|
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 February 02 2018 02:53 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 00:30 Plansix wrote:On February 02 2018 00:18 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Just wanted to let everyone in this thread know about Lawfare. It's a great site that has lots of well-written commentary on national security law. Best of all, it's written by people who actually know what they are talking about. For example, one of their writers was an NSA lawyer for years, one is a Harvard law professor, etc. Real experts, as opposed to twenty-something journalists with degrees in 4 years of literary analysis and not much else. Literarily analysts have really gotten a bad rap for the last decade. It used to be under water basket weaving, modern art and poetry. What did literary critique do to become a pejorative? All art critique has, really. As someone who studied it at university and has been an editor before, a lot of people operate on 'if I like it, it is good' and they reject the sort of things that someone like me will just casually reel off to point out why the thing they like isn't. The problem is you need to understand it for the critique to actually have meaning. So literary critique - like film critique - ends up seeming more and more elitist, because the things that piss us off are only really irritating if you understand what makes things good in the first place on a structural level. I can tell anyone, easily and clearly, why War and Peace is superior to Twilight. But a lot of people would say Twilight is better because they like it more. They're allowed to be wrong. But they're still wrong.
I think it also has to do with new fan-base marketing that seems so prevalent these days. That people are encouraged to embrace commercial products are part of their identity. And those fans demand that others love a thing in the same way, to the same intensity and for them same reasons that the fans do, or those people are wrong. Which has worked out well for sports, but gets weird when applied to artistic works like movies or even video games. I noticed it when people started using the term “gamer” to identify themselves, which was a marketing term that was thrown on mountain dew bottles. It is a weird offshoot of modern capitalism that is kinda poisonous. I’ve really had to think hard about who I talk about movies with.
|
On February 02 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 02:27 Adreme wrote:On February 02 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:17 Leporello wrote:
If Danglars went for 1/100th of the effort for Donald Trump's tax returns as does for FBI agent's private text-messages, we'd know we're a functioning republic. In this episode, Leporello confuses documents Trump is not compelled by law to release, with House oversight of the demotion of a top FBI official on a major case. Private citizens and government workers charged with investigating criminal lawbreaking and invested with power to do so. Easy to confuse, right? In this episode the lesson is that all those unwritten rules that were unwritten because they thought no one would be brazely corrupt enough to defy might need to be written down now because it turns our there are people that corrupt. Corrupt enough to defy unwritten rules? Sounds like an angry persons that doesn’t like someone breaking with tradition. But sure, agitate for a law.
Interesting to call the ethics rules for things like business conflicts of interest that apply to the entire government bar the President 'tradition' that can be easily broken without concern and not an unwritten rule because no one thought the President would be stupid enough to break them or Congress shit enough to let him get away with it.
|
On February 02 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 00:37 Plansix wrote:
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
I like how Plansix keeps repeating things that don't impact my claims. I don't care if they got seven FISA warrants on members of the Trump campaign. I care if Democrat research was improperly used for one. It exposes (or is rumored to expose) surveillance abuses in the system. And nothing some Hillary shill says changes that fact.
Feel free to correct me as my memory's not clear, but wasn't it confirmed that the research in question was initially funded by Republicans and picked up by Democrats later?
|
There are so many unwritten rules in government. Especially the federal government. You don’t change the rules of the Senate or House every election. We don’t change the makeup of the Supreme Court just because the party in power doesn’t like a ruling. Folks who act like the unwritten rules and respect for the process are something to be mocked have a poor understanding of government. That is all an artifice that we created and uphold through our own public faith. There is no one above Congress, or the executive branch or judiciary. Once people start breaking the faith, either by holding up appointments or changing the voting rules, it all starts to unravel and it doesn't matter who threw the first stone.
On February 02 2018 03:03 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 00:37 Plansix wrote:
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
I like how Plansix keeps repeating things that don't impact my claims. I don't care if they got seven FISA warrants on members of the Trump campaign. I care if Democrat research was improperly used for one. It exposes (or is rumored to expose) surveillance abuses in the system. And nothing some Hillary shill says changes that fact. Feel free to correct me as my memory's not clear, but wasn't it confirmed that the research in question was initially funded by Republicans and picked up by Democrats later?
