|
On December 19 2018 22:08 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2018 12:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 08:24 Nouar wrote:On December 19 2018 08:06 xDaunt wrote:
You don't see any problem with a political candidate retaining a foreign agent to compile a dossier (that we now know is false) for the express purpose of challenging the validity of an election? Foreign agent : A foreign agent is anyone who actively carries out the interests of a foreign country (...) Steele is not a foreign agent for one. Second : the law firm wanted to be "in a position to" contest "based on evidence found" that the opposition unlawfully influenced elections. I have no issue with that. By itself it doesn't undermine the election or the confidence voters have on the us institutions. I have issue with the fact that the evidence was not corroborated enough to be conclusive, thus should have been kept under wraps. But it was still disseminated by Steele. THIS had an influence and I'm not happy about. Giving it to the FBI was fine by me, the rest is more questionable. The FBI at least kept it under wrap to not influence the election itself. But that is not conspiring to advance the interests of a foreign country, and cannot be compared. I fail to see if it is even illegal, since opposition research is legal in the USA. PS : how can you assure that the whole dossier is false? Even if only part ends up being true, it is a really huge deal... First of all, I wasn't referring to "foreign agent" as someone necessarily working for a state. I was referring to it in the more basic sense of a retained agent who is a foreigner. But that aside, I do wonder whether Steele is a Russian agent. Consider his quoted sources, the falseness of the allegations, and his throwing of Hillary under the bus in that interrogatory. Putin may indeed be having a good laugh right now. Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main thrusts of the Trump/Russia collusion scandal this idea that Trump got information adverse to Hillary from a foreign person -- and potentially someone working for a foreign government? Let's just flip the script. Hillary actually paid someone from a foreign country with direct ties to the Kremlin (again, look at the sources in the dossier) to get dirt on her political opponent, and she did it for the purpose of having information with which she might contest election results. This is okay because.... why? Speaking of which, do we actually know how Hillary became connected to Steele in the first place? How did she know that Steele had dirt on Trump? Daunt... did you read your own bolded text? It says that the law firm wanted to be in a position to challenge the election because of evidence Steele found that Trump colluded with Russia. In other words, they believed the dossier - which fine is now seemingly false - and thus wanted to be in a position to challenge an election they believed - because of the dossier - was being tampered with by the Russians. They were responding to their belief that Trump was working with foreign nationals - the Russians - to screw with the US election. In addition, they never actually did anything. What are you supposed to investigate them for? Thinking about maybe doing something that they then never did? Even by your standards this is lazy.
I did read it. The idea that Hillary's campaign would buy this information from a foreigner and sit on it for the purpose of contesting the election only after she lost is outrageous.
Though to be clear, I think that Steele is only telling a half truth here. Hillary wanted this dirt to leak to the press as well.
|
On December 19 2018 22:24 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2018 12:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 11:33 Doodsmack wrote:On December 19 2018 08:06 xDaunt wrote:
You don't see any problem with a political candidate retaining a foreign agent to compile a dossier (that we now know is false) for the express purpose of challenging the validity of an election? Dont know why you would claim that a lack of evidence is the same as proving the dossier false. It's not like you dont understand those two concepts. I guess you are just intentionally misrepresenting things because you feel that's what the other side does or something. Btw trumps bodyguards testimony to Congress puts trump at the scene of the hotel, being offered 5 Russian prostitutes to join him in his hotel room. You have this backwards. The dossier isn't presumably true. But more to the point, there is nothing proving that it is true at all. And there are numerous things that are demonstrably false about it, such as the critical claim that Cohen went to Prague to collude with the Russians. Why do you think everyone is backing away from it? Even reporters like Isikoff who were all over the Russian collusion story from the beginning now think that the dossier is false. Hell, Mueller has been investigating the basic premise of the dossier for 18 months and has nothing to show for it. These people at lawfareblog disagree with your assessment. One part that was true for example is that the dossier said russian intelligence gave the DNC emails to wikileaks. And Mueller indicted 12 GRU officers for exactly this. Show nested quote +
These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven.
Show nested quote +As we noted, our interest is in assessing the Steele dossier as a raw intelligence document, not a finished piece of analysis. The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.
However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it’s untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far. But surely there is more to come from Mueller’s team. We will return to it as the public record develops. https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective
I have to go through that post in more detail (it's huge), but there's a lot wrong with it at first glance. A few of the big problems include 1) framing allegations as facts on the record, 2) downplaying Cohen's denials of the Prague trip, 3) ignoring the false Alfa Bank stuff, and 4) ignoring the various defamation suits that have been brought by people named in the dossier. I don't think that the post does a particularly good job of buttressing the main charge of the dossier that there was in fact collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russian government. And like I pointed out previously, the fact that Mueller has virtually nothing on this point speaks volumes.
|
On December 20 2018 01:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2018 22:24 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On December 19 2018 12:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 11:33 Doodsmack wrote:On December 19 2018 08:06 xDaunt wrote:
You don't see any problem with a political candidate retaining a foreign agent to compile a dossier (that we now know is false) for the express purpose of challenging the validity of an election? Dont know why you would claim that a lack of evidence is the same as proving the dossier false. It's not like you dont understand those two concepts. I guess you are just intentionally misrepresenting things because you feel that's what the other side does or something. Btw trumps bodyguards testimony to Congress puts trump at the scene of the hotel, being offered 5 Russian prostitutes to join him in his hotel room. You have this backwards. The dossier isn't presumably true. But more to the point, there is nothing proving that it is true at all. And there are numerous things that are demonstrably false about it, such as the critical claim that Cohen went to Prague to collude with the Russians. Why do you think everyone is backing away from it? Even reporters like Isikoff who were all over the Russian collusion story from the beginning now think that the dossier is false. Hell, Mueller has been investigating the basic premise of the dossier for 18 months and has nothing to show for it. These people at lawfareblog disagree with your assessment. One part that was true for example is that the dossier said russian intelligence gave the DNC emails to wikileaks. And Mueller indicted 12 GRU officers for exactly this.
