|
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 October 31 2017 23:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 23:25 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 22:49 Mohdoo wrote:
If Republicans need Clinton to support Mueller, by all means. It's actually pretty relieving to see Mueller take out podesta. I've been worried Republicans will only tolerate so many convictions. Throwing in some members of the Republicans most wanted list helps keep the right on board. I think that the problem here is that most people are still viewing the Mueller investigation through the partisan narrative lens of "this is all about Trump." Presuming that this is no longer what the investigation is about (to the extent it ever was -- think about that one for a moment), it's not exactly fair to expect people who have been all wound up by the media (left and right) to simply stop on a dime and change their perspective all at once. Consider this: last week I noted that, in light of all of the new revelations that were coming out about Uranium One, Mueller investigating the Podestas, etc, that there was clearly a change happening in the media narrative -- that we were seeing information that did not comport with what everyone thought that the Mueller investigation was all about. Yesterday, we finally saw the first indictments, and they really had little-to-nothing to do with Trump/Russia collusion. To the contrary, the indictments and the information in them were very much germane to the information that was leaked to the media last week. I highly doubt that the timing of these stories was coincidental. I think we're being fed information to slowly change the narrative to comport with what Mueller is actually doing, because we're going to be shocked at how far he's going to go. What your seeing is the Republican PR machine going full steam to muddy the water now that its harder to deny Mueller will find anything. See drumming up when there is 1) nothing new and 2) everything old has been debunked. "Look at this, or this, or this, or maybe this, anything that is not people who were around Trump being arrested".
Like I said, I don't think that people understand what Mueller is actually doing. Yesterday was the first time that we actually got real confirmation of what he has been looking at and investigating over the past several months. You really expect political apparatuses to switch gears on a dime after being conditioned for months to view the investigation through pure partisanship? I don't.
|
i mean it feels worth mentioning that if you think you have a grasp on what Muellers doing, you should think again. we don’t know at all the scope of his investigation. getting glimpses and claiming we know what he’s done for the last several months is just, idk, presumptuous.
George Papa was arrested in July. As leaky as washington is these days, this alone should tell you how little we know of the investigation.
i mean i know you’ll say that’s not what your words mean. but it is what they said.
lol though at this insistence about Uranium One. i’ve heard more credibile Area 51 conspiracies. to compare it to Manafort’s indictment is real next level Alex Jones shit. Maybe i’ll eat my words here though. and if i do, i’ll be glad to.
|
On November 01 2017 00:04 brian wrote:
i mean it feels worth mentioning that if you think you have a grasp on what Muellers doing, you should think again. we don’t know at all the scope of his investigation. getting glimpses and claiming we know what he’s done for the last several months is just, idk, not intelligent.
George Papa was arrested in July. As leaky as washington is these days, this alone should tell you how little we know of the investigation.
i mean i know you’ll say that’s not what your words mean. but it is what they said.
That's fair. I could be all wet on what's going on, but I do think that my explanation best comports with what we know right now, particularly in light of yesterday.
|
Papa not being leaked is actually a nice change of pace. it’s an awful feeling to think ‘whew the government actually can keep secrets’ and be relieved by it.
that’s some real motivation for introspection.
sorry, the word i was looking for earlier was ‘presumptuous.’. i’ve edited to that affect. i didn’t like how i left that.
|
If Mueller really is tasked with just cleaning house in any way he can regarding foreign influence, why in the fuck is his position not just some permanent part of our government? We should always have this anti-virus'ish software running, not just when something big pops up. If Podesta is getting toasted for something that could have been investigated by someone else, why was Podesta not being investigated? Manafort? Is that not someone's job?
|
Comey also likely knew at the time he was sitting at dinner with Trump and Trump was asking for a loyalty pledge, earlier in that same day, George Papa lied to the FBI. Notice Comey didn't reveal any of that in his hearings. So yes there are non leaked aspects of the investigation. And potentially a stronger case for obstruction by Trump (which we do know Mueller is looking into) than we know.
|
On October 31 2017 23:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 23:43 Gorsameth wrote:On October 31 2017 23:25 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 22:49 Mohdoo wrote:
If Republicans need Clinton to support Mueller, by all means. It's actually pretty relieving to see Mueller take out podesta. I've been worried Republicans will only tolerate so many convictions. Throwing in some members of the Republicans most wanted list helps keep the right on board. I think that the problem here is that most people are still viewing the Mueller investigation through the partisan narrative lens of "this is all about Trump." Presuming that this is no longer what the investigation is about (to the extent it ever was -- think about that one for a moment), it's not exactly fair to expect people who have been all wound up by the media (left and right) to simply stop on a dime and change their perspective all at once. Consider this: last week I noted that, in light of all of the new revelations that were coming out about Uranium One, Mueller investigating the Podestas, etc, that there was clearly a change happening in the media narrative -- that we were seeing information that did not comport with what everyone thought that the Mueller investigation was all about. Yesterday, we finally saw the first indictments, and they really had little-to-nothing to do with Trump/Russia collusion. To the contrary, the indictments and the information in them were very much germane to the information that was leaked to the media last week. I highly doubt that the timing of these stories was coincidental. I think we're being fed information to slowly change the narrative to comport with what Mueller is actually doing, because we're going to be shocked at how far he's going to go. What your seeing is the Republican PR machine going full steam to muddy the water now that its harder to deny Mueller will find anything. See drumming up new revelations that were coming out about Uranium One when there is 1) nothing new and 2) everything old has been debunked. "Look at this, or this, or this, or maybe this, anything that is not people who were around Trump being arrested". Like I said, I don't think that people understand what Mueller is actually doing. Yesterday was the first time that we actually got real confirmation of what he has been looking at and investigating over the past several months. You really expect political apparatuses to switch gears on a dime after being conditioned for months to view the investigation through pure partisanship? I don't.
I'm not sure why you're referring to the "Podestas" in the plural, other than to try to drag the Clinton camp into things. It is the case that the Mueller investigation is, first and foremost, an investigation of the Trump campaign (by the terms of Mueller's authorization as special counsel).
The main event is still very much the Trump campaign, and the George P revelations, combined with other campaign willingness to obtain dirt on Hillary from Russia, start to reveal at least a desire to collude.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Here’s something I think is worth mentioning. The Mueller investigation itself is probably not that partisan in and of itself. That much seems to be fairly reasonable an assumption; it’s undeniable that funny business worthy of investigation transpired in the wake of the campaign season. Furthermore, Mueller seems fairly level-headed and capable of looking at this all with the proper law enforcement mindset.
What is partisan and unfortunate however, is how explicitly this whole shebang has been thrust into the public arena and how criminal investigations are now a matter for CNN to cover the progress of on a daily basis. There are endless “he gon’ get it” folks chomping at the bit to take anything and everything bad about Trump or Russia or Trump surrogates because they just want bad things to happen to those groups. Sure, you can turn it around and say certain investigations around Clinton followed the same pattern. But a consistent pattern of stupid behavior just makes it worse for everyone.
I was going to ask earlier if people had changed their mind about the merits of leaking investigation details after it was Podesta in the barrel instead of Trumpkins. Never did, was too busy to follow along here. But really, is death by public outcry the way you really want to handle investigations? Let the investigators do their goddamn job. The history cubes will tell us if someone was a crook or just a shitty individual. The carpet bombing disapproval changes nothing.
|
On October 31 2017 20:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
And any notion of Kelly being an apolitical general has now jumped the shark.
|
On October 31 2017 21:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The Iron Law of Trump: the opposite of what he says is the truth.
|
On November 01 2017 00:44 Doodsmack wrote:And any notion of Kelly being an apolitical general has now jumped the shark.
You don't become Chief of Staff by being apolitical.
No one thought Kelly was a perfect person without some wierd views.
But he doesn't run a clown fiesta which is what the WH was (more so then now) before he came in.
|
On November 01 2017 00:13 Mohdoo wrote:
If Mueller really is tasked with just cleaning house in any way he can regarding foreign influence, why in the fuck is his position not just some permanent part of our government? We should always have this anti-virus'ish software running, not just when something big pops up. If Podesta is getting toasted for something that could have been investigated by someone else, why was Podesta not being investigated? Manafort? Is that not someone's job?
Theoretically, this should be the responsibility of the AG and the law enforcement agencies under the AG's purview (notably the FBI). But who watches them? What happens when the watch dogs willingly turn a blind eye and utilize their inherent enforcement discretion to avoid bringing charges against the "friends" of their colleagues in office (or against the colleagues themselves)? Like I said yesterday, the big revelation here is the sheer breadth of the level of corruption that is occurring if the Manafort indictment is accurate. And as GH points, what Mueller is doing has huge ramifications for K Street. People understand what "the swamp" is conceptually. But it's another matter to get such an unvarnished look at it like what we're getting now.
|
|
|
rofl get hit by a bus, john
|
On November 01 2017 00:36 LegalLord wrote:
Here’s something I think is worth mentioning. The Mueller investigation itself is probably not that partisan in and of itself. That much seems to be fairly reasonable an assumption; it’s undeniable that funny business worthy of investigation transpired in the wake of the campaign season. Furthermore, Mueller seems fairly level-headed and capable of looking at this all with the proper law enforcement mindset.
What is partisan and unfortunate however, is how explicitly this whole shebang has been thrust into the public arena and how criminal investigations are now a matter for CNN to cover the progress of on a daily basis. There are endless “he gon’ get it” folks chomping at the bit to take anything and everything bad about Trump or Russia or Trump surrogates because they just want bad things to happen to those groups. Sure, you can turn it around and say certain investigations around Clinton followed the same pattern. But a consistent pattern of stupid behavior just makes it worse for everyone.
I was going to ask earlier if people had changed their mind about the merits of leaking investigation details after it was Podesta in the barrel instead of Trumpkins. Never did, was too busy to follow along here. But really, is death by public outcry the way you really want to handle investigations? Let the investigators do their goddamn job. The history cubes will tell us if someone was a crook or just a shitty individual. The carpet bombing disapproval changes nothing.
I don't think that's partisan; so much as sensationalism. CNN over-covering some topic du jour on a daily basis is routine.
People not waiting for investigations before leaping onto conclusions is pretty routine.
criminal investigations have been hyper-covered for ages now, remember the OJ Simpson trial?
I'm not disputing that it's stupid behavior, I'm just observing that it doesn't seem to be partisan, so much as ubiquitous found amongst all sides (I know that's redundant).
|
on the off chance J. Podesta is clean in all this, i would feel some marginal sympathy for his situation.
but if you play with enough pigs you should expect to get hit with some mud.
|
|
|
On November 01 2017 00:18 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 23:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 23:43 Gorsameth wrote:On October 31 2017 23:25 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 22:49 Mohdoo wrote:
If Republicans need Clinton to support Mueller, by all means. It's actually pretty relieving to see Mueller take out podesta. I've been worried Republicans will only tolerate so many convictions. Throwing in some members of the Republicans most wanted list helps keep the right on board. I think that the problem here is that most people are still viewing the Mueller investigation through the partisan narrative lens of "this is all about Trump." Presuming that this is no longer what the investigation is about (to the extent it ever was -- think about that one for a moment), it's not exactly fair to expect people who have been all wound up by the media (left and right) to simply stop on a dime and change their perspective all at once. Consider this: last week I noted that, in light of all of the new revelations that were coming out about Uranium One, Mueller investigating the Podestas, etc, that there was clearly a change happening in the media narrative -- that we were seeing information that did not comport with what everyone thought that the Mueller investigation was all about. Yesterday, we finally saw the first indictments, and they really had little-to-nothing to do with Trump/Russia collusion. To the contrary, the indictments and the information in them were very much germane to the information that was leaked to the media last week. I highly doubt that the timing of these stories was coincidental. I think we're being fed information to slowly change the narrative to comport with what Mueller is actually doing, because we're going to be shocked at how far he's going to go. What your seeing is the Republican PR machine going full steam to muddy the water now that its harder to deny Mueller will find anything. See drumming up new revelations that were coming out about Uranium One when there is 1) nothing new and 2) everything old has been debunked. "Look at this, or this, or this, or maybe this, anything that is not people who were around Trump being arrested". Like I said, I don't think that people understand what Mueller is actually doing. Yesterday was the first time that we actually got real confirmation of what he has been looking at and investigating over the past several months. You really expect political apparatuses to switch gears on a dime after being conditioned for months to view the investigation through pure partisanship? I don't. I'm not sure why you're referring to the "Podestas" in the plural, other than to try to drag the Clinton camp into things. It is the case that the Mueller investigation is, first and foremost, an investigation of the Trump campaign (by the terms of Mueller's authorization as special counsel). The main event is still very much the Trump campaign, and the George P revelations, combined with other campaign willingness to obtain dirt on Hillary from Russia, start to reveal at least a desire to collude.
i would like to say i'm shocked by the false equivalence between tony podesta's work and everything papadou, manafort and gate have done, but i'm not.
|
On October 31 2017 19:32 Danglars wrote:
Boehner’s having some fun in his retirement.
Deserved because Trump is just that bad?
For farva and Mr Kulturkampf.
if your intention was to discredit her publication by posting a tweet that doesn't offer anything regarding what it states ("ignores founding fathers") in the link posted, you failed miserably.
The wording of the tweet probably already triggered you so reading comprehension was down the drain already. nothing less to expect from you though.
Important take-away from her text might be:
[quote] Implicit in the metaphor is the idea that we will have reached gender equality when men and women alike embrace both halves of their humanity: masculinity and femininity.[/qoute]
Note that this means to accept a virtue as something desirable in whomever it manifests, be it man or woman. A "female virtue", say compassion, is not a weakness in a man as vigour isn't in a woman.
What you also could have noted by reading is, that feminism isn't just about women.+ Show Spoiler +Feminist critiques of projects like Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In (2013), for example—those that exhort women to compete with men in male-dominated workplaces—suggest that women’s embrace of masculinity may be good for individual women but actually quite bad for society.9 Relishing competition over cooperation, taking pleasure in beating opponents, and showing no remorse for hoarding wealth and exploiting power are features of a masculine “politics of domination.”10 Is it really a better world if half of the winners of this game are women?
And her final paragraphs adress her take on toxic masculinity + Show Spoiler +If we’re going to survive both President Trump and the kind of people he has emboldened, we need to attack masculinity directly. I don’t mean that we should recuperate masculinity—that is, press men to identify with a kinder, gentler version of it—I mean that we should reject the idea that men have a psychic need to distinguish themselves from women in order to feel good about themselves. This idea is sexist on its face and it’s unsettling that we so rarely think of it that way.
In fact, we should be as suspicious of males who strongly identify as men as we are of white people who strongly identify as white. We should understand, in hindsight, that one of the reasons women were so keen to embrace masculinity in the first place was because it feels good to feel superior. And we should recognize, as well, that it is men’s belief that they should be superior to women and other men that is the cause of so much of their rage, self-hatred, and suffering.
We are here in Trump’s America in part because we have been too delicate in our treatment of dangerous ideas. The problem is not toxic masculinity; it’s that masculinity is toxic. Its appeal is its alluring promise that if we obey it, we can all bask in a sense of superiority over someone. It’s simply not compatible with liberty and justice for all.
If we are going to finish the gender revolution, then, we need to call masculinity out as a hazardous ideology and denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it. We need to stop talking about what it means to be a “real man” or an “empowered woman,” and begin talking, instead, about what it means to be a good person and a good citizen. Our nation’s future depends upon it. icon
This, again, underscores that feminism isn't about women dominating men, but to disavow the domination of one another as a goal and aspiration.
|
On November 01 2017 01:27 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 00:18 Doodsmack wrote:On October 31 2017 23:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 23:43 Gorsameth wrote:On October 31 2017 23:25 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 22:49 Mohdoo wrote:
If Republicans need Clinton to support Mueller, by all means. It's actually pretty relieving to see Mueller take out podesta. I've been worried Republicans will only tolerate so many convictions. Throwing in some members of the Republicans most wanted list helps keep the right on board. I think that the problem here is that most people are still viewing the Mueller investigation through the partisan narrative lens of "this is all about Trump." Presuming that this is no longer what the investigation is about (to the extent it ever was -- think about that one for a moment), it's not exactly fair to expect people who have been all wound up by the media (left and right) to simply stop on a dime and change their perspective all at once. Consider this: last week I noted that, in light of all of the new revelations that were coming out about Uranium One, Mueller investigating the Podestas, etc, that there was clearly a change happening in the media narrative -- that we were seeing information that did not comport with what everyone thought that the Mueller investigation was all about. Yesterday, we finally saw the first indictments, and they really had little-to-nothing to do with Trump/Russia collusion. To the contrary, the indictments and the information in them were very much germane to the information that was leaked to the media last week. I highly doubt that the timing of these stories was coincidental. I think we're being fed information to slowly change the narrative to comport with what Mueller is actually doing, because we're going to be shocked at how far he's going to go. What your seeing is the Republican PR machine going full steam to muddy the water now that its harder to deny Mueller will find anything. See drumming up new revelations that were coming out about Uranium One when there is 1) nothing new and 2) everything old has been debunked. "Look at this, or this, or this, or maybe this, anything that is not people who were around Trump being arrested". Like I said, I don't think that people understand what Mueller is actually doing. Yesterday was the first time that we actually got real confirmation of what he has been looking at and investigating over the past several months. You really expect political apparatuses to switch gears on a dime after being conditioned for months to view the investigation through pure partisanship? I don't. I'm not sure why you're referring to the "Podestas" in the plural, other than to try to drag the Clinton camp into things. It is the case that the Mueller investigation is, first and foremost, an investigation of the Trump campaign (by the terms of Mueller's authorization as special counsel). The main event is still very much the Trump campaign, and the George P revelations, combined with other campaign willingness to obtain dirt on Hillary from Russia, start to reveal at least a desire to collude. i would like to say i'm shocked by the false equivalence between tony podesta's work and everything papadou, manafort and gate have done, but i'm not.
You realize that Mueller has alleged that Podesta conspired with Manafort to do all of Manafort's allegedly illegal stuff, right?
And if your beef is with the allegation of John being lumped in with his brother, the allegation is neither unfounded nor unsubstantiated. In particular, per Carlson's reporting, Mueller has a witness who will testify to just that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