Yes and no. It was started by Republicans, but Steele came on after the the Democrats took over paying the bill. I do not believe Steele provided the information to the democrats until he had brought it to the FBI and confirmed they were aware of the evidence. Beyond the Democrats paying the same first the Republicans did, there is little connection between them and Steele. The same with the investigation and FISA warrant.
|
The useful idiot for Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell:
|
And this is why people who have struggled with identity/self-esteem issues have an easy time latching on to Trump.
|
On February 02 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 02:27 Adreme wrote:On February 02 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:17 Leporello wrote:
If Danglars went for 1/100th of the effort for Donald Trump's tax returns as does for FBI agent's private text-messages, we'd know we're a functioning republic. In this episode, Leporello confuses documents Trump is not compelled by law to release, with House oversight of the demotion of a top FBI official on a major case. Private citizens and government workers charged with investigating criminal lawbreaking and invested with power to do so. Easy to confuse, right? In this episode the lesson is that all those unwritten rules that were unwritten because they thought no one would be brazely corrupt enough to defy might need to be written down now because it turns our there are people that corrupt. Corrupt enough to defy unwritten rules? Sounds like an angry persons that doesn’t like someone breaking with tradition. But sure, agitate for a law.
I thought Republicans were all about standing up for tradition, and Democrats not?
On February 02 2018 03:10 Plansix wrote:There are so many unwritten rules in government. Especially the federal government. You don’t change the rules of the Senate or House every election. We don’t change the makeup of the Supreme Court just because the party in power doesn’t like a ruling. Folks who act like the unwritten rules and respect for the process are something to be mocked have a poor understanding of government. That is all an artifice that we created and uphold through our own public faith. There is no one above Congress, or the executive branch or judiciary. Once people start breaking the faith, either by holding up appointments or changing the voting rules, it all starts to unravel and it doesn't matter who threw the first stone. Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 03:03 iamthedave wrote:On February 02 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 00:37 Plansix wrote:
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
I like how Plansix keeps repeating things that don't impact my claims. I don't care if they got seven FISA warrants on members of the Trump campaign. I care if Democrat research was improperly used for one. It exposes (or is rumored to expose) surveillance abuses in the system. And nothing some Hillary shill says changes that fact. Feel free to correct me as my memory's not clear, but wasn't it confirmed that the research in question was initially funded by Republicans and picked up by Democrats later? Yes and no. It was started by Republicans, but Steele came on after the the Democrats took over paying the bill. I do not believe Steele provided the information to the democrats until he had brought it to the FBI and confirmed they were aware of the evidence. Beyond the Democrats paying the same first the Republicans did, there is little connection between them and Steele. The same with the investigation and FISA warrant.
So both parties put money into the affair, but the Democrats 'completed' it, as it were?
|
On February 02 2018 03:30 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:27 Adreme wrote:On February 02 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:17 Leporello wrote:
If Danglars went for 1/100th of the effort for Donald Trump's tax returns as does for FBI agent's private text-messages, we'd know we're a functioning republic. In this episode, Leporello confuses documents Trump is not compelled by law to release, with House oversight of the demotion of a top FBI official on a major case. Private citizens and government workers charged with investigating criminal lawbreaking and invested with power to do so. Easy to confuse, right? In this episode the lesson is that all those unwritten rules that were unwritten because they thought no one would be brazely corrupt enough to defy might need to be written down now because it turns our there are people that corrupt. Corrupt enough to defy unwritten rules? Sounds like an angry persons that doesn’t like someone breaking with tradition. But sure, agitate for a law. I thought Republicans were all about standing up for tradition, and Democrats not? Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 03:10 Plansix wrote:There are so many unwritten rules in government. Especially the federal government. You don’t change the rules of the Senate or House every election. We don’t change the makeup of the Supreme Court just because the party in power doesn’t like a ruling. Folks who act like the unwritten rules and respect for the process are something to be mocked have a poor understanding of government. That is all an artifice that we created and uphold through our own public faith. There is no one above Congress, or the executive branch or judiciary. Once people start breaking the faith, either by holding up appointments or changing the voting rules, it all starts to unravel and it doesn't matter who threw the first stone. On February 02 2018 03:03 iamthedave wrote:On February 02 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 00:37 Plansix wrote:
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
I like how Plansix keeps repeating things that don't impact my claims. I don't care if they got seven FISA warrants on members of the Trump campaign. I care if Democrat research was improperly used for one. It exposes (or is rumored to expose) surveillance abuses in the system. And nothing some Hillary shill says changes that fact. Feel free to correct me as my memory's not clear, but wasn't it confirmed that the research in question was initially funded by Republicans and picked up by Democrats later? Yes and no. It was started by Republicans, but Steele came on after the the Democrats took over paying the bill. I do not believe Steele provided the information to the democrats until he had brought it to the FBI and confirmed they were aware of the evidence. Beyond the Democrats paying the same first the Republicans did, there is little connection between them and Steele. The same with the investigation and FISA warrant. So both parties put money into the affair, but the Democrats 'completed' it, as it were?
You really have to want it at this point. The argument is that the Steele gave the information to the Obama FBI, who worked with the Obama NSA and then approved an Obama FISA warrant for Carter Page. It is part of the effort to discredit the FBI to stop the investigation, but also to punish them to not charging Clinton.