These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven.
As we noted, our interest is in assessing the Steele dossier as a raw intelligence document, not a finished piece of analysis. The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.
However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it’s untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far. But surely there is more to come from Mueller’s team. We will return to it as the public record develops. https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective I have to go through that post in more detail (it's huge), but there's a lot wrong with it at first glance. A few of the big problems include 1) framing allegations as facts on the record, 2) downplaying Cohen's denials of the Prague trip, 3) ignoring the false Alfa Bank stuff, and 4) ignoring the various defamation suits that have been brought by people named in the dossier. I don't think that the post does a particularly good job of buttressing the main charge of the dossier that there was in fact collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russian government. And like I pointed out previously, the fact that Mueller has virtually nothing on this point speaks volumes.
I think the only fair assessment is that the dossier is neither proven nor disproven. Some points have been corroborated (Steele clearly did have high placed Russian sources considering that his srouces knew Trump had been offered five prostitutes, which Trump's bodyguard confirmed), as well as the general idea that Russia stole the emails and was using WikiLeaks to release them.
And to be clear, Hillary's act of obtaining dirt from individual sources who would be executed by the Russian government if they were discovered divulging the info (i.e. Hillary was not acting in cooperation with the Russian government) would not compare to actual election collusion, which consists of partnership with a foreign enemy government to win a US election. So Hillary's actions would not be comparable to actual collusion with the government. The Trump Tower meeting is also worse than what Hillary did because it consisted of obtaining dirt from a foreign enemy government to help with the election. THat is, cooperation of the actual foreign enemy government, rather than a trusted UK spy using his confidential sources who in turn would be executed in Russia if they were found out (and some may even have been executed).
|
On December 20 2018 00:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2018 22:08 iamthedave wrote:On December 19 2018 12:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 08:24 Nouar wrote:On December 19 2018 08:06 xDaunt wrote:
You don't see any problem with a political candidate retaining a foreign agent to compile a dossier (that we now know is false) for the express purpose of challenging the validity of an election? Foreign agent : A foreign agent is anyone who actively carries out the interests of a foreign country (...) Steele is not a foreign agent for one. Second : the law firm wanted to be "in a position to" contest "based on evidence found" that the opposition unlawfully influenced elections. I have no issue with that. By itself it doesn't undermine the election or the confidence voters have on the us institutions. I have issue with the fact that the evidence was not corroborated enough to be conclusive, thus should have been kept under wraps. But it was still disseminated by Steele. THIS had an influence and I'm not happy about. Giving it to the FBI was fine by me, the rest is more questionable. The FBI at least kept it under wrap to not influence the election itself. But that is not conspiring to advance the interests of a foreign country, and cannot be compared. I fail to see if it is even illegal, since opposition research is legal in the USA. PS : how can you assure that the whole dossier is false? Even if only part ends up being true, it is a really huge deal... First of all, I wasn't referring to "foreign agent" as someone necessarily working for a state. I was referring to it in the more basic sense of a retained agent who is a foreigner. But that aside, I do wonder whether Steele is a Russian agent. Consider his quoted sources, the falseness of the allegations, and his throwing of Hillary under the bus in that interrogatory. Putin may indeed be having a good laugh right now. Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main thrusts of the Trump/Russia collusion scandal this idea that Trump got information adverse to Hillary from a foreign person -- and potentially someone working for a foreign government? Let's just flip the script. Hillary actually paid someone from a foreign country with direct ties to the Kremlin (again, look at the sources in the dossier) to get dirt on her political opponent, and she did it for the purpose of having information with which she might contest election results. This is okay because.... why? Speaking of which, do we actually know how Hillary became connected to Steele in the first place? How did she know that Steele had dirt on Trump? Daunt... did you read your own bolded text? It says that the law firm wanted to be in a position to challenge the election because of evidence Steele found that Trump colluded with Russia. In other words, they believed the dossier - which fine is now seemingly false - and thus wanted to be in a position to challenge an election they believed - because of the dossier - was being tampered with by the Russians. They were responding to their belief that Trump was working with foreign nationals - the Russians - to screw with the US election. In addition, they never actually did anything. What are you supposed to investigate them for? Thinking about maybe doing something that they then never did? Even by your standards this is lazy. I did read it. The idea that Hillary's campaign would buy this information from a foreigner and sit on it for the purpose of contesting the election only after she lost is outrageous. Though to be clear, I think that Steele is only telling a half truth here. Hillary wanted this dirt to leak to the press as well.
But Steele was working for a US company at the time! She didn't buy it from a foreigner, she bought it from Fusion GPS, a US company who sub-contracted the work to Steele. I don't understand how you can't see that the two allegations are completely different.
