US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9767

On January 24 2018 08:58 Danglars wrote:

I mean, it's a provocative conservative instigator talking about ... the movies. This is like his schtick on twitter. The Oscars award title "Best Picture" is beating the dead horse for comedy, but whatever. He goes after low-hanging fruit all the time.


Just for an example of the reverse: This perspective is then the mainstream conservative response to the shutdown. Reasoned, fair amount of barbs, but fills out one take on the recent shutdown. He compares favorably to pundits that call NRA=terrorists and accuse Republican figures of white supremacy. He fills a role. It isn't the conciliatory, meet-at-the-middle one that uses muted tones. It turns out the liberals also have those outlets, posted here frequently by StealthBlue and others. Pick your level of incisive commentary and willingness to sound off on entertainment topics (and as long as you can agree they're judged by preening morons, I'll forgive you if you dislike the SJW catch-all term).

On January 24 2018 12:24 Plansix wrote:

As along as we all agree that Fox News and MSNBC are entertainment, not substantive political discussion or debate, that is fine. Ben Shapiro is just that, entertainment. He knows he role and what his job is. It is to tell people what they want to hear and collect a pay check from whoever he calls his boss.

On January 24 2018 11:23 mozoku wrote:

How exactly do you suppose the US "is built off the exploitation of others" and that current US citizens carry some burden for it? This should be interesting. My presumption is that this is based off of the oft-repeated but seemingly unjustifiable assertion that an employer is being "unfair" when it pays freely consenting low-wage country worker less than a high-wage country worker for the same job.

On January 24 2018 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote:


Well, there was the genocide and attempted enslavement of the native population, there was the importation of slaves, then there was child labor and inhumane working conditions, a brief reprieve (for some) during the growth of unions. Then we exported our criminal working conditions to countries where we could bribe their leaders to keep them legal/quiet/out of sight, out of mind.

Let's say someone inherited some old country house and inside was a hoard of Nazi loot, we're the inheritors and the wealth of this nation and it's infrastructure is the loot. Of course it's a bit more complicated than The Monuments Men, but you'd be a jerk to just consider the stolen loot yours and just saying fu to the people and their descendants from whom it was stolen.

I presume you think that 1% grabbing 82% of all wealth created in 2017 was "fair". As if they aren't taking the surplus value of the labor created by their workers/"investments" and concentrating it among a small group of people but instead merely being compensated a fair market value for their contributions to society.

On January 24 2018 13:16 Mohdoo wrote:


My problem with this is "how far back do you go?". Which civilizations have no history of violence? Is it just a matter of 300 years is too far back but 100 is fine? Where's the cut off?

On January 24 2018 13:16 Mohdoo wrote:


My problem with this is "how far back do you go?". Which civilizations have no history of violence? Is it just a matter of 300 years is too far back but 100 is fine? Where's the cut off?

On January 24 2018 11:50 LegalLord wrote:
Why smile at an almost insignificant boon to a failed business?

Tesla uses solar cells in its nascent solar roof tile business. The tiles generate electricity without the need for a traditional panel. Tesla also has plans to build conventional panels using imported cells for its U.S.-based residential installation business, which it also hopes to grow over the coming years.

Tesla expects to be able to import foreign cells for its tile and panel businesses free of tariffs thanks to the large exemption for cells, a source familiar with the company’s operations said on Tuesday.

Only 500 MW worth of solar cells were imported into the United States in total last year, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, a fifth of what is being exempted from Trump’s tariff.

On January 24 2018 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote:


Well, there was the genocide and attempted enslavement of the native population, there was the importation of slaves, then there was child labor and inhumane working conditions, a brief reprieve (for some) during the growth of unions. Then we exported our criminal working conditions to countries where we could bribe their leaders to keep them legal/quiet/out of sight, out of mind.

Let's say someone inherited some old country house and inside was a hoard of Nazi loot, we're the inheritors and the wealth of this nation and it's infrastructure is the loot. Of course it's a bit more complicated than The Monuments Men, but you'd be a jerk to just consider the stolen loot yours and just saying fu to the people and their descendants from whom it was stolen.

I presume you think that 1% grabbing 82% of all wealth created in 2017 was "fair". As if they aren't taking the surplus value of the labor created by their workers/"investments" and concentrating it among a small group of people but instead merely being compensated a fair market value for their contributions to society.

On January 24 2018 14:04 mozoku wrote:
Last I checked, most of these "criminal working conditions" that the US exported were to places where said jobs were better than the available local alternatives. The US's colonial history is quite limited. We missed the heyday of external slavery. Actually, if we're being honest, we played a not insignificant role in getting rid of it.

On January 24 2018 14:16 Sermokala wrote:
I think the issue mozoku is having is that GH isn't saying that there are better nations throughout history hes just saying we could do better and could have done better. To him its not like being better then other nations in history have been is okay because they're both bad. Its why he rotates the African countries he claims to be from in his profile every now and then.