There is a wing of the Republicans that want to bring charges against their political opponents whenever the opportunity presents itself. Back in the day they used the Special Counsel powers that congress had since the Nixon era. This is how they investigated Clinton. But even Ken Star was uncomfortable with the idea, but did his job. But then the Democrats turned around used it on Tom Delay and a couple other minor Republicans, all which lead to them resigning. So when it came time to renew the law that let them appoint the special counsel, they let it expire because they all knew they would abuse it.
But that will in the most partisan of the Republican party has never died. The worst of the Democrats have their own sins and flaws, but this one specific weakness seems to be one the GOP has. But they don’t have the power to do it themselves with any legal authority and the Justice Department is not into the idea of charging sitting politicians based of the referrals of sitting politicians. Its like lawyers reporting other lawyers for ethical violations. It is mutually assured destruction.
|
i wish there was a tag next to each person's name so i know whos conserv and whos lib. that way i know whos arguing with who.
|
On February 02 2018 02:56 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:27 Adreme wrote:On February 02 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:17 Leporello wrote:
If Danglars went for 1/100th of the effort for Donald Trump's tax returns as does for FBI agent's private text-messages, we'd know we're a functioning republic. In this episode, Leporello confuses documents Trump is not compelled by law to release, with House oversight of the demotion of a top FBI official on a major case. Private citizens and government workers charged with investigating criminal lawbreaking and invested with power to do so. Easy to confuse, right? In this episode the lesson is that all those unwritten rules that were unwritten because they thought no one would be brazely corrupt enough to defy might need to be written down now because it turns our there are people that corrupt. Corrupt enough to defy unwritten rules? Sounds like an angry persons that doesn’t like someone breaking with tradition. But sure, agitate for a law. I think it could be safe to say that it was an unwritten rule that you should keep rat shit out of food you sell to people. But god damn then people kept letting rat shit get into the food and so now we have the FDA. Unwritten rules get broken all the time and then you create laws around it because you can't trust people anymore
I wouldn’t bring up something with actual written rules for health and public safety. If you knowingly sell food contaminated with rat shit, you’re legally liable. If you refuse to release your private tax returns to the public, you get no legal consequences (though maybe the voting public goes with your opponent because of it).
|
On February 02 2018 03:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:27 Adreme wrote:On February 02 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:17 Leporello wrote:
If Danglars went for 1/100th of the effort for Donald Trump's tax returns as does for FBI agent's private text-messages, we'd know we're a functioning republic. In this episode, Leporello confuses documents Trump is not compelled by law to release, with House oversight of the demotion of a top FBI official on a major case. Private citizens and government workers charged with investigating criminal lawbreaking and invested with power to do so. Easy to confuse, right? In this episode the lesson is that all those unwritten rules that were unwritten because they thought no one would be brazely corrupt enough to defy might need to be written down now because it turns our there are people that corrupt. Corrupt enough to defy unwritten rules? Sounds like an angry persons that doesn’t like someone breaking with tradition. But sure, agitate for a law. Interesting to call the ethics rules for things like business conflicts of interest that apply to the entire government bar the President 'tradition' that can be easily broken without concern and not an unwritten rule because no one thought the President would be stupid enough to break them or Congress shit enough to let him get away with it.
Umm there has been no ethics rules for this kind of thing. It’s a break in tradition, and nothing more. Hes also not a member of the government until the moment he’s sworn in. Don’t confuse rules for other things with traditions in this thing. It might make me think you’re purposefully obfuscating.
|
On February 02 2018 04:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 02:56 IyMoon wrote:On February 02 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:27 Adreme wrote:On February 02 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:17 Leporello wrote:
If Danglars went for 1/100th of the effort for Donald Trump's tax returns as does for FBI agent's private text-messages, we'd know we're a functioning republic. In this episode, Leporello confuses documents Trump is not compelled by law to release, with House oversight of the demotion of a top FBI official on a major case. Private citizens and government workers charged with investigating criminal lawbreaking and invested with power to do so. Easy to confuse, right? In this episode the lesson is that all those unwritten rules that were unwritten because they thought no one would be brazely corrupt enough to defy might need to be written down now because it turns our there are people that corrupt. Corrupt enough to defy unwritten rules? Sounds like an angry persons that doesn’t like someone breaking with tradition. But sure, agitate for a law. I think it could be safe to say that it was an unwritten rule that you should keep rat shit out of food you sell to people. But god damn then people kept letting rat shit get into the food and so now we have the FDA. Unwritten rules get broken all the time and then you create laws around it because you can't trust people anymore I wouldn’t bring up something with actual written rules for health and public safety. If you knowingly sell food contaminated with rat shit, you’re legally liable. If you refuse to release your private tax returns to the public, you get no legal consequences (though maybe the voting public goes with your opponent because of it).