It's fine to say that it's outrageous to sit on it and wait until after the election before doing anything, I'd even agree with that; if she had the information it should have gone public instantly if she believed it to be true. But it's nothing like collusion. It just isn't. She worked with a US firm who in turn worked with a UK investigator. Hilary has no place in this chain of events past asking them to do some digging (and even then, she was picking up where the GOP left off).
I'm okay if you think Fusion GPS did something bad by hiring Steele, but their decision has nothing to do with Hilary.
|
On December 20 2018 19:53 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2018 00:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 22:08 iamthedave wrote:On December 19 2018 12:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 08:24 Nouar wrote:On December 19 2018 08:06 xDaunt wrote:
You don't see any problem with a political candidate retaining a foreign agent to compile a dossier (that we now know is false) for the express purpose of challenging the validity of an election? Foreign agent : A foreign agent is anyone who actively carries out the interests of a foreign country (...) Steele is not a foreign agent for one. Second : the law firm wanted to be "in a position to" contest "based on evidence found" that the opposition unlawfully influenced elections. I have no issue with that. By itself it doesn't undermine the election or the confidence voters have on the us institutions. I have issue with the fact that the evidence was not corroborated enough to be conclusive, thus should have been kept under wraps. But it was still disseminated by Steele. THIS had an influence and I'm not happy about. Giving it to the FBI was fine by me, the rest is more questionable. The FBI at least kept it under wrap to not influence the election itself. But that is not conspiring to advance the interests of a foreign country, and cannot be compared. I fail to see if it is even illegal, since opposition research is legal in the USA. PS : how can you assure that the whole dossier is false? Even if only part ends up being true, it is a really huge deal... First of all, I wasn't referring to "foreign agent" as someone necessarily working for a state. I was referring to it in the more basic sense of a retained agent who is a foreigner. But that aside, I do wonder whether Steele is a Russian agent. Consider his quoted sources, the falseness of the allegations, and his throwing of Hillary under the bus in that interrogatory. Putin may indeed be having a good laugh right now. Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main thrusts of the Trump/Russia collusion scandal this idea that Trump got information adverse to Hillary from a foreign person -- and potentially someone working for a foreign government? Let's just flip the script. Hillary actually paid someone from a foreign country with direct ties to the Kremlin (again, look at the sources in the dossier) to get dirt on her political opponent, and she did it for the purpose of having information with which she might contest election results. This is okay because.... why? Speaking of which, do we actually know how Hillary became connected to Steele in the first place? How did she know that Steele had dirt on Trump? Daunt... did you read your own bolded text? It says that the law firm wanted to be in a position to challenge the election because of evidence Steele found that Trump colluded with Russia. In other words, they believed the dossier - which fine is now seemingly false - and thus wanted to be in a position to challenge an election they believed - because of the dossier - was being tampered with by the Russians. They were responding to their belief that Trump was working with foreign nationals - the Russians - to screw with the US election. In addition, they never actually did anything. What are you supposed to investigate them for? Thinking about maybe doing something that they then never did? Even by your standards this is lazy. I did read it. The idea that Hillary's campaign would buy this information from a foreigner and sit on it for the purpose of contesting the election only after she lost is outrageous. Though to be clear, I think that Steele is only telling a half truth here. Hillary wanted this dirt to leak to the press as well. But Steele was working for a US company at the time! She didn't buy it from a foreigner, she bought it from Fusion GPS, a US company who sub-contracted the work to Steele. I don't understand how you can't see that the two allegations are completely different. It's fine to say that it's outrageous to sit on it and wait until after the election before doing anything, I'd even agree with that; if she had the information it should have gone public instantly if she believed it to be true. But it's nothing like collusion. It just isn't. She worked with a US firm who in turn worked with a UK investigator. Hilary has no place in this chain of events past asking them to do some digging (and even then, she was picking up where the GOP left off). I'm okay if you think Fusion GPS did something bad by hiring Steele, but their decision has nothing to do with Hilary.
This is the same reasoning Trump (and a lot of bad actors) use to avoid accountability.
