of everyone in the white house, but then destroyed them when they got subpoenaed, it is inappropriate to speculate on whether that makes them look guilty? We should just say "I await the justice system's decision regarding this individual's innocence or guilt"? Edit: or if you're just saying we need to wait until there's solid evidence, presumably the debate is how solid the evidence currently is. Well do we have anything of the sort? Or just a bunch of vaguely suspicious looking stuff from a shitty president? I'm just trying to pin down what this ethic you've expressed actually means. I mostly don't think there's anything public yet to the collusion charge, and don't know enough about the legal requirements of obstruction of justice. But it seems like your ethic is basically that you speculate if you think there's something there and don't if you don't, which is the same thing everyone else does but you've managed to feel superior about it.
The short version is that you should keep your head about it all. Most people don't like Trump and will believe any Billy or Bobby that says any mean thing about how much of a crook he is and how much he licks Putin's boot. This is how public trials always go.
God knows this thread has too many people who positively lose their minds at the slightest hint of a possibility of a not sure if credible leak that says that Trump did something potentially bad. That has a lot to do with simply how strongly he is disliked rather than how guilty he is. I suppose if you want fairness then you could say that the same could be said about Hillary Clinton.
|
On June 16 2017 12:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2017 09:51 IgnE wrote:On June 16 2017 08:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 16 2017 01:58 IgnE wrote:On June 16 2017 00:10 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 19:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 15 2017 12:11 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 09:26 biology]major wrote:On June 15 2017 09:17 Danglars wrote:On June 15 2017 08:54 biology]major wrote:
That's the thing, we have an idiot president who is going out of his way to out do his own idiocy at every turn and a bureaucracy that is invested in bringing him down. They are both happening simultaneously, and this time, I don't give a damn if the deepstate or the boogeyman takes trump down. We get pence, a much more polished politician, and we already have Gorsuch. Tax reform, healthcare are dependent on congress anyways so Trump is a net negative to the USA as of right now. So you would count as allies a bureaucracy gunning to depose its boss because you favor the outcome of Trump leaving office? I'm a bit horrified at that application of the ends justify the means. We also get an emboldened 4th branch that provably can claim a scalp that elected officials cannot ... which is a far greater threat to the Republic and democracy than you realize. Trump could have played his hand as 45 a million times better, won over both democrats and republicans, and made real change. He has all branches of government on his side. Instead he squanders an opportunity, disgraces the office with his constant lies and hypocrisy, and has not a single shred of decency. Why would I feel sorry for this buffoon? He was given a chance of a lifetime, and has so far been a crooked mess. Sad! I wouldn't even mind if he was just bad at his job, it's his blatant immorality that irks me. Sure he might not have done anything illegal, but crooked trump and crooked hillary are both cut from same cloth. One has the temperament of a child and the other a grown woman. I'm with DEB & xDaunt on that one. He couldn't have had the bureaucracy on his side; he was elected to shake it up and his entire brash character was aimed at upsetting the established order of the agencies. It should also be clear that his campaign promise of a temporary travel ban did not put the courts on his side; who have so much unrestrained activism that they think foreign policy is under judicial purview (but we've probably covered that one enough in this thread already). He took TONS of shots at establishment Republicans before joining hands on this and that, so you could also make the argument that the legislature was against him from the start, though it's so fractionally divided anyways that it's of weaker significance. No, no, and no, impossible! And don't flee to "feel sorry," I neither implied it nor ask it. I say instead you are foolish to join a dangerous party to unseat Trump. Do you have anything to say about the main point of the post you quoted? You know, reading you, sometimes I wonder : what will it take for you to admit that Trump is a disgraceful, dishonest incompetent fool that ridicules his function and that this administration is a giant shitshow? To paraphrase Cooper, at that point it looks like Trump could go to your place and take a dump on your desk, you would defend him. I voted for a guy in France in 2012 who ended up being a pathetically weak, spineless president. Well I fucked it up. He was from my party, but he and his government were shit, and I won't vote for the PS until his goons have been cleared up because they clearly can't run a country. Is it too much cognitive dissonance for you to endure to admit your guy is a fucking disaster? Maybe you