EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8773
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42005 Posts
On September 19 2017 12:57 Nyxisto wrote: given the severity of the punch in that picture it's simply an issue of physical strength which runs along gender lines. I lean towards it being inadvisable for women to be violent/aggressive towards people who are bigger than them in the exact same way that it would be inadvisable for me to pick a fight with Mike Tyson. Sure, women are generally weaker but that doesn't change the issue. If a woman starts shit and gets punched, well, that's on her. Maybe stick to peaceful protests if you're not into violence. As I understand it the more extreme end of antifa, which I'm told this woman is a member of, believe strongly in violent confrontation of Nazis. If you're looking for violence and you find violence, so be it. Maybe bring a gun next time, I heard the right love guns as a great leveler. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42005 Posts
On September 19 2017 13:10 xDaunt wrote: This is probably what Trump was referring to this past spring with his tweet about being wiretapped. I think that's overly charitable. Didn't that devolve into microwaves being a NSA plot? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42005 Posts
On September 19 2017 13:16 m4ini wrote: Yup, the chairman. Not Trump, nor the Trump Tower, as Trump claims. The "nothing found" kinda gives it away, because it kinda clashes with: Inconclusive doesn't mean "nothing found". That's the best case. He was just spouting his usual bullshit because he got paranoid. The former chairman if you want to be specific. Manafort was fired a few months before the election. The story Danglars is referred to here is Man who was removed from the Trump campaign for being a foreign political agent was investigated. Surely the right would think that is a good thing, after all, they fired him for a reason. But instead they're trying to somehow associate themselves with Manafort, despite previously distancing from him, so that they can feel a sense of outrage when he gets what he deserves. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On September 19 2017 23:12 KwarK wrote: I think that's overly charitable. Didn't that devolve into microwaves being a NSA plot? an obama plot. obama > (((globalists))) > hillary clinton> NSA > media > china >>>>>>>>> russia | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 19 2017 15:02 cLutZ wrote: I have so many thoughts on this that I'm going to write a too-long post. The TLDR of it is this: The new report does not prove Trump was right, however it does prove that everyone else was lying or incompetent. For instance this part: This means the DOJ was lying/incompetent. Knowing that Manafort had been wiretapped, a statement that says, "Trump and Trump Tower were not wiretapped" is a lie by omission if any electronic communications from Trump or Trump Tower were intercepted as a result of a FISA warrant. I find all of the VERY SPECIFIC definitions of "wiretap" coming out of this extremely disturbing. If the cops have a recording of me talking on the phone I have been wiretapped. I worked for a judge, if she found out an official did this in a criminal case he would be placed in contempt (not to mention a mistrial would have to be declared if the jury had been empaneled). So DOJ is the worst. But nearly as bad/incompetent are/were the media. I will focus on Jake Tapper because he was the most angry about it. We have things like this: His only defense of such a position now would be something like this: This is an unacceptable level of journalistic malpractice. Lets say you are Mr. Tapper and have a "source familiar with the situation" on the phone after Trump claimed to have been wiretapped: Source: Hey Jake, I know things and neither Trump nor Trump Tower were ever wiretapped. If you are Mr. Tapper which of these things do you do? 1. Jake: Oh cool, thanks Mr. Source, I'll go write an article. or 2. Jake: That is interesting, but I can't just run with that. If it ever comes out that the FBI listened to a Trump phone call I'll look like an idiot. So, do you know if any Trump phone calls were ever intercepted? Source: Jake, we both know that can happen even if you aren't wiretapped. Jake: Of course Mr. Source, but 360 million Americans think wiretaps = intercepting calls. I can only report he wasn't wiretapped if he wasn't and I also know none of his calls were intercepted. Otherwise I have to report that he "Wasn't technically wiretapped, but several of his phone calls were listened to by the FBI." Some people can't stand Trump being even half right. Come on--he tweets random stuff every week. He'll be fully wrong again soon. Secondly, this is the problem with fake news by omission. If politically motivated government sources leak something deliberately misleading, and journalists don't follow up, there's two culpable parties on the way to publication. ...but the best the thread can do is allege Saint Obama's justice department didn't mean anything by it!!! If the Trump administration had done this to Mook, the conflict of interest and implications would suddenly be crystal clear. But you all are so blinded by the specter of Trump that you can't see and admit to the lies (with journalistic incompetence if you presume good motives to journalists) or to how this damages media credibility. I'll watch to see if any of the regular voices can have a clear nonpartisan sentence or two of admitting either. I do want to know if the admission street is still one-way. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 19 2017 15:28 Sermokala wrote: Does it really matter why though? If Obama knew that Trumps campaign was being wiretapped indirectly thats a huge conflict of interest. That people in the media refuted, or were told to the effect that they refuted the fact of, that anyone was wiretapped is bad That it was done because he was a political opponent is subjective and opinion based. Its not Watergate where nixon specifically wanted to spy on the dems bad but its still pretty bad and would taint Obama's "practically scandal free" legacy. And likewise, that it couldn't have been done for political purposes or later used for political purposes is subjective and opinion based. It really doesn't matter what partisan angle you take. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 19 2017 23:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/mviser/status/910150401210699776 Well, that's not untrue. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On September 19 2017 23:33 Danglars wrote: Some people can't stand Trump being even half right. Come on--he tweets random stuff every week. He'll be fully wrong again soon. https://twitter.com/thomashcrown/status/909925552148090881 Secondly, this is the problem with fake news by omission. If politically motivated government sources leak something deliberately misleading, and journalists don't follow up, there's two culpable parties on the way to publication. ...but the best the thread can do is allege Saint Obama's justice department didn't mean anything by it!!! If the Trump administration had done this to Mook, the conflict of interest and implications would suddenly be crystal clear. But you all are so blinded by the specter of Trump that you can't see and admit to the lies (with journalistic incompetence if you presume good motives to journalists) or to how this damages media credibility. I'll watch to see if any of the regular voices can have a clear nonpartisan sentence or two of admitting either. I do want to know if the admission street is still one-way. It was already known at the time of Trump's tweet that people in his campaign were subject to FISA warrant (and therefore, in all likelihood, wiretap). It is only appropriate to judge Trump's tweet by whether it was correct, that is, whether Trump himself or Trump Tower was wiretapped. We already knew at the time of the tweet that it wouldn't be surprising at all if Trump was incidentally picked up by surveillance; after all, the pack of goons surrounding him were subject to FBI surveillance. Here's why the people around Trump were wiretapped: Under Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a person can be targeted if the government establishes probable cause that he or she is the “agent of a foreign power.” Trump specifically claimed that he himself or Trump Tower was wiretapped. The media examined whether that claim was correct, and it was not. You are not successfully obfuscating the issue by deflecting to the media. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On September 19 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote: And likewise, that it couldn't have been done for political purposes or later used for political purposes is subjective and opinion based. It really doesn't matter what partisan angle you take. Just because two possibilities exist doesn't mean they're equally likely, or that there is no means of distinguishing between them. If you don't advance any reason to believe that it was done for political purposes (as opposed to the vast majority of investigations that are not) then your argument is not valid. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
Danglars, you might have jumped the gun on this one. Not to mention if they did get something on Manafort Trump's tweet is still wrong. So I ask again, why this quest to vindicate specific (apparent) lies from Trump? What do you hope to accomplish? If I tell you that in the end it turned out there technically were WMDs in Iraq (there were, apparently), do you think that technicality really vindicates Bush at all? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42005 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On September 19 2017 23:33 Danglars wrote: Some people can't stand Trump being even half right. Come on--he tweets random stuff every week. He'll be fully wrong again soon. https://twitter.com/thomashcrown/status/909925552148090881 Secondly, this is the problem with fake news by omission. If politically motivated government sources leak something deliberately misleading, and journalists don't follow up, there's two culpable parties on the way to publication. ...but the best the thread can do is allege Saint Obama's justice department didn't mean anything by it!!! If the Trump administration had done this to Mook, the conflict of interest and implications would suddenly be crystal clear. But you all are so blinded by the specter of Trump that you can't see and admit to the lies (with journalistic incompetence if you presume good motives to journalists) or to how this damages media credibility. I'll watch to see if any of the regular voices can have a clear nonpartisan sentence or two of admitting either. I do want to know if the admission street is still one-way. What lies are you referring to? | ||
| ||