|
On December 20 2018 20:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2018 19:53 iamthedave wrote:On December 20 2018 00:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 22:08 iamthedave wrote:On December 19 2018 12:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 08:24 Nouar wrote:On December 19 2018 08:06 xDaunt wrote:
You don't see any problem with a political candidate retaining a foreign agent to compile a dossier (that we now know is false) for the express purpose of challenging the validity of an election? Foreign agent : A foreign agent is anyone who actively carries out the interests of a foreign country (...) Steele is not a foreign agent for one. Second : the law firm wanted to be "in a position to" contest "based on evidence found" that the opposition unlawfully influenced elections. I have no issue with that. By itself it doesn't undermine the election or the confidence voters have on the us institutions. I have issue with the fact that the evidence was not corroborated enough to be conclusive, thus should have been kept under wraps. But it was still disseminated by Steele. THIS had an influence and I'm not happy about. Giving it to the FBI was fine by me, the rest is more questionable. The FBI at least kept it under wrap to not influence the election itself. But that is not conspiring to advance the interests of a foreign country, and cannot be compared. I fail to see if it is even illegal, since opposition research is legal in the USA. PS : how can you assure that the whole dossier is false? Even if only part ends up being true, it is a really huge deal... First of all, I wasn't referring to "foreign agent" as someone necessarily working for a state. I was referring to it in the more basic sense of a retained agent who is a foreigner. But that aside, I do wonder whether Steele is a Russian agent. Consider his quoted sources, the falseness of the allegations, and his throwing of Hillary under the bus in that interrogatory. Putin may indeed be having a good laugh right now. Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main thrusts of the Trump/Russia collusion scandal this idea that Trump got information adverse to Hillary from a foreign person -- and potentially someone working for a foreign government? Let's just flip the script. Hillary actually paid someone from a foreign country with direct ties to the Kremlin (again, look at the sources in the dossier) to get dirt on her political opponent, and she did it for the purpose of having information with which she might contest election results. This is okay because.... why? Speaking of which, do we actually know how Hillary became connected to Steele in the first place? How did she know that Steele had dirt on Trump? Daunt... did you read your own bolded text? It says that the law firm wanted to be in a position to challenge the election because of evidence Steele found that Trump colluded with Russia. In other words, they believed the dossier - which fine is now seemingly false - and thus wanted to be in a position to challenge an election they believed - because of the dossier - was being tampered with by the Russians. They were responding to their belief that Trump was working with foreign nationals - the Russians - to screw with the US election. In addition, they never actually did anything. What are you supposed to investigate them for? Thinking about maybe doing something that they then never did? Even by your standards this is lazy. I did read it. The idea that Hillary's campaign would buy this information from a foreigner and sit on it for the purpose of contesting the election only after she lost is outrageous. Though to be clear, I think that Steele is only telling a half truth here. Hillary wanted this dirt to leak to the press as well. But Steele was working for a US company at the time! She didn't buy it from a foreigner, she bought it from Fusion GPS, a US company who sub-contracted the work to Steele. I don't understand how you can't see that the two allegations are completely different. It's fine to say that it's outrageous to sit on it and wait until after the election before doing anything, I'd even agree with that; if she had the information it should have gone public instantly if she believed it to be true. But it's nothing like collusion. It just isn't. She worked with a US firm who in turn worked with a UK investigator. Hilary has no place in this chain of events past asking them to do some digging (and even then, she was picking up where the GOP left off). I'm okay if you think Fusion GPS did something bad by hiring Steele, but their decision has nothing to do with Hilary. This is the same reasoning Trump (and a lot of bad actors) use to avoid accountability.
You're going to have to explain that one.
If Hilary asked Fusion to do something illegal she is accountable, is my point. If she asked them to do something legal but they hired someone else to do it, and that hiring is illegal, she is not accountable for that illegal hiring.
I see nothing wrong with anyone using that logic to avoid accountability for things they obviously aren't accountable for because they had nothing to do with it. By the same token, I wouldn't hold Trump accountable for any sort of collusion that might come out if he literally knew nothing about it and just the people around him were doing it under his nose.
|
On December 20 2018 22:06 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2018 20:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 20 2018 19:53 iamthedave wrote:On December 20 2018 00:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 22:08 iamthedave wrote:On December 19 2018 12:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 08:24 Nouar wrote:On December 19 2018 08:06 xDaunt wrote:
You don't see any problem with a political candidate retaining a foreign agent to compile a dossier (that we now know is false) for the express purpose of challenging the validity of an election? Foreign agent : A foreign agent is anyone who actively carries out the interests of a foreign country (...) Steele is not a foreign agent for one. Second : the law firm wanted to be "in a position to" contest "based on evidence found" that the opposition unlawfully influenced elections. I have no issue with that. By itself it doesn't undermine the election or the confidence voters have on the us institutions. I have issue with the fact that the evidence was not corroborated enough to be conclusive, thus should have been kept under wraps. But it was still disseminated by Steele. THIS had an influence and I'm not happy about. Giving it to the FBI was fine by me, the rest is more questionable. The FBI at least kept it under wrap to not influence the election itself. But that is not conspiring to advance the interests of a foreign country, and cannot be compared. I fail to see if it is even illegal, since opposition research is legal in the USA. PS : how can you assure that the whole dossier is false? Even if only part ends up being true, it is a really huge deal... First of all, I wasn't referring to "foreign agent" as someone necessarily working for a state. I was referring to it in the more basic sense of a retained agent who is a foreigner. But that aside, I do wonder whether Steele is a Russian agent. Consider his quoted sources, the falseness of the allegations, and his throwing of Hillary under the bus in that interrogatory. Putin may indeed be having a good laugh right now. Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main thrusts of the Trump/Russia collusion scandal this idea that Trump got information adverse to Hillary from a foreign person -- and potentially someone working for a foreign government? Let's just flip the script. Hillary actually paid someone from a foreign country with direct ties to the Kremlin (again, look at the sources in the dossier) to get dirt on her political opponent, and she did it for the purpose of having information with which she might contest election results. This is okay because.... why? Speaking of which, do we actually know how Hillary became connected to Steele in the first place? How did she know that Steele had dirt on Trump? Daunt... did you read your own bolded text? It says that the law firm wanted to be in a position to challenge the election because of evidence Steele found that Trump colluded with Russia. In other words, they believed the dossier - which fine is now seemingly false - and thus wanted to be in a position to challenge an election they believed - because of the dossier - was being tampered with by the Russians. They were responding to their belief that Trump was working with foreign nationals - the Russians - to screw with the US election. In addition, they never actually did anything. What are you supposed to investigate them for? Thinking about maybe doing something that they then never did? Even by your standards this is lazy. I did read it. The idea that Hillary's campaign would buy this information from a foreigner and sit on it for the purpose of contesting the election only after she lost is outrageous. Though to be clear, I think that Steele is only telling a half truth here. Hillary wanted this dirt to leak to the press as well. But Steele was working for a US company at the time! She didn't buy it from a foreigner, she bought it from Fusion GPS, a US company who sub-contracted the work to Steele. I don't understand how you can't see that the two allegations are completely different. It's fine to say that it's outrageous to sit on it and wait until after the election before doing anything, I'd even agree with that; if she had the information it should have gone public instantly if she believed it to be true. But it's nothing like collusion. It just isn't. She worked with a US firm who in turn worked with a UK investigator. Hilary has no place in this chain of events past asking them to do some digging (and even then, she was picking up where the GOP left off). I'm okay if you think Fusion GPS did something bad by hiring Steele, but their decision has nothing to do with Hilary. This is the same reasoning Trump (and a lot of bad actors) use to avoid accountability. You're going to have to explain that one. If Hilary asked Fusion to do something illegal she is accountable, is my point. If she asked them to do something legal but they hired someone else to do it, and that hiring is illegal, she is not accountable for that illegal hiring. I see nothing wrong with anyone using that logic to avoid accountability for things they obviously aren't accountable for because they had nothing to do with it. By the same token, I wouldn't hold Trump accountable for any sort of collusion that might come out if he literally knew nothing about it and just the people around him were doing it under his nose.
Trump has literally built his "empire" on the back of undocumented workers for which he claims to hold no responsibility because he hired people who hired them.
Corporations claimed that they simply hired people in other countries, they didn't tell them to build sweatshops.
Amazon claimed no responsibility for it's workers getting shafted on their pay because they were hired through agencies. So on and so on.
It's basically one of the first lessons of Avoiding Accountability 101.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Remember way back when I said the Hillary and her supporters were pulling the party even further to the right in response to Republicans? This is what I'm talking about. The new hope for Democrats is basically a Republican on some key issues.
Beto vs. Democrats: Texas Lawmaker Frequently Voted to Help Trump and GOP
A rising Democratic star has voted for GOP bills that Trump critics say have aided big banks, undercut the fight against climate change and supported the president’s anti-immigrant agenda.
...a Capital & Main review of congressional votes shows that even as O’Rourke has represented one of the most Democratic congressional districts in the entire country, he has in many instances undermined his own party’s efforts to halt the GOP agenda, frequently voting against the majority of House Democrats in support of Republican bills and Trump administration positions.
Amid persistently high economic inequality and a climate change crisis, O’Rourke has voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said reinforced Republicans’ tax agenda, chipped away at the Affordable Care Act, weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the fossil fuel industry and bolstered Trump’s immigration policy. Consumer, environmental, public health and civil rights organizations have cast legislation backed by O’Rourke as aiding big banks, undermining the fight against climate change and supporting Trump’s anti-immigrant program. During the previous administration, President Barack Obama’s White House issued statements slamming two GOP bills backed by the 46-year-old Democratic legislator.
O’Rourke’s votes for Republican tax, trade, health care, criminal justice and immigration-related legislation not only defied his national party, but also at times put him at odds even with a majority of Texas Democratic lawmakers in Congress. Such votes underscore his membership in the New Democrat Coalition, the faction of House Democrats most closely aligned with business interests.
The possibility of an O’Rourke presidential candidacy has been boosted in recent weeks by former Obama aides and fundraisers, as well as by Third Way — a finance-industry funded think tank that previously made headlines deriding Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren. He has also been lauded by former Hillary Clinton aide Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress — a Democratic think tank whose officials recently slammed Republican tax and immigration legislation that O’Rourke voted for. Much of the party elite’s support for an O’Rourke candidacy has not mentioned his policy record or agenda.
capitalandmain.com
Centrists of the Beto/Hillary/Kamala camp have more in common with Republicans (economically) than they do the progressive Sanders wing.
EDIT: I wonder how long it will take for the Dems and Centrists to grapple with Beto's record...