missed when I've routinely criticized Trump on issues where we disagree. It still doesn't excuse acting like court jesters inventing laws and peddling conspiracy theories when he can be legitimately criticized on any number of fronts from AHCA to twitter to inappropriate conversation to foreign policy to going overboard on fake news. The search function is open to you want to correct your understanding of my posting history. you know dangles i am kind of surprised you and dauntless are so in the hole on this one. if i may, remember the discussion around the ferguson shooting with michael brown? and how dauntless said things like "maybe cops shouldnt be shooting people in various situations, but michael brown is not the hill you outraged people want to die on?" isn't this an analogous case? maybe theres some argument both ways about foreign policy and leaks and executive privilege and the ability to appoint agency executives. but Trump is still a fucking crook with no integrity who has been stealing and fucking people over his whole life. he's the opposite of all the small town american values you always go on about. when do you just wash your hands and say, "the democrats are acting hysterical but trump is still garbage" i just don't see the point in wasting so much energy to defend him What hill am I dying on? I've never argued that Trump is some paragon of virtue, and I've been quite candid about his numerous shortcomings. Of all posters, you are one of the best positioned to understand my overall argument that it's counterproductive to attack Trump over all of the superfluous bullshit (like this Russia crap and obstruction of justice crap) when there's ample, legitimate avenues of attack. This is particularly true when allegations of criminal and impeachable conduct are being so frivolously thrown around. id have to go back and collect posts to be thorough on this, and i say all this in full understanding that you generally make reasonable points (dangles only sometimes does). it just seems like the general timbre of your posting indicates unseemly support. like why is dangles talking about how mueller is connected to comey as if we didnt know that the former fbi directors might know each other? the problem isn't just the paranoia. its the selectiveness of the paranoia. lets be as reciprocally paranoid and crazy as all these democrats talking about russia. we will be paranoid about everyone except those with an R by their name. We are in an environment in which any support for Trump is being perceived as "unseemly support." The problem is that the "Trump is Putin's cock holster" crowd is running amok and unchecked like a bunch of social media jacobins. Are we really going to pretend that there is literally nothing positive that can be said about Trump or in his favor? This situation should be facially ridiculous to any reasonable person. I'll let Danglars speak for himself, but I don't know how your comments about selective paranoia apply to me. Hell, my harshest criticisms have been reserved for republicans over the past year. As for Mueller specifically, I'll reserve judgment for him like I did with Comey last year. However, only the willfully ignorant would miss the significance of whom he is appointing to his team (they're all major democrat donors). I have enough respect for the law that I'm not going to presume that the process is corrupt, but let's not pretend that the warning signs aren't there. Show nested quote +whether or not the russia thing goes anywhere i think trump is almost certainly a criminal who might end up getting impeached for money laundering or scandalous self-serving deals in china. if you think its "counterproductive" to attack trump over all the obstruction stuff then maybe rather than defending him and sending people off into the weeds you should say, "yeah but this other thing about him actually matters." at some point delving into statutory interpretations and "i hope" utterances as if this case were a legal algorithm to solve rather than a bueaucratic power struggle can only be said to be even more counterproductive. mueller will find what he will find. So you're ready to lube up and brandish the guillotine, too, eh? Let me remind you and everyone else that, despite the steady drumbeat of this nonsense since the election, we still haven't seen anything resembling criminal action by Trump. Take a step back and consider the extraordinary nature of what is being claimed about what Trump has done. The simplest and most logical explanation has been and continues to be that Trump didn't do any of what he has been accused of. Yes, Mueller is going to find what he will find, but convicting and damning Trump purely on bullshit innuendo should be offensive to anyone who values the rule of law. Due process exists for a reason.
the man likes casinos and mobsters. he claims he's worth billions. he's a criminal, just probably not for all this russia stuff.
as for whether anything is positive about Trump, i am drawing a blank. nothing offends me more than rank ignorance and stupidity. that should not be surprising.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
He killed TPP and TTIP, so I suppose "stumbles into ending bad trade agreements" is something he can put as a positive on his presidential resume.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
