|
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 January 09 2018 00:30 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2018 22:44 oBlade wrote:On January 08 2018 21:11 farvacola wrote:
This amounts to justification via unverifiable statements that really don't hold up to any sort of granular scrutiny. Try to make your point without using lazy "the American left" agglomerations that only end up true if one limits their perspective or otherwise privies a backwards look that ignores large swaths of bipartisan discontent with any manner of government functions. This very thread has its posters who belong to "the American left" that criticized Obama's agencies and his shitty policies ranging from immigration to bank bailouts and continue to do so now. Where has anyone ever said that the FBI is beyond reproach? You are trying to minimize the influence of Fox News while basically playing their game of scarecrow stuffing. Justification of what? I don't know what the moral issue issue is right now that you're apparently passionate about. Mention of immigration and bank bailouts makes me think you're talking about something else so I don't know. But anyway, of course not the entire left, this comes up constantly when people speak generally or identify a trend, I'm not talking about anything universal or sweeping, we know people are individuals and not blocks, nobody said otherwise. But you have the news, you've seen the talking heads going how it's so unpatriotic and un-American to go after the FBI. Don't act indignant about statements that don't apply to you personally (that nobody said applied to you or whoever else you're mentioning) like they therefore don't apply to a real group of people. The American Right - since this is the terminology best fitting - is currently going after an FBI investigation set in motion by a Republican congress, run by a Republican, investigating a Republican president. At first it was just 'this'll shut those dems up', then Mueller started to find things and started issuing indictments, and all of a sudden the entire FBI is a 'criminal conspiracy' that needs to be shut down. This isn't 'the FBI is beyond reproach' this is one set of politically active individuals arbitrarily deciding that one of the your country's highest offices of the law is corrupt entirely BECAUSE it's doing its job and exposing corruption in the Trump campaign. Sure, people were critical of the FBI back during the Benghazi BS, but I don't recall a single Democratic voice saying that the entire FBI needs to be shut down over it. The talking heads are right on this matter. This constitutes a direct attack on law and order in America, because the law and order party doesn't like it when law and order comes knocking on their doors instead of the doors of people they don't like.
So do you think the American Left terminology is "lazy" (the quote train you're in), and think The American Right is "the terminology best fitting?"
And where the hell are you saying the FBI investigation was "set in motion by a Republican congress?" The investigation is not being run by a Republican, it's just not being stopped by a Republican president (special counsel could be fired, FBI could be ordered to cease the investigation).
|
So Pence is actually running the country.
|
Let's be honest he just wants to watch Fox and Friends and listen to them talk about how great is.
The saddest thing of all is that's probably true
|
|
|
This is one way to finally put to rest the issue of racial bias in the justice system.
An acclaimed book about discrimination against African Americans in the criminal justice system has been banned from some prisons in New Jersey, according to newly obtained records.
The New Jim Crow, an award-winning book by Michelle Alexander published in 2010, appears on lists of publications that inmates in state correctional facilities may not possess.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/08/new-jim-crow-banned-new-jersey-prisons
|
Why do you think Trump could fire Mueller, Danglars? Do you think Nixon did the Saturday Night Massacre for fun or something?
|
On January 09 2018 07:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Why do you think Trump could fire Mueller, Danglars? Do you think Nixon did the Saturday Night Massacre for fun or something?
Clearly, Nixon was stymied in his attempts to fire special prosecutor Cox. Leon Jaworski definitely never took over for Cox.
|
I said something of the sort almost a year ago if I remember right.
"Trump will get bored and delegate more and more away and take a mostly ceremonial role".
|
Technically that is incorrect. Nixon fired Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus. Or forced them to resign, depending on your point of view. Robert Bork fired Cox. That is why it was an abuse of power. The special prosecutor does not serve at the pleasure of the President, and therefore cannot be fired by the President directly. But all the people who can fire the special prosecutor do.
|
|
|
How many seconds left until this guy's resignation? Lol
|
It's Kansas, he may stay in office.
|
On January 09 2018 07:47 Doodsmack wrote:How many seconds left until this guy's resignation? Lol
It's Kansas; it will get him elected.
|
I sort of appreciate some of the House GOP members for reviving pre-civil rights style of saying racist shit openly. It saves a lot of time and energy. Debating the Jeff Sessions/Steve Miller style of racism is just exhausting.
|
How is it not mandatory for elected officials to be knowledgeable on topics with the wealth of information at their finger tips.
|
On January 09 2018 08:28 crms wrote:How is it not mandatory for elected officials to be knowledgeable on topics with the wealth of information at their finger tips.
Our president mocked a disabled reporter at a press rally and still got elected. The answer is we no longer demand it.
|
On January 09 2018 08:28 crms wrote:How is it not mandatory for elected officials to be knowledgeable on topics with the wealth of information at their finger tips.
because voters don't care about how knowledgeable their officials are.
and part of the normative folk theories of democracy is to let the voters decide on such questions.
|
On January 09 2018 08:28 crms wrote:How is it not mandatory for elected officials to be knowledgeable on topics with the wealth of information at their finger tips.
It’s right there in your description. ELECTED officials. If the voters aren’t willing to hold officials to account on basic knowledge, then there is no incentive for officials to be knowledgeable. The cure is an educated populous that recognizes bullshit when it’s spoken and refuses to elect bullshit artists.
When the population would rather have pragmatic wonks instead of charismatic buffoons, then that’s what they’ll get. Until then, we’ll get a bunch of Trump-like characters.
Unfortunately, one party seems to undercut education for the masses, so I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting things to get better. The only thing that might change is that the Democrats will aim for more charisma at the cost of competence to match the Republicans. Hopefully their owners will value education for the masses. That’s about the only way this gets better.
|
On January 09 2018 07:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2018 07:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Why do you think Trump could fire Mueller, Danglars? Do you think Nixon did the Saturday Night Massacre for fun or something? Clearly, Nixon was stymied in his attempts to fire special prosecutor Cox. Leon Jaworski definitely never took over for Cox.
Nixon never made any attempts to fire Cox because it was literally impossible. If the CEO of your company needs to fire through your bosses until one of them fires you, that's not equivalent to firing you by a longshot.
Treating this investigation as if it's serving at the pleasure of the Republican president when his sycophants are actively discredited a prosecutor they lauded and the only reason it's intact is that Sessions recused himself and a deputy AG appointed Mueller is an interesting way to look at it, though, especially when the deputy AG was prompted by Comey's firing rather than a command from Trump.
|
On January 09 2018 10:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2018 07:32 Danglars wrote:On January 09 2018 07:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Why do you think Trump could fire Mueller, Danglars? Do you think Nixon did the Saturday Night Massacre for fun or something? Clearly, Nixon was stymied in his attempts to fire special prosecutor Cox. Leon Jaworski definitely never took over for Cox. Nixon never made any attempts to fire Cox because it was literally impossible. If the CEO of your company needs to fire through your bosses until one of them fires you, that's not equivalent to firing you by a longshot. Treating this investigation as if it's serving at the pleasure of the Republican president when his sycophants are actively discredited a prosecutor they lauded and the only reason it's intact is that Sessions recused himself and a deputy AG appointed Mueller is an interesting way to look at it, though, especially when the deputy AG was prompted by Comey's firing rather than a command from Trump.
Ahh, so you’re playing word games? Nixon used his appointed subordinates to fire somebody, which is so radically different that you saw fit to call attention to it. I should’ve known this was a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