|
On December 21 2018 00:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2018 22:06 iamthedave wrote:On December 20 2018 20:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 20 2018 19:53 iamthedave wrote:On December 20 2018 00:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 22:08 iamthedave wrote:On December 19 2018 12:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 08:24 Nouar wrote:On December 19 2018 08:06 xDaunt wrote:
You don't see any problem with a political candidate retaining a foreign agent to compile a dossier (that we now know is false) for the express purpose of challenging the validity of an election? Foreign agent : A foreign agent is anyone who actively carries out the interests of a foreign country (...) Steele is not a foreign agent for one. Second : the law firm wanted to be "in a position to" contest "based on evidence found" that the opposition unlawfully influenced elections. I have no issue with that. By itself it doesn't undermine the election or the confidence voters have on the us institutions. I have issue with the fact that the evidence was not corroborated enough to be conclusive, thus should have been kept under wraps. But it was still disseminated by Steele. THIS had an influence and I'm not happy about. Giving it to the FBI was fine by me, the rest is more questionable. The FBI at least kept it under wrap to not influence the election itself. But that is not conspiring to advance the interests of a foreign country, and cannot be compared. I fail to see if it is even illegal, since opposition research is legal in the USA. PS : how can you assure that the whole dossier is false? Even if only part ends up being true, it is a really huge deal... First of all, I wasn't referring to "foreign agent" as someone necessarily working for a state. I was referring to it in the more basic sense of a retained agent who is a foreigner. But that aside, I do wonder whether Steele is a Russian agent. Consider his quoted sources, the falseness of the allegations, and his throwing of Hillary under the bus in that interrogatory. Putin may indeed be having a good laugh right now. Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main thrusts of the Trump/Russia collusion scandal this idea that Trump got information adverse to Hillary from a foreign person -- and potentially someone working for a foreign government? Let's just flip the script. Hillary actually paid someone from a foreign country with direct ties to the Kremlin (again, look at the sources in the dossier) to get dirt on her political opponent, and she did it for the purpose of having information with which she might contest election results. This is okay because.... why? Speaking of which, do we actually know how Hillary became connected to Steele in the first place? How did she know that Steele had dirt on Trump? Daunt... did you read your own bolded text? It says that the law firm wanted to be in a position to challenge the election because of evidence Steele found that Trump colluded with Russia. In other words, they believed the dossier - which fine is now seemingly false - and thus wanted to be in a position to challenge an election they believed - because of the dossier - was being tampered with by the Russians. They were responding to their belief that Trump was working with foreign nationals - the Russians - to screw with the US election. In addition, they never actually did anything. What are you supposed to investigate them for? Thinking about maybe doing something that they then never did? Even by your standards this is lazy. I did read it. The idea that Hillary's campaign would buy this information from a foreigner and sit on it for the purpose of contesting the election only after she lost is outrageous. Though to be clear, I think that Steele is only telling a half truth here. Hillary wanted this dirt to leak to the press as well. But Steele was working for a US company at the time! She didn't buy it from a foreigner, she bought it from Fusion GPS, a US company who sub-contracted the work to Steele. I don't understand how you can't see that the two allegations are completely different. It's fine to say that it's outrageous to sit on it and wait until after the election before doing anything, I'd even agree with that; if she had the information it should have gone public instantly if she believed it to be true. But it's nothing like collusion. It just isn't. She worked with a US firm who in turn worked with a UK investigator. Hilary has no place in this chain of events past asking them to do some digging (and even then, she was picking up where the GOP left off). I'm okay if you think Fusion GPS did something bad by hiring Steele, but their decision has nothing to do with Hilary. This is the same reasoning Trump (and a lot of bad actors) use to avoid accountability. You're going to have to explain that one. If Hilary asked Fusion to do something illegal she is accountable, is my point. If she asked them to do something legal but they hired someone else to do it, and that hiring is illegal, she is not accountable for that illegal hiring. I see nothing wrong with anyone using that logic to avoid accountability for things they obviously aren't accountable for because they had nothing to do with it. By the same token, I wouldn't hold Trump accountable for any sort of collusion that might come out if he literally knew nothing about it and just the people around him were doing it under his nose. Trump has literally built his "empire" on the back of undocumented workers for which he claims to hold no responsibility because he hired people who hired them. Corporations claimed that they simply hired people in other countries, they didn't tell them to build sweatshops. Amazon claimed no responsibility for it's workers getting shafted on their pay because they were hired through agencies. So on and so on. It's basically one of the first lessons of Avoiding Accountability 101. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Remember way back when I said the Hillary and her supporters were pulling the party even further to the right in response to Republicans? This is what I'm talking about. The new hope for Democrats is basically a Republican on some key issues. Show nested quote +Beto vs. Democrats: Texas Lawmaker Frequently Voted to Help Trump and GOP
A rising Democratic star has voted for GOP bills that Trump critics say have aided big banks, undercut the fight against climate change and supported the president’s anti-immigrant agenda.
...a Capital & Main review of congressional votes shows that even as O’Rourke has represented one of the most Democratic congressional districts in the entire country, he has in many instances undermined his own party’s efforts to halt the GOP agenda, frequently voting against the majority of House Democrats in support of Republican bills and Trump administration positions.
Amid persistently high economic inequality and a climate change crisis, O’Rourke has voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said reinforced Republicans’ tax agenda, chipped away at the Affordable Care Act, weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the fossil fuel industry and bolstered Trump’s immigration policy. Consumer, environmental, public health and civil rights organizations have cast legislation backed by O’Rourke as aiding big banks, undermining the fight against climate change and supporting Trump’s anti-immigrant program. During the previous administration, President Barack Obama’s White House issued statements slamming two GOP bills backed by the 46-year-old Democratic legislator.
O’Rourke’s votes for Republican tax, trade, health care, criminal justice and immigration-related legislation not only defied his national party, but also at times put him at odds even with a majority of Texas Democratic lawmakers in Congress. Such votes underscore his membership in the New Democrat Coalition, the faction of House Democrats most closely aligned with business interests.
The possibility of an O’Rourke presidential candidacy has been boosted in recent weeks by former Obama aides and fundraisers, as well as by Third Way — a finance-industry funded think tank that previously made headlines deriding Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren. He has also been lauded by former Hillary Clinton aide Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress — a Democratic think tank whose officials recently slammed Republican tax and immigration legislation that O’Rourke voted for. Much of the party elite’s support for an O’Rourke candidacy has not mentioned his policy record or agenda. capitalandmain.comCentrists of the Beto/Hillary/Kamala camp have more in common with Republicans (economically) than they do the progressive Sanders wing.