Its pretty easy to see him as a party pooper because hes never positive on anything but you catch on after a while to what hes about.

On January 24 2018 15:49 a_flayer wrote:

I believe he started using the name of an African country when Danglers or xDaunt told him to go back to Africa.

On January 24 2018 16:43 GreenHorizons wrote:


You're both right. I don't think he meant "claim" in an inflammatory way, but I did change it both hoping people would google them and to the best of my knowledge they are some of the countries my ancestors came from.

Mozu and I are on completely different wavelengths but when he asserts people are under no moral obligation I do wonder under what moral system he is arriving at that conclusion.

As to my argument itself, I would suggest that some countries have been better than others (especially when you compare contemporaries) but it's not very relevant to my larger point. Which is people with privilege should feel an obligation to uplift the exploited.

I think you can articulate the source of that obligation a lot of ways, but the bottom line is that I think it's kinda dickish to take all of one's privilege and not feel obligated to use it to help those less fortunate than yourself. FWIW I think one can arrive at the same conclusion with totally selfish motives, so those thinking that selfishness/greed are inextricable parts of humanity, they're still not exclusionary.

Two mental exercises I like to use to think about different ideas is shrinking society to something like ~100-100,000 people (depending on the concept) and applying it or more for foreign policy imagining a superior alien species replaced the US in the equation and whether it is something I would accept. When you do those things something like 87% of the wealth created going to 1 person and the other 99 sharing 13% it becomes quite obvious that's a piss poor resource management system and anyone who tells you the other 99% are getting a better deal than if the 1 person wasn't motivated by wanting to have more than everyone else and everyone else is motivated by wanting to be that guy are full of shit.

On January 24 2018 11:27 Danglars wrote:


Daily Caller

I hope McCabe isn't mixed up in these text deletions from a the FBI Counterintelligence deputy assistant director. This guy's fucking done if he knew about what was going on.

On January 24 2018 22:40 iamthedave wrote:


Aren't the texts in question private texts between two lovers who happen to work at the FBI? And if so... who cares?

Or has something else emerged in the case that I'm unaware of?

I'm frankly bewildered that you folk seem to find it hard to believe that someone's political opinions won't influence their work. I've not seen one article that says Pter Strzok's work is politically motivated, just constantly going on about texts between him and his girlfriend. If he does his job to the best of his ability, what difference does it make if he thinks x or y about the subjects he's investigating?

I've also not heard a call for him to go through an employment tribunal or something so the FBI can verify he's not poisoning the well, or whatever. Just constant, pointless speculation and unverified - and unverifiable - assumption. And the fact he's there somehow means the investigating is compromised?

WASHINGTON — A year ago today, Donald Trump’s newly sworn–in national security adviser, Michael Flynn, met privately in his West Wing office with FBI investigators interested in his communications with Russia's ambassador, without a lawyer or the knowledge of the president and other top White House officials, according to people familiar with the matter.

Flynn's FBI interview on Jan. 24, 2017, set in motion an extraordinary sequence of events unparalleled for the first year of a U.S. presidency. A national security adviser was fired after 24 days on the job, an acting attorney general was fired ten days after the president took office, an FBI director was allegedly pressured by the president to let go an investigation into the ousted national security adviser, and then eventually fired.

An attorney general recused himself from a federal investigation into Russia's meddling in a U.S. election and possible collusion with the sitting president's campaign, and a special counsel was appointed.

The developments ensnared the president in an obstruction of justice inquiry, which resulted in his top intelligence and law enforcement chiefs cooperating in some form with that probe.

By the end of 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller’s team had spoken with Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, Mike Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, former FBI Director James Comey, and numerous members of Trump’s campaign and White House inner circle. Flynn pleaded guilty last month to lying to the FBI during his January 24 interview and is cooperating with the Russia investigation.

NBC News also has learned that former acting attorney general Sally Yates, who informed the White House about Flynn’s interview two days after it took place, has cooperated with the special counsel. CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who was allegedly asked by Trump to lean on Comey to drop his investigation, has also been interviewed, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

One person familiar with the matter described Pompeo, Coats and Rogers as "peripheral witnesses" to the Comey firing. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who played a key role in Comey's departure and was a top adviser on the Trump campaign, was interviewed by Mueller last week as the investigation inches closer to Mueller's team possibly questioning the president himself.

Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon is expected to meet with Mueller’s team by January 31, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

Unresolved is whether Trump will voluntarily agree to be interviewed by Mueller. So far, according to two people familiar with the discussions, Trump’s team has not reached an agreement with the special counsel for their client to meet with him.

Flynn's tenure in the White House and his firing by Trump are among the topics Mueller’s team has been asking witnesses to discuss, and they are likely to be part of any questioning of the president. Separately, Mueller is expected to want to ask Trump about his firing of Comey. The president told NBC News last year that his decision was connected to Comey’s dogged pursuit of potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. Trump has repeatedly called the investigation a "hoax" and a "witch-hunt."