His point is that at some point wasn't a law, because they thought no one would be stupid enough to knowingly sell contaminated food. But they did so now we have a rule for it.
|
|
|
On February 02 2018 04:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 02:56 IyMoon wrote:On February 02 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:27 Adreme wrote:On February 02 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:17 Leporello wrote:
If Danglars went for 1/100th of the effort for Donald Trump's tax returns as does for FBI agent's private text-messages, we'd know we're a functioning republic. In this episode, Leporello confuses documents Trump is not compelled by law to release, with House oversight of the demotion of a top FBI official on a major case. Private citizens and government workers charged with investigating criminal lawbreaking and invested with power to do so. Easy to confuse, right? In this episode the lesson is that all those unwritten rules that were unwritten because they thought no one would be brazely corrupt enough to defy might need to be written down now because it turns our there are people that corrupt. Corrupt enough to defy unwritten rules? Sounds like an angry persons that doesn’t like someone breaking with tradition. But sure, agitate for a law. I think it could be safe to say that it was an unwritten rule that you should keep rat shit out of food you sell to people. But god damn then people kept letting rat shit get into the food and so now we have the FDA. Unwritten rules get broken all the time and then you create laws around it because you can't trust people anymore I wouldn’t bring up something with actual written rules for health and public safety. If you knowingly sell food contaminated with rat shit, you’re legally liable. If you refuse to release your private tax returns to the public, you get no legal consequences (though maybe the voting public goes with your opponent because of it).
But i am sure that law was not always there. Which was the point being made by lyMoon. Unwritten Rule ---> People are assholes ---> written rule necessary. Illustrated with the historical (not current) example of rat shit in food.
Also, i find it really strange that you, the self-proclaimed conservative, have absolutely no problem with breaking tradition and proclaim that in a way that basically describes tradition as worthless. (Funnily enough, only when Trump does it. Other people breaking tradition by, for example, shrouding a statue, is absolutely horribly disgusting to you)
I must say that it is very hard to take you serious as a person with a position other than "win at any cost".
What you think about any issue is completely unrelated to the issue itself, and only related to the people involved. If someone is described as conservative, republican, or anything else along those lines, you will be on that side of the argument. If someone is described as a democrat, you will be on the other side. It does not matter at all what the argument is about. If a democrat and a republican were arguing about the french ice hockey league, you would defend the position of the latter to the death without any second thought.
|
On February 02 2018 04:01 Emnjay808 wrote:
i wish there was a tag next to each person's name so i know whos conserv and whos lib. that way i know whos arguing with who.
you can always ask some of the thread regulars for a who's who; or about someone in particular.
most people who talk in the thread nkow the others as the number of active posters isn't that high.
|
On February 02 2018 04:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 04:01 Emnjay808 wrote:
i wish there was a tag next to each person's name so i know whos conserv and whos lib. that way i know whos arguing with who. you can always ask some of the thread regulars for a who's who; or about someone in particular. most people who talk in the thread nkow the others as the number of active posters isn't that high.
This is personally how I would divide up some of the more regular posters here.
Far-right:
Danglars
xDaunt
Right:
Me
Sermokala
Left:
Plansix
KwarK
zlefin
Mohdoo
brian
Biff
etc....
Far-left:
GreenHorizons
Then there are a few Europeans who don't really fit into one of those categories of US politics.
So what do y'all think of my categorization of your posting? Feel free to complain about my conservative bias or liberal bias or Liquid bias!
EDIT:
resident Russian troll / Useful Idiot: LegalLord
If you think this is over the top, in the Euro Politics thread he claimed to opisska and me that the Soviets were great guys who were unjustly kicked out of eastern Europe and that all the revolutions against Soviet oppression like Hungary 1956, which was brutally put down by the Red Army, were unjustified.
|
Seems accurate. Though Kwark and Modoo are filthy centrist according to some.
|
On February 02 2018 04:47 Plansix wrote:
Seems accurate. Though Kwark and Modoo are filthy centrist according to some.
They are definitely not centrist by US standards, I think. Kwark certainly isn't at any rate. I wouldn't say Mohdoo is centrist either, his views on race and stuff definitely put him in the Democrat camp, I think.
|
On February 02 2018 04:01 Emnjay808 wrote:
i wish there was a tag next to each person's name so i know whos conserv and whos lib. that way i know whos arguing with who.
Yes lets just have one side get stars and the other side (insert nazi symbol here for shock effect). That was a great way to identify people and separate them.
|
On February 02 2018 04:51 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 04:01 Emnjay808 wrote:
i wish there was a tag next to each person's name so i know whos conserv and whos lib. that way i know whos arguing with who. Yes lets just have one side get stars and the other side (insert nazi symbol here for shock effect). That was a great way to identify people and separate them.
How about far left = 5 stars, far right = 5 lightning bolts, and you get something in between based on where else you fall on that spectrum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