If Trump knows they're undocumented then he's responsible. The only way that logic works is if he is a) completely unaware of the undocumented immigrants working for him and b) works to either get them fired and replaced or naturalised with proper paperwork when he does.
You're talking about 'wink wink' not knowing, instead of actually not knowing, which is not the same thing.
Amazon knew full well it wouldn't have to pay those employees, that's why it used agencies.
Let's use a hypothetical.
Greenhorizons asks iamthedave to get him a diamond for his girlfriend for their upcoming anniversary.
iamthedave says 'cool, I know a guy' and proceeds to talk to his friend in the Mafia. Said man produces a diamond, telling iamthedave he murdered someone and cleaned all the blood off. iamthedave says 'cool, thanks man', and goes to Greenhorizons.
Greenhorizons asks 'Is this on the level?'
iamthedave says 'told you, I know a guy'.
Is Greenhorizons now accountable because iamthedave used the Mafia to acquire a diamond for him completely without his knowledge, and assured him it's all on the level? is it Greenhorizons' fault that iamthedave essentially had a man murdered on his behalf without him knowing anything about it?
|
Looks like Pelosi pissed Trump off by shaking her ass celebrating at a bar last night. It’s veto time!
|
On December 20 2018 19:53 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2018 00:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 22:08 iamthedave wrote:On December 19 2018 12:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 08:24 Nouar wrote:On December 19 2018 08:06 xDaunt wrote:
You don't see any problem with a political candidate retaining a foreign agent to compile a dossier (that we now know is false) for the express purpose of challenging the validity of an election? Foreign agent : A foreign agent is anyone who actively carries out the interests of a foreign country (...) Steele is not a foreign agent for one. Second : the law firm wanted to be "in a position to" contest "based on evidence found" that the opposition unlawfully influenced elections. I have no issue with that. By itself it doesn't undermine the election or the confidence voters have on the us institutions. I have issue with the fact that the evidence was not corroborated enough to be conclusive, thus should have been kept under wraps. But it was still disseminated by Steele. THIS had an influence and I'm not happy about. Giving it to the FBI was fine by me, the rest is more questionable. The FBI at least kept it under wrap to not influence the election itself. But that is not conspiring to advance the interests of a foreign country, and cannot be compared. I fail to see if it is even illegal, since opposition research is legal in the USA. PS : how can you assure that the whole dossier is false? Even if only part ends up being true, it is a really huge deal... First of all, I wasn't referring to "foreign agent" as someone necessarily working for a state. I was referring to it in the more basic sense of a retained agent who is a foreigner. But that aside, I do wonder whether Steele is a Russian agent. Consider his quoted sources, the falseness of the allegations, and his throwing of Hillary under the bus in that interrogatory. Putin may indeed be having a good laugh right now. Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main thrusts of the Trump/Russia collusion scandal this idea that Trump got information adverse to Hillary from a foreign person -- and potentially someone working for a foreign government? Let's just flip the script. Hillary actually paid someone from a foreign country with direct ties to the Kremlin (again, look at the sources in the dossier) to get dirt on her political opponent, and she did it for the purpose of having information with which she might contest election results. This is okay because.... why? Speaking of which, do we actually know how Hillary became connected to Steele in the first place? How did she know that Steele had dirt on Trump? Daunt... did you read your own bolded text? It says that the law firm wanted to be in a position to challenge the election because of evidence Steele found that Trump colluded with Russia. In other words, they believed the dossier - which fine is now seemingly false - and thus wanted to be in a position to challenge an election they believed - because of the dossier - was being tampered with by the Russians. They were responding to their belief that Trump was working with foreign nationals - the Russians - to screw with the US election. In addition, they never actually did anything. What are you supposed to investigate them for? Thinking about maybe doing something that they then never did? Even by your standards this is lazy. I did read it. The idea that Hillary's campaign would buy this information from a foreigner and sit on it for the purpose of contesting the election only after she lost is outrageous. Though to be clear, I think that Steele is only telling a half truth here. Hillary wanted this dirt to leak to the press as well. But Steele was working for a US company at the time! She didn't buy it from a foreigner, she bought it from Fusion GPS, a US company who sub-contracted the work to Steele. I don't understand how you can't see that the two allegations are completely different. It's fine to say that it's outrageous to sit on it and wait until after the election before doing anything, I'd even agree with that; if she had the information it should have gone public instantly if she believed it to be true. But it's nothing like collusion. It just isn't. She worked with a US firm who in turn worked with a UK investigator. Hilary has no place in this chain of events past asking them to do some digging (and even then, she was picking up where the GOP left off). I'm okay if you think Fusion GPS did something bad by hiring Steele, but their decision has nothing to do with Hilary.