Two people familiar with the matter said Trump was unaware that Flynn had spoken with the FBI until two days after the interview took place. An attorney for Flynn did not respond to a request for comment on this story.

A brief phone call from the office of Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI director, to a scheduler for Flynn on January 24 set the interview in motion, according to people familiar with the matter. The scheduler was told the FBI wanted to speak with Flynn later that day, these people said, and the meeting was placed on Flynn’s schedule. The scheduler didn't ask the reason for the meeting, and the FBI didn't volunteer it, one person familiar with the matter said.

Later that day, two FBI agents arrived at the White House to speak with Flynn. A lawyer for the National Security Council typically would be informed of such a meeting and be present for it, one person familiar with the procedures said. But that didn't happen in this instance, and Flynn didn't include his own personal lawyer, two people said. He met with the two federal agents alone, according to these people.

"No one knew that any of this was happening," said another senior White House official who was there at the time.

"Apparently it was not clear to Flynn that this was about his personal conduct," another White House official said. "So he didn't think of bringing his own lawyer."

White House counsel Don McGahn was the first senior official to learn of Flynn's interview during a meeting on January 26 with Yates in which she warned him that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence and other top Trump officials about his conversation with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, and could be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russian government.

McGahn has sat for two days of interviews with Mueller's team, according to a person familiar with the matter, including one interview that was rescheduled after Flynn’s plea deal was announced the day it was supposed to take place. Yates spoke extensively with Mueller’s team last year, according to people familiar with the matter.

McGahn briefed Trump, Bannon and White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, who left the White House last summer and also has spoken with Mueller's team, on his meeting with Yates that same day including the news of Flynn's FBI interview, people familiar with the matter said. Yates has testified before Congress that McGahn asked her how Flynn did in his FBI interview, to which she said she replied that she could not comment on it.

McGahn did not later ask Flynn if he lied to the FBI, one person familiar with the matter said. This person said it was unclear if Flynn intended to lie and that McGahn did not conclude that Flynn had lied to the FBI until after he had been fired. It was at that time in late winter or early spring that the White House received a request from the FBI for phone records and other documents related to Flynn that McGahn and other top officials concluded he had lied in his interview and was otherwise under investigation, this person said.

The year since Flynn's FBI interview has seen only escalated tensions between Trump and his Justice Department.

In recent weeks Trump has taken aim at McCabe, whose office first arranged Flynn’s FBI interview.

This week, White House spokesman Raj Shah fanned reports of pressure from the White House to fire McCabe by saying in a statement that Trump "believes politically-motivated senior leaders" of the FBI "have tainted the agency's reputation for unbiased pursuit of justice" and that the new director he "appointed" will "clean up the misconduct at the highest levels of the FBI."

And one of the two FBI agents who interviewed Flynn was Peter Strzok, whom Mueller removed from the Russia investigation last summer after the Justice Department’s inspector general's office found he'd written text messages to a colleague criticizing Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.

For Trump opponents, his war with the FBI is an effort to undermine the Russia investigation. For Trump and his allies, he’s battling a conspiracy within the top ranks of the Justice Department to undermine his presidency.

Flynn was fired as Trump’s national security adviser on February 13, after it became public that he had lied to Pence about his conversation with Kislyak.

The next day Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn, according to Comey’s testimony before Congress. Trump has denied asking Comey to let the Flynn investigation go.

On January 24 2018 22:40 iamthedave wrote:


Aren't the texts in question private texts between two lovers who happen to work at the FBI? And if so... who cares?

Or has something else emerged in the case that I'm unaware of?

I'm frankly bewildered that you folk seem to find it hard to believe that someone's political opinions won't influence their work. I've not seen one article that says Pter Strzok's work is politically motivated, just constantly going on about texts between him and his girlfriend. If he does his job to the best of his ability, what difference does it make if he thinks x or y about the subjects he's investigating?

I've also not heard a call for him to go through an employment tribunal or something so the FBI can verify he's not poisoning the well, or whatever. Just constant, pointless speculation and unverified - and unverifiable - assumption. And the fact he's there somehow means the investigating is compromised?

On January 24 2018 22:40 iamthedave wrote:


Aren't the texts in question private texts between two lovers who happen to work at the FBI? And if so... who cares?

Or has something else emerged in the case that I'm unaware of?

I'm frankly bewildered that you folk seem to find it hard to believe that someone's political opinions won't influence their work. I've not seen one article that says Pter Strzok's work is politically motivated, just constantly going on about texts between him and his girlfriend. If he does his job to the best of his ability, what difference does it make if he thinks x or y about the subjects he's investigating?

I've also not heard a call for him to go through an employment tribunal or something so the FBI can verify he's not poisoning the well, or whatever. Just constant, pointless speculation and unverified - and unverifiable - assumption. And the fact he's there somehow means the investigating is compromised?