EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9075
| 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 States15690 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [collected xDaunt quotes] + On October 26 2017 10:13 xDaunt wrote: Now here is an even bigger "uh oh" for the Clintons and the DNC: Source. I saw some pretty crazy conspiracy-level shit a couple weeks ago where some anonymous guy claiming to be in the know stated that a bunch of information was about to surface that would completely flip the Russia/Trump collusion narrative and boomerang it hard on the Clintons, DNC, and elements of the Washington establishment. I didn't take it seriously at the time, but I'll be damned if it's not looking a little more plausible with each passing day. On October 26 2017 10:41 xDaunt wrote: The working theory is that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was manufactured out of whole cloth to cover for some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others). I really have no idea whether any of that is true, but just a cursory review of the news stories that have broken over the past week on this stuff suggests to me that 1) someone who is not friendly to the Clintons knows something and is feeding information to the media, and 2) there's a lot more juice to this theory than I initially gave it credit for. Just look at how this stuff is being reported and by whom (and look at who is silent). Something is up. I'm just going to munch on popcorn and watch it unfold -- whatever it is. On October 26 2017 10:53 xDaunt wrote: I'm not sure that this is strictly an "either/or" proposition. On October 26 2017 11:05 xDaunt wrote: When I talked about flipping the script, I was referring to the Trump/Russia collusion narrative -- ie that Trump did something wrong. I think that Manafort and Flynn can go down without Trump being affected. Manafort looks particularly dirty, but, again, we'll have to wait and see what the actual evidence is and whether charges are brought. On October 26 2017 11:15 xDaunt wrote: Just to be clear, I don't really have a working theory as to what's going on other than that there's obviously something very wrong in Clinton land. I'm just watching with interest. On October 26 2017 12:12 xDaunt wrote: The "new" is going to come from the FBI informant who just had his gag order lifted. His attorney has made it clear that he knows things and has a story that he wants to tell. There's also a lot of stink over the FBI's role in all of this, including people like Mueller, Comey, McCabe, and Rosenstein. I'm sure that the informant will address it all in due course. On October 26 2017 12:39 xDaunt wrote: I also read somewhere that the $500k speaking fee was twice what Clinton was usually earning at the time. On October 26 2017 12:42 xDaunt wrote: Really. I don't get what is so hard to understand or accept about the idea that the Clinton Foundation was a massive influence peddling machine. Direct payments to Bill Clinton for giving a speech are almost besides the point. On October 26 2017 12:59 xDaunt wrote: Technically, it wouldn't be the FBI that sat anything (if it happened). It would be the DOJ -- ie Holder/Lynch. There's a thing people like to do with conspiracy theories where they make lots of ominous, non-specific references to some conspiracy theory, but then when pressed on specifics refuse to offer them, and when criticized for peddling the conspiracy theory insist "oh, I never said that." The classic forms are things like "doesn't it seem convenient that..." or brushing off criticism with "listen, I'm just asking questions." Judge for yourself if that's what you think happened here, but it's certainly what it looks like to me. That Russian collusion charges will "boomerang... on the Clintons, DNC, and elements of the Washington establishment" isn't far off from the classic "they" responsible for conspiracies ("who is they? The CIA, NSA, RNC, aliens, the World Government... you know, the powers that be"). Both the accusations and the targets are kept vague, so there's nothing really falsifiable in it. xDaunt can't tell us what the accusations are, or whether they're true or not, but he can say they're "a little more plausible with each passing day" and that they have a lot of juice. We learn that the theory he thinks has a lot of juice is that the Russia/Trump narrative was "manufactured out of whole cloth to cover for some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others)," although he doesn't seem inclined to argue Flynn or Manafort are innocent. How exactly that doesn't blow the "manufactured whole cloth" idea straight out of the water is beyond me, but no time to stop for that, because we have other vague insinuations to make like "I don't really have a working theory as to what's going on other than that there's obviously something very wrong in Clinton land" or "I also read somewhere that the $500k speaking fee was twice what Clinton was usually earning at the time." I'll attempt to demonstrate by example what's wrong with this type of argument: + Show Spoiler [Example of bad/dishonest argumentation…] + There's been rumblings around the internet that Trump has something to hide with this JFK stuff. I know it sounds crazy, and I didn't believe it at first, but it's starting to look more and more plausible. I mean, why would he need to redact a bunch of documents from >50 years ago? I think there are a lot of unanswered questions around the JFK assassination, and I'm just saying, Trump was alive in 1963. Had he met Lee Harvey Oswald? Was he in Dallas at the time? I don't know exactly what's going on here, I just know that something is obviously very wrong in Trumpland. <critic points out that Trump decided not to redact those documents after all> Hey, I'm just saying, how do you know that he's releasing all the documents? If there were more documents, and he just said he released them all, who would even know? <critic points out that I'm asserting that Trump was involved in the JFK assassination and the whole federal government is covering up the proof, with zero evidence for my claim> Hey, I didn't assert anything! I'm just asking questions, man. Read the quotes and judge for yourself, but I don't just think xDaunt is lost in some conspiracy nonsense. I think he knows he's peddling bullshit. The arguments seem intentionally obfuscated, designed to insinuate as much as possible while leaving as few specifics as possible to attack. In 9 posts on the subject, some of them pretty long, the only specifics we got is that he thinks the Clintons (and a bunch of other people) did something really bad involving Russia (or maybe some other stuff) that had to do with Uranium One (plus probably a bunch of other stuff besides), and that the FBI informant whose gag order was lifted has something to do with it. The DNC, DoJ, Washington establishment, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, etc. are all definitely possibly in on it, even though he has no working theory of what's going on or what "it" they're even in on. If I'm right that it's intentional, then I don't give a rat's ass about what the vast majority of you think is also not true. The goal of playing games like this is to manipulate the reader. It's not quite the same as trolling, but just like with trolling, getting a response is the whole point. An internet troll absolutely cares what his target thinks about him (despite how much he'll claim otherwise); it's the whole point of the venture. The same holds true here. Edit: Real-life example of similar rhetorical tactics being used: Note how he points out true but irrelevant details to strongly suggest an answer, but never literally says the thing he's suggesting. Even the poll option is euphemistically written "Conceal activities." Maximize insinuation, minimize specifics. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
| ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On October 28 2017 10:56 mierin wrote: I know it's old news. But I've never agreed more with an internet post than this one. When you think about it though, its not really a very good argument, because he's presenting a false dichotomy. Its not that you must either enforce ultra-high taxes on the rich, or help the poor. There is a progressive system of taxation, and one can argue whether it is fair on its own merits. It is a completely separate question, as to how the government uses those taxes in order to alleviate the plight of the poor and homeless in America. Beyond that, in terms of the plight of the poor and wanting to help them, if you really want to suggest that rich people are so addicted to money that they have lost any sense of human compassion, I think we should take an honest look at our own behaviour. How much money to you make a year, and how much do you *really* need to live? Is owning a nice computer, nice clothing, a decent car, all sorts of expensive entertainment equipment really more important than donating all of that money to a charity? We've all seen the commercials where you can provide a dollar a day to homeless, starving African kids to give them clean food and water, a basic education, and a roof over their heads? Yet, I am guessing almost no one here is willing to live the ascetic lifestyle, even if it is the morally correct thing to do. Thus under GreenHorizons own view, you could probably classify all of humanity as addicts to pleasure and money, or as sociopaths. But this view is not a realistic portrayal of human nature. The reality is, that we have difficulty empathizing with people we don't know, who are far away, especially in comparison to our own self-interests. Rich people are not somehow unique in that characteristic; they are human like everyone else. EDIT: Also... On October 28 2017 16:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: xDaunt will never claim to subscribe to the ideas he reposts here He just wants us to hear about them, in the same vein as me saying "So, I've heard that the moon landing is faked". I don't see what is so troubling about this issue. If someone did suggest that the moon landing was faked, you could just as easily shrug and say "yeah, isn't that wild!" and continue on with your conversation. Its not like people are putting a gun to your head, forcing you to respond  . | ||
|
riotjune
United States3393 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On October 28 2017 16:27 radscorpion9 wrote: When you think about it though, its not really a very good argument, because he's presenting a false dichotomy. Its not that you must either enforce ultra-high taxes on the rich, or help the poor. There is a progressive system of taxation, and one can argue whether it is fair on its own merits. It is a completely separate question, as to how the government uses those taxes in order to alleviate the plight of the poor and homeless in America. We're nowhere near ultra high taxes on the ultra rich. There's actually an argument coming from the right that we should repeal the estate tax which is a tax on money the people getting did absolutely nothing to earn. It doesn't even apply to the first $5-10 million which is enough to live a middle class life off interest without even touching the principal. Only the money after that is hit with the estate tax and it's not even as high