Steele was a contractor. He wasn’t working for Fusion GPS. Hillary simply laundered the relationship and money through two entities to insulate herself.
|
On December 21 2018 00:35 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 00:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 20 2018 22:06 iamthedave wrote:On December 20 2018 20:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 20 2018 19:53 iamthedave wrote:On December 20 2018 00:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 22:08 iamthedave wrote:On December 19 2018 12:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 08:24 Nouar wrote:On December 19 2018 08:06 xDaunt wrote:
You don't see any problem with a political candidate retaining a foreign agent to compile a dossier (that we now know is false) for the express purpose of challenging the validity of an election? Foreign agent : A foreign agent is anyone who actively carries out the interests of a foreign country (...) Steele is not a foreign agent for one. Second : the law firm wanted to be "in a position to" contest "based on evidence found" that the opposition unlawfully influenced elections. I have no issue with that. By itself it doesn't undermine the election or the confidence voters have on the us institutions. I have issue with the fact that the evidence was not corroborated enough to be conclusive, thus should have been kept under wraps. But it was still disseminated by Steele. THIS had an influence and I'm not happy about. Giving it to the FBI was fine by me, the rest is more questionable. The FBI at least kept it under wrap to not influence the election itself. But that is not conspiring to advance the interests of a foreign country, and cannot be compared. I fail to see if it is even illegal, since opposition research is legal in the USA. PS : how can you assure that the whole dossier is false? Even if only part ends up being true, it is a really huge deal... First of all, I wasn't referring to "foreign agent" as someone necessarily working for a state. I was referring to it in the more basic sense of a retained agent who is a foreigner. But that aside, I do wonder whether Steele is a Russian agent. Consider his quoted sources, the falseness of the allegations, and his throwing of Hillary under the bus in that interrogatory. Putin may indeed be having a good laugh right now. Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main thrusts of the Trump/Russia collusion scandal this idea that Trump got information adverse to Hillary from a foreign person -- and potentially someone working for a foreign government? Let's just flip the script. Hillary actually paid someone from a foreign country with direct ties to the Kremlin (again, look at the sources in the dossier) to get dirt on her political opponent, and she did it for the purpose of having information with which she might contest election results. This is okay because.... why? Speaking of which, do we actually know how Hillary became connected to Steele in the first place? How did she know that Steele had dirt on Trump? Daunt... did you read your own bolded text? It says that the law firm wanted to be in a position to challenge the election because of evidence Steele found that Trump colluded with Russia. In other words, they believed the dossier - which fine is now seemingly false - and thus wanted to be in a position to challenge an election they believed - because of the dossier - was being tampered with by the Russians. They were responding to their belief that Trump was working with foreign nationals - the Russians - to screw with the US election. In addition, they never actually did anything. What are you supposed to investigate them for? Thinking about maybe doing something that they then never did? Even by your standards this is lazy. I did read it. The idea that Hillary's campaign would buy this information from a foreigner and sit on it for the purpose of contesting the election only after she lost is outrageous. Though to be clear, I think that Steele is only telling a half truth here. Hillary wanted this dirt to leak to the press as well. But Steele was working for a US company at the time! She didn't buy it from a foreigner, she bought it from Fusion GPS, a US company who sub-contracted the work to Steele. I don't understand how you can't see that the two allegations are completely different. It's fine to say that it's outrageous to sit on it and wait until after the election before doing anything, I'd even agree with that; if she had the information it should have gone public instantly if she believed it to be true. But it's nothing like collusion. It just isn't. She worked with a US firm who in turn worked with a UK investigator. Hilary has no place in this chain of events past asking them to do some digging (and even then, she was picking up where the GOP left off). I'm okay if you think Fusion GPS did something bad by hiring Steele, but their decision has nothing to do with Hilary. This is the same reasoning Trump (and a lot of bad actors) use to avoid accountability. You're going to have to explain that one. If Hilary asked Fusion to do something illegal she is accountable, is my point. If she asked them to do something legal but they hired someone else to do it, and that hiring is illegal, she is not accountable for that illegal hiring. I see nothing wrong with anyone using that logic to avoid accountability for things they obviously aren't accountable for because they had nothing to do with it. By the same token, I wouldn't hold Trump accountable for any sort of collusion that might come out if he literally knew nothing about it and just the people around him were doing it under his nose. Trump has literally built his "empire" on the back of undocumented workers for which he claims to hold no responsibility because he hired people who hired them. Corporations claimed that they simply hired people in other countries, they didn't tell them to build sweatshops. Amazon claimed no responsibility for it's workers getting shafted on their pay because they were hired through agencies. So on and so on. It's basically one of the first lessons of Avoiding Accountability 101. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Remember way back when I said the Hillary and her supporters were pulling the party even further to the right in response to Republicans? This is what I'm talking about. The new hope for Democrats is basically a Republican on some key issues. Beto vs. Democrats: Texas Lawmaker Frequently Voted to Help Trump and GOP
A rising Democratic star has voted for GOP bills that Trump critics say have aided big banks, undercut the fight against climate change and supported the president’s anti-immigrant agenda.
...a Capital & Main review of congressional votes shows that even as O’Rourke has represented one of the most Democratic congressional districts in the entire country, he has in many instances undermined his own party’s efforts to halt the GOP agenda, frequently voting against the majority of House Democrats in support of Republican bills and Trump administration positions.
Amid persistently high economic inequality and a climate change crisis, O’Rourke has voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said reinforced Republicans’ tax agenda, chipped away at the Affordable Care Act, weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the fossil fuel industry and bolstered Trump’s immigration policy. Consumer, environmental, public health and civil rights organizations have cast legislation backed by O’Rourke as aiding big banks, undermining the fