|
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 November 01 2017 22:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 21:59 xDaunt wrote:On November 01 2017 21:39 Aquanim wrote:On November 01 2017 19:51 farvacola wrote:On November 01 2017 19:48 Aquanim wrote:On November 01 2017 18:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
Mueller is coming really hard. The first details of the first indictment, including the china trips, the cyprus connection, and the multiple fake identities, are merely the surface of the surface of the entire thing. I think this leads to jail for Trump, if the correct legal and political process is followed. Is there any actual link to Trump himself yet? I don't know of one. Because of the way pleading standards and claim/issue preclusion work in US courts, we likely won't see direct links to Trump until Mueller makes progress on the periphery. He might even wait until after '18 given the direction his first indictments take. Well, sure, but "that's what you'd say if you were guilty" isn't a great answer to "I'm innocent". I can see an argument that it would be difficult for the entire Trump campaign to be rotten without Trump himself knowing about it, but it's not such an amazing argument that I'm celebrating Trump being in a jail cell already. Read this article on how Papadopoulos got to the Trump campaign. What's clear from it is that the Trump campaign was a bad case of amateur hour. I'm reminded of an article that I read from January 2015 or so where the topic being reported on was how the Jeb campaign had sucked up all of the Republican foreign policy talent, thereby making it very difficult for the other candidates to get qualified people. What we're seeing in this WSJ piece are some of the after-effects of that. Candidates were scrambling for anyone who had anything resembling foreign policy qualification, including (in the case of Papadopoulos) stuff as limited as Model UN experience. Sure, If you ignore all the other shit people that Trump surrounded himself with that were fired or had to resign, both during the election and after.
Mueller has the advantage of time and knowledge. And knowing Trump's lack of discipline and misguided self belief on the level of his intelligence, he will be the one to hang himself eventually.
|
On November 01 2017 22:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 21:59 xDaunt wrote:On November 01 2017 21:39 Aquanim wrote:On November 01 2017 19:51 farvacola wrote:On November 01 2017 19:48 Aquanim wrote:On November 01 2017 18:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
Mueller is coming really hard. The first details of the first indictment, including the china trips, the cyprus connection, and the multiple fake identities, are merely the surface of the surface of the entire thing. I think this leads to jail for Trump, if the correct legal and political process is followed. Is there any actual link to Trump himself yet? I don't know of one. Because of the way pleading standards and claim/issue preclusion work in US courts, we likely won't see direct links to Trump until Mueller makes progress on the periphery. He might even wait until after '18 given the direction his first indictments take. Well, sure, but "that's what you'd say if you were guilty" isn't a great answer to "I'm innocent". I can see an argument that it would be difficult for the entire Trump campaign to be rotten without Trump himself knowing about it, but it's not such an amazing argument that I'm celebrating Trump being in a jail cell already. Read this article on how Papadopoulos got to the Trump campaign. What's clear from it is that the Trump campaign was a bad case of amateur hour. I'm reminded of an article that I read from January 2015 or so where the topic being reported on was how the Jeb campaign had sucked up all of the Republican foreign policy talent, thereby making it very difficult for the other candidates to get qualified people. What we're seeing in this WSJ piece are some of the after-effects of that. Candidates were scrambling for anyone who had anything resembling foreign policy qualification, including (in the case of Papadopoulos) stuff as limited as Model UN experience. Sure, If you ignore all the other shit people that Trump surrounded himself with that were fired or had to resign, both during the election and after.
everyone knows weather != climate.
repeated events are in no way indicative of a pattern.
|
|
|
amen for rooting out lying politicians.
|
Why did Comey make that appearance that hurt Clinton's chances at such a crucial time during the election?
I'm thinking they assume letting Trump win and removing him later is easier that letting Clinton win and moving against her. We live in such strange times.
|
On November 01 2017 22:35 Twinkle Toes wrote:Why did Comey make that appearance that hurt Clinton's chances at such a crucial time during the election? I'm thinking they assume letting Trump win and removing him later is easier that letting Clinton win and moving against her. We live in such strange times.
that's an odd thing to think; clinton wouldn't have needed removing.
also, such a plan is needlessly convoluted, and is far from a sure thing anyways.
occam's razor would stick to the far simpler explanation: he did it to cover himself, in a situation where there was no good choice, he had to pick one.
|
On November 01 2017 12:19 Plansix wrote:
This shit is an insult to our country. 10th grade history pretty much shits all over this. But the White House is going to regurgitate this lie for however long they are in office. Dog whistle racism at its finest, coming from the Oval Office.
I can usually at least see the pretense for calling something racist but I'm at a loss for connecting the dots to how racism can be squeezed out of this, can someone give me the idea? I'm also surprised it would be important to accept that war is inevitable, that's frightening and otherwise doesn't sound like what I think of as being left-wing, it's not a great mindset for dealing with the volatility in the world.
|
I think the premise is that they could've compromised on slavery, as if treating black people as sub-human was ever something that should ever be considered for compromise
|
On November 01 2017 22:45 oBlade wrote:I can usually at least see the pretense for calling something racist but I'm at a loss for connecting the dots to how racism can be squeezed out of this, can someone give me the idea? I'm also surprised it would be important to accept that war is inevitable, that's frightening and otherwise doesn't sound like what I think of as being left-wing, it's not a great mindset for dealing with the volatility in the world.
Claiming that the civil war could have been prevented through some sort of compromise is the historical equivalent of claiming the earth is flat. It flies in the face over overwhelming evidence that no compromise was going to stop that war. The south wants slavery to continue as it was and to expand and the north did not. The myth that those who wanted to end the practice of slavery were aggressive party set on war is complete bullshit and a lie created by racists. Much like the lie that Lee didn’t support slavery(Spoiler: he did.)
On November 01 2017 22:47 Zambrah wrote:
I think the premise is that they could've compromised on slavery, as if treating black people as sub-human was ever something that should ever be considered for compromise
The entire lead up to the war is Lincoln trying to find some way to stop the war, including paying the south for slaves, shipping back to Africa and even allowing slavery to exist as was, but not expand to new states. None of them worked. The South wanted slavery to expand and for slave ownership to be enforced in the North. They would accept nothing less. That is why we went to war.
The key part of that is that the South not only wanted to keep slavery in the south, but wanted their ownership of slaves to be enforced across the entire nation. They were not interested in compromise.
|
On November 01 2017 22:44 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 22:35 Twinkle Toes wrote:Why did Comey make that appearance that hurt Clinton's chances at such a crucial time during the election? I'm thinking they assume letting Trump win and removing him later is easier that letting Clinton win and moving against her. We live in such strange times. that's an odd thing to think; clinton wouldn't have needed removing. also, such a plan is needlessly convoluted, and is far from a sure thing anyways. occam's razor would stick to the far simpler explanation: he did it to cover himself, in a situation where there was no good choice, he had to pick one.
Comey did it to cover himself? I don't follow...
|
On November 01 2017 22:45 oBlade wrote:I can usually at least see the pretense for calling something racist but I'm at a loss for connecting the dots to how racism can be squeezed out of this, can someone give me the idea? I'm also surprised it would be important to accept that war is inevitable, that's frightening and otherwise doesn't sound like what I think of as being left-wing, it's not a great mindset for dealing with the volatility in the world.
+ Show Spoiler +
It was obviously not an accurate sum-up of the primary cause (and compromise would've enshrined slavery as an institution for many years to come, even if somehow war might've been postponed). But these howling journos have to go beyond saying he was wrong and he put his foot in his mouth to ascend to John Kelly is a racist.
|
On November 01 2017 22:56 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 22:44 zlefin wrote:On November 01 2017 22:35 Twinkle Toes wrote:Why did Comey make that appearance that hurt Clinton's chances at such a crucial time during the election? I'm thinking they assume letting Trump win and removing him later is easier that letting Clinton win and moving against her. We live in such strange times. that's an odd thing to think; clinton wouldn't have needed removing. also, such a plan is needlessly convoluted, and is far from a sure thing anyways. occam's razor would stick to the far simpler explanation: he did it to cover himself, in a situation where there was no good choice, he had to pick one. Comey did it to cover himself? I don't follow...
He was on record saying the investigation was over. New information became available that they had to look at. So he made a statement saying exactly that. If he hadn't then he would failed at correctly informing Congress and been blasted for that.
Which he explained when he was heard by the Senate Intelligence Committee after his firing.
|
On November 01 2017 22:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 22:45 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2017 12:19 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/925436816475516933This shit is an insult to our country. 10th grade history pretty much shits all over this. But the White House is going to regurgitate this lie for however long they are in office. Dog whistle racism at its finest, coming from the Oval Office. I can usually at least see the pretense for calling something racist but I'm at a loss for connecting the dots to how racism can be squeezed out of this, can someone give me the idea? I'm also surprised it would be important to accept that war is inevitable, that's frightening and otherwise doesn't sound like what I think of as being left-wing, it's not a great mindset for dealing with the volatility in the world. Claiming that the civil war could have been prevented through some sort of compromise is the historical equivalent of claiming the earth is flat. It flies in the face over overwhelming evidence that no compromise was going to stop that war. The south wants slavery to continue as it was and to expand and the north did not. The myth that those who wanted to end the practice of slavery were aggressive party set on war is complete bullshit and a lie created by racists. Much like the lie that Lee didn’t support slavery(Spoiler: he did.) Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 22:47 Zambrah wrote:
I think the premise is that they could've compromised on slavery, as if treating black people as sub-human was ever something that should ever be considered for compromise The entire lead up to the war is Lincoln trying to find some way to stop the war, including paying the south for slaves, shipping back to Africa and even allowing slavery to exist as was, but not expand to new states. None of them worked. The South wanted slavery to expand and for slave ownership to be enforced in the North. They would accept nothing less. That is why we went to war. The key part of that is that the South not only wanted to keep slavery in the south, but wanted their ownership of slaves to be enforced across the entire nation. They were not interested in compromise.
Uh but did you know Trump is the greatest dealmaker in the history of deals? He wrote a book about it.
|
On November 01 2017 22:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 22:45 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2017 12:19 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/925436816475516933This shit is an insult to our country. 10th grade history pretty much shits all over this. But the White House is going to regurgitate this lie for however long they are in office. Dog whistle racism at its finest, coming from the Oval Office. I can usually at least see the pretense for calling something racist but I'm at a loss for connecting the dots to how racism can be squeezed out of this, can someone give me the idea? I'm also surprised it would be important to accept that war is inevitable, that's frightening and otherwise doesn't sound like what I think of as being left-wing, it's not a great mindset for dealing with the volatility in the world. Claiming that the civil war could have been prevented through some sort of compromise is the historical equivalent of claiming the earth is flat. It flies in the face over overwhelming evidence that no compromise was going to stop that war. The south wants slavery to continue as it was and to expand and the north did not. The myth that those who wanted to end the practice of slavery were aggressive party set on war is complete bullshit and a lie created by racists. Much like the lie that Lee didn’t support slavery(Spoiler: he did.) Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 22:47 Zambrah wrote:
I think the premise is that they could've compromised on slavery, as if treating black people as sub-human was ever something that should ever be considered for compromise The entire lead up to the war is Lincoln trying to find some way to stop the war, including paying the south for slaves, shipping back to Africa and even allowing slavery to exist as was, but not expand to new states. None of them worked. The South wanted slavery to expand and for slave ownership to be enforced in the North. They would accept nothing less. That is why we went to war. The key part of that is that the South not only wanted to keep slavery in the south, but wanted their ownership of slaves to be enforced across the entire nation. They were not interested in compromise.
I understand how you got there now, you saw "If some individuals had been willing to come to some compromises" and concluded she must have been talking about anyone except the people who exist who you admit weren't willing to compromise, somehow knowing the whole subtext must actually be something to the effect Yankee dogs not making a deal.
|
On November 01 2017 23:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 22:54 Plansix wrote:On November 01 2017 22:45 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2017 12:19 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/925436816475516933This shit is an insult to our country. 10th grade history pretty much shits all over this. But the White House is going to regurgitate this lie for however long they are in office. Dog whistle racism at its finest, coming from the Oval Office. I can usually at least see the pretense for calling something racist but I'm at a loss for connecting the dots to how racism can be squeezed out of this, can someone give me the idea? I'm also surprised it would be important to accept that war is inevitable, that's frightening and otherwise doesn't sound like what I think of as being left-wing, it's not a great mindset for dealing with the volatility in the world. Claiming that the civil war could have been prevented through some sort of compromise is the historical equivalent of claiming the earth is flat. It flies in the face over overwhelming evidence that no compromise was going to stop that war. The south wants slavery to continue as it was and to expand and the north did not. The myth that those who wanted to end the practice of slavery were aggressive party set on war is complete bullshit and a lie created by racists. Much like the lie that Lee didn’t support slavery(Spoiler: he did.) On November 01 2017 22:47 Zambrah wrote:
I think the premise is that they could've compromised on slavery, as if treating black people as sub-human was ever something that should ever be considered for compromise The entire lead up to the war is Lincoln trying to find some way to stop the war, including paying the south for slaves, shipping back to Africa and even allowing slavery to exist as was, but not expand to new states. None of them worked. The South wanted slavery to expand and for slave ownership to be enforced in the North. They would accept nothing less. That is why we went to war. The key part of that is that the South not only wanted to keep slavery in the south, but wanted their ownership of slaves to be enforced across the entire nation. They were not interested in compromise. I understand how you got there now, you saw "If some individuals had been willing to come to some compromises" and concluded she must have been talking about anyone except the people who exist who you admit weren't willing to compromise, somehow knowing the whole subtext must actually be something to the effect Yankee dogs not making a deal.
Compromises require both sides to make concessions. The Northern states were already making several concessions as Plansix pointed out - which we should still find morally abhorrant (EDIT: ie. would have not abolished slavery). Therefore, the spokesperson for the WH and Gen. Kelly are implicitly saying that keeping the institution of slavery alive would have been a preferable outcome.
|
On November 01 2017 23:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 22:54 Plansix wrote:On November 01 2017 22:45 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2017 12:19 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/925436816475516933This shit is an insult to our country. 10th grade history pretty much shits all over this. But the White House is going to regurgitate this lie for however long they are in office. Dog whistle racism at its finest, coming from the Oval Office. I can usually at least see the pretense for calling something racist but I'm at a loss for connecting the dots to how racism can be squeezed out of this, can someone give me the idea? I'm also surprised it would be important to accept that war is inevitable, that's frightening and otherwise doesn't sound like what I think of as being left-wing, it's not a great mindset for dealing with the volatility in the world. Claiming that the civil war could have been prevented through some sort of compromise is the historical equivalent of claiming the earth is flat. It flies in the face over overwhelming evidence that no compromise was going to stop that war. The south wants slavery to continue as it was and to expand and the north did not. The myth that those who wanted to end the practice of slavery were aggressive party set on war is complete bullshit and a lie created by racists. Much like the lie that Lee didn’t support slavery(Spoiler: he did.) On November 01 2017 22:47 Zambrah wrote:
I think the premise is that they could've compromised on slavery, as if treating black people as sub-human was ever something that should ever be considered for compromise The entire lead up to the war is Lincoln trying to find some way to stop the war, including paying the south for slaves, shipping back to Africa and even allowing slavery to exist as was, but not expand to new states. None of them worked. The South wanted slavery to expand and for slave ownership to be enforced in the North. They would accept nothing less. That is why we went to war. The key part of that is that the South not only wanted to keep slavery in the south, but wanted their ownership of slaves to be enforced across the entire nation. They were not interested in compromise. I understand how you got there now, you saw "If some individuals had been willing to come to some compromises" and concluded she must have been talking about anyone except the people who exist who you admit weren't willing to compromise, somehow knowing the whole subtext must actually be something to the effect Yankee dogs not making a deal.
She and Kelly were talking about the north being “unwilling to compromise.” Kelly said in the same press conference that Lee was an honorable man and we shouldn’t forget his contributions to this country. This ignores that fact that Lee was a traitor who took up arms against his own country. It all an extension of the War of Northern Aggression myth, created by southern racists who refuse to own up to slavery. And who also put up a bunch of statues. The Civil War is not something we need to re-litigate over and over.
|
On November 01 2017 23:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 23:09 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2017 22:54 Plansix wrote:On November 01 2017 22:45 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2017 12:19 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/925436816475516933This shit is an insult to our country. 10th grade history pretty much shits all over this. But the White House is going to regurgitate this lie for however long they are in office. Dog whistle racism at its finest, coming from the Oval Office. I can usually at least see the pretense for calling something racist but I'm at a loss for connecting the dots to how racism can be squeezed out of this, can someone give me the idea? I'm also surprised it would be important to accept that war is inevitable, that's frightening and otherwise doesn't sound like what I think of as being left-wing, it's not a great mindset for dealing with the volatility in the world. Claiming that the civil war could have been prevented through some sort of compromise is the historical equivalent of claiming the earth is flat. It flies in the face over overwhelming evidence that no compromise was going to stop that war. The south wants slavery to continue as it was and to expand and the north did not. The myth that those who wanted to end the practice of slavery were aggressive party set on war is complete bullshit and a lie created by racists. Much like the lie that Lee didn’t support slavery(Spoiler: he did.) On November 01 2017 22:47 Zambrah wrote:
I think the premise is that they could've compromised on slavery, as if treating black people as sub-human was ever something that should ever be considered for compromise The entire lead up to the war is Lincoln trying to find some way to stop the war, including paying the south for slaves, shipping back to Africa and even allowing slavery to exist as was, but not expand to new states. None of them worked. The South wanted slavery to expand and for slave ownership to be enforced in the North. They would accept nothing less. That is why we went to war. The key part of that is that the South not only wanted to keep slavery in the south, but wanted their ownership of slaves to be enforced across the entire nation. They were not interested in compromise. I understand how you got there now, you saw "If some individuals had been willing to come to some compromises" and concluded she must have been talking about anyone except the people who exist who you admit weren't willing to compromise, somehow knowing the whole subtext must actually be something to the effect Yankee dogs not making a deal. She and Kelly were talking about the north being “unwilling to compromise.” Kelly said in the same press conference that Lee was an honorable man and we shouldn’t forget his contributions to this country. This ignores that fact that Lee was a traitor who took up arms against his own country. It all an extension of the War of Northern Aggression myth, created by southern racists who refuse to own up to slavery. And who also put up a bunch of statues. The Civil War is not something we need to re-litigate over and over.
We're not relitigating the Civil War, but your ability to read minds, can you source the first sentence of your post?
|
On November 01 2017 23:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 23:17 Plansix wrote:On November 01 2017 23:09 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2017 22:54 Plansix wrote:On November 01 2017 22:45 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2017 12:19 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/925436816475516933This shit is an insult to our country. 10th grade history pretty much shits all over this. But the White House is going to regurgitate this lie for however long they are in office. Dog whistle racism at its finest, coming from the Oval Office. I can usually at least see the pretense for calling something racist but I'm at a loss for connecting the dots to how racism can be squeezed out of this, can someone give me the idea? I'm also surprised it would be important to accept that war is inevitable, that's frightening and otherwise doesn't sound like what I think of as being left-wing, it's not a great mindset for dealing with the volatility in the world. Claiming that the civil war could have been prevented through some sort of compromise is the historical equivalent of claiming the earth is flat. It flies in the face over overwhelming evidence that no compromise was going to stop that war. The south wants slavery to continue as it was and to expand and the north did not. The myth that those who wanted to end the practice of slavery were aggressive party set on war is complete bullshit and a lie created by racists. Much like the lie that Lee didn’t support slavery(Spoiler: he did.) On November 01 2017 22:47 Zambrah wrote:
I think the premise is that they could've compromised on slavery, as if treating black people as sub-human was ever something that should ever be considered for compromise The entire lead up to the war is Lincoln trying to find some way to stop the war, including paying the south for slaves, shipping back to Africa and even allowing slavery to exist as was, but not expand to new states. None of them worked. The South wanted slavery to expand and for slave ownership to be enforced in the North. They would accept nothing less. That is why we went to war. The key part of that is that the South not only wanted to keep slavery in the south, but wanted their ownership of slaves to be enforced across the entire nation. They were not interested in compromise. I understand how you got there now, you saw "If some individuals had been willing to come to some compromises" and concluded she must have been talking about anyone except the people who exist who you admit weren't willing to compromise, somehow knowing the whole subtext must actually be something to the effect Yankee dogs not making a deal. She and Kelly were talking about the north being “unwilling to compromise.” Kelly said in the same press conference that Lee was an honorable man and we shouldn’t forget his contributions to this country. This ignores that fact that Lee was a traitor who took up arms against his own country. It all an extension of the War of Northern Aggression myth, created by southern racists who refuse to own up to slavery. And who also put up a bunch of statues. The Civil War is not something we need to re-litigate over and over. We're not relitigating the Civil War, but your ability to read minds, can you source the first sentence of your post?
Why do I need proof of their thoughts when they are regurgitating the southern racist’s fictional history of the civil war?
|
On November 01 2017 23:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 22:56 Twinkle Toes wrote:On November 01 2017 22:44 zlefin wrote:On November 01 2017 22:35 Twinkle Toes wrote:Why did Comey make that appearance that hurt Clinton's chances at such a crucial time during the election? I'm thinking they assume letting Trump win and removing him later is easier that letting Clinton win and moving against her. We live in such strange times. that's an odd thing to think; clinton wouldn't have needed removing. also, such a plan is needlessly convoluted, and is far from a sure thing anyways. occam's razor would stick to the far simpler explanation: he did it to cover himself, in a situation where there was no good choice, he had to pick one. Comey did it to cover himself? I don't follow... He was on record saying the investigation was over. New information became available that they had to look at. So he made a statement saying exactly that. If he hadn't then he would failed at correctly informing Congress and been blasted for that. Which he explained when he was heard by the Senate Intelligence Committee after his firing.
this. especially given the republican actions for awhile now, and the expected clinton victory; republicans in congress would be constantly lambasting him claiming he withheld vital information form the american public.
|
United States43992 Posts
On November 01 2017 22:45 oBlade wrote:I can usually at least see the pretense for calling something racist but I'm at a loss for connecting the dots to how racism can be squeezed out of this, can someone give me the idea? I'm also surprised it would be important to accept that war is inevitable, that's frightening and otherwise doesn't sound like what I think of as being left-wing, it's not a great mindset for dealing with the volatility in the world.
The only starting point by which you can get to that conclusion is "slavery isn't so bad".
Also we were about 8 compromises in by that point, failure to compromise didn't cause the civil war, compromise caused slavery. The reason slavery existed as an American institution is because compromise was reached on the value of black people over and over.
Also it was actually the south who refused to compromise, the shitty northerners tried to make yet another compromise allowing slavery in the south, and agreeing to return escaped slaves, but asking for the slaveowners to chip in for the cost of capturing the escaped slaves. The south refused to accept anything less than a constitutional requirement that the northern states pay for the slave catchers, and then bailed when it looked like they wouldn't get it.
In short, this is just another racist myth, like state's rights, or the honourable men of the confederacy. There is no excuse for it, the history is established.
If someone argues for the clean Wehrmacht, well, they're probably a Nazi. This is no different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