as income tax rates have been in this country. Interesting tidbit: When taxes on the rich were higher, they actually paid less of the tax bill than they do now. Turns out if you just pay/take care of your employees, they don't need as much social programs and they have to pay more in taxes. If you make all the money, you have to pay all the taxes. Beyond that, in terms of the plight of the poor and wanting to help them, if you really want to suggest that rich people are so addicted to money that they have lost any sense of human compassion, I think we should take an honest look at our own behaviour. How much money to you make a year, and how much do you *really* need to live? Is owning a nice computer, nice clothing, a decent car, all sorts of expensive entertainment equipment really more important than donating all of that money to a charity? We've all seen the commercials where you can provide a dollar a day to homeless, starving African kids to give them clean food and water, a basic education, and a roof over their heads? Yet, I am guessing almost no one here is willing to live the ascetic lifestyle, even if it is the morally correct thing to do. More people should think about this, like the last time someone used an argument similar to this, I do think closely about it and recognize it's immorality. Thus under GreenHorizons own view, you could probably classify all of humanity as addicts to pleasure and money, or as sociopaths. But this view is not a realistic portrayal of human nature. The reality is, that we have difficulty empathizing with people we don't know, who are far away, especially in comparison to our own self-interests. Rich people are not somehow unique in that characteristic; they are human like everyone else. I wouldn't say all of humanity since there are still cultures which capitalism hasn't fully poisoned, but a great deal of the world is certainly addicted to money and "stuff". You can look in practically any direction from where you're reading this right now and see evidence. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Representatives for the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative online news site, informed congressional investigators Friday the outlet had originally funded the research firm that created the salacious dossier containing allegations of ties between Donald Trump's campaign and Russian operatives, the publication said in a statement. The firm, Fusion GPS — which has been entwined in federal and congressional probes into Russian election interference in 2016 — was retained by the Free Beacon during the 2016 elections "to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary," Free Beacon editor and chief Matthew Continetti and chairman Michael Goldfarb said in the statement. Goldfarb and Continetti, however, said they have no knowledge or financial involvement in the creation of the now-infamous Trump-Russia dossier, prepared by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS. The Free Beacon said it stood by its deployment of Fusion GPS during the 2016 campaign and its reporting on the matter. "We stand by our reporting, and we do not apologize for our methods. We consider it our duty to report verifiable information, not falsehoods or slander, and we believe that commitment has been well demonstrated by the quality of the journalism that we produce," Goldfarb and Continetti said. Democratic officials have come under scrutiny over the past week over after reports on Monday that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign had also funded opposition research by Fusion GPS. Trump on Wednesday called the unverified dossier a "disgrace," dismissing it as "made up," and blasted Democratic officials for their involvement with the research firm. “I understand they paid a tremendous amount of money,” Trump told reporters outside the White House. “And Hillary Clinton always denied it. The Democrats always denied it. And now, only because it’s gonna come out in a court case, they said yes, they did it. They admitted it, and they’re embarrassed by it. But I think it’s a disgrace. It’s a very sad commentary on politics in this country.” The Free Beacon said Friday it told lawmakers they'd "offer to answer what questions we can in their ongoing probe of Fusion GPS and the Steele dossier." Source | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21705 Posts
And you (xDaunt) wonder why no one takes you seriously. EDIT: And as for my credibility in the thread, let me cue you and everyone else in on something. I don't give a rat's ass about what the vast majority of you think. I know exactly where I stand and among whom it counts. If you can't demonstrate the simple ability to follow the facts and the conversation, then it's a safe bet that your opinion of me is irrelevant. The whole point is that you gave no facts or conversation to follow.You made some vague wave towards a conspiracy but when asked to produce any fact at all you refused and waved some more. As for the indictment. Yes I assume its Manafort. He seems to be the easiest to pin down with crimes from what we know and they probably want him locked up so they can lean on him in the hope that he turns on others. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The Realtor who helped former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort buy the Virginia condo that was recently raided by the FBI testified last week before the federal grand jury hearing testimony in Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, POLITICO has learned. The real estate agent, Wayne Holland of Alexandria, Virginia-based McEnearney Associates, appeared before the Washington-based grand jury after a federal judge rejected the firm’s lawyer’s bid to quash subpoenas for testimony and records about various real estate transactions. The broker’s appearance before the grand jury is one of few concrete indications of the leads Mueller’s prosecutors are pursuing as they investigate Russian meddling in last year’s presidential election. The investigation encompasses lobbying work done by Manafort as well as possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. Manafort spokesman Jason Maloni was called before the grand jury on Sept. 15, but few other witnesses have been publicly identified. While property records show Holland represented Manafort in his 2015 condo purchase, the broker declined to say anything about Manafort or about what questions were asked by prosecutors during the testimony last week. “I cannot talk about what happened in front of the grand jury,” Holland said. Manafort bought the 2,779 square foot Alexandria condo with Potomac River views in 2015 for $2.7 million, according to property records. Holland was originally called to testify on Oct. 13, but objected to the subpoenas on the grounds that Virginia and District of Columbia law makes real estate broker records confidential. However, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell ruled that those confidentiality statutes don’t preclude federal prosecutors from using grand jury subpoenas to demand details of real estate deals. “The respondents are wrong: the information the grand jury subpoenas seek is not privileged under state or federal law and the government need not make any special showing to obtain these records, nor would production be ‘unreasonable or oppressive,’” Howell wrote in an opinion unsealed Friday. “The language of the District and Columbia statutes...make clear that real estate brokerage records may be produce pursuant to a federal grand jury subpoena without the necessity of an additional court order.” The public version of the opinion is simply captioned “In re Grand Jury Investigation” and does not name Holland or Manafort. However, the real estate agent confirmed in a brief telephone interview Friday that the legal dispute concerned his testimony. “The motion was decided and the judge said, ‘No,’” Holland said. The real estate broker said no appeal was taken and he gave the required testimony last week. “I did and it is over—I hope,” he said. Howell’s ruling made no mention of Mueller or his prosecution team, but sheds some light on the scope of the special prosecutor’s investigation. The judge said the subpoenas at issue sought information “regarding the purchase of real property, including in Virginia, by four individuals and their affiliated entities.” The Alexandria condo was purchased by Paul Manafort and his wife Kathleen. There have also been reports that federal and New York State authorities are investigating real estate deals involving Paul Manafort and other family members, including his son-in-law Jeffrey Yohai. Mueller’s team is believed to be conducting a wide-ranging investigation into Manafort’s finances, including his income from consulting work in places like Ukraine, where the political party he represented had strong ties to Russia. Pursuant to a search warrant, the FBI raided Manafort’s apartment around dawn on July 26, seizing papers and computer records. A lawyer for President Donald Trump, John Dowd, described the search as resulting from a “gross abuse of the judicial process,” according to an email obtained by Fox News. Maloni and Manafort attorney Kevin Downing did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment for this story. It’s unclear whether Manafort’s legal team was aware of the litigation over the real estate records, but the confidentiality laws the broker’s lawyer cited can be waived when the customer consents to release of information. Howell issued an order compelling Holland’s testimony following a closed-door hearing on Oct. 17. When she issued her opinion on the matter on Monday, she asked government lawyers to advise her if they had any objection to unsealing the opinion with a redaction apparently intended to shield the privacy of the parties involved. The version of the opinion released Friday doesn’t say how prosecutors responded, but it appears the opinion was made public in the form the judge suggested. A spokesman for Mueller’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Source | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On October 28 2017 15:12 Mohdoo wrote: In a perfect world, Trump Jr is arrested. Not holding my breath though. I"ll be happy if Drumpf is just impeached. That's enough. :D | ||
micronesia
United States24690 Posts
On October 28 2017 14:23 Danglars wrote: Agree with you on Trump's tactics. Don't agree that he wasn't pushing anything. ChristianS explains it better in a later post, but he's pushing a narrative without directly supporting it. I admit it's a more subtle pushing than directly claiming X happened and shouting it from the rooftops, so if you want me to use different language than push, I will. Even in that case, we aren't talking alternate facts here, we are talking semantics (unless you disagree with Christian's post entirely in which case it's obvious we won't arrive at any common understanding [not that this would be terribly surprising, but I think that's less likely to happen with you than with xdaunt, in general]).You’ve got a piss poor apprehension of what it means to push something. Something smells fishy, so he’s “[pushing] a narrative that suits [his] political leanings?” He reveals he has no clue what it is so he’s pushing a narrative? This is some Trumpian level alt facts. And, to be clear, I don’t recommend you adopt Trump’s tactics to beat Republicans down, Micronesia. Aww fuck guys, he answered somebody that wondered what’s actually being alleged. Smoking gun, folks. Answering specific questions in US Pol thread when he should be busy asserting things left and right. Pretty nonsensical baiting at someone just watching with interest. Well, he alleged bullshit, and then when asked why he was alleging the bullshit, he gave a reason. I don't think anyone should give him crap for providing a reason. The issue is that he's claiming he doesn't know if the reason for alleging the bullshit is actually a legitimate reason for alleging that bullshit after he already alleged that bullshit. That doesn't somehow relieve him of all responsibility for what he chooses to share in the thread to subtly imply negative things about the Hillary Clinton campaign or previous administration. On October 28 2017 14:25 xDaunt wrote: That's not surprising, since your purpose for discussing it wasn't to argue that it's true... it was to deposit a bunch of ideas that make the left look bad, and redirect any attempts to highlight that objective as attacks on the people who are most inconvenient to you (e.g., Kwark).You're completely missing the point. I really don't give two shits about whether people want to attack the theory. That's all fair game. What I took exception to was the attack on me for something that I already disclaimed. That's uncalled for. I think you and the person you are accusing of attacking you do not agree on whether or not you had already provided the information he asked about. As discussed above, the "I don't know how this actually works" defense is not necessarily valid given the history up until that point in the discussion. and what Kwark's stated concerns were.EDIT: And as for my credibility in the thread, let me cue you and everyone else in on something. I don't give a rat's ass about what the vast majority of you think. I know exactly where I stand and among whom it counts. If you can't demonstrate the simple ability to follow the facts and the conversation, then it's a safe bet that your opinion of me is irrelevant. Given the way you post in this thread I don't think that's true. You try too hard to push a narrative vice simply discuss the facts. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21705 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
urmomdresslikafloozy
191 Posts
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article181351246.html TALLAHASSEE The Florida Senate’s top Democratic leader, Jeff Clemens, resigned Friday after admitting to having an affair with a lobbyist during the last legislative session, saying that repairing his personal life was impossible while serving in the high-profile role. “Effective today, I am resigning from the Florida Senate,” Clemens said in a statement Friday. “I have made mistakes I [am] ashamed of, and for the past six months I have been focused on becoming a better person. But it is clear to me that task is impossible to finish while in elected office. The process won’t allow it, and the people of Florida deserve better. All women deserve respect, and by my actions, I feel I have failed that standard. I have to do better.” Clemens, a Lake Worth political consultant, acknowledged an affair with former Martin County lobbyist Devon West in statement first reported by Politico Florida. Clemens, who is 47 and married, was charged with leading the election efforts of Senate Democrats in 2018. Democrats won a significant victory in September, when Annette Taddeo defeated Republican state Rep. Jose Felix Diaz in the Miami district formerly held by Republican Frank Artiles. Politicians need watch George Clooney's movie The Ides of March. | ||
|
Yurie
11853 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On October 28 2017 23:12 urmomdresslikafloozy wrote: Florida Senate’s top Democrat resigns after admitting affair with lobbyist http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article181351246.html Politicians need watch George Clooney's movie The Ides of March. I've been telling you guys for ages that Democrats were in bed with lobbyists. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On October 29 2017 00:45 GreenHorizons wrote: I've been telling you guys for ages that Democrats were in bed with lobbyists. You win this one. That was quite good. On another fun topic. Let's talk about how to lie with the truth. If you choose just the right facts, you can send a message that is plainly a lie. Especially if you have conditioned your audience to expect a result they really want. Obama has jury duty in Cook County and will actually answer the call to serve on the jury. But check this FOX headline. HEADED TO COURT Now mix this with this week's full agitprop about URANIUM ONE KILLERYOBAMA SCANDAL. This is a case study in lying with the truth. EDIT: Maybe this is a 'joke' in the eyes of Conservatives? Because it is funny because Obama should be going to court, therefore hahaha he is sort of going to court, right? The FOXnFRIENDS producers should have realized by now that their 'jokes' are utterly lost on the President and the President watches every episode of FOXnFRIENDS. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 29 2017 01:01 Nevuk wrote: Wouldn't Obama be more qualified than they usually prefer jurors? probably. personally i'd tend to exclude ex-presidents from juries on principle, as it can cause all sorts of problems: their very presence may polarize the jury. or the jury can all defer to the one guy rather than being independent thoughts. | ||
| ||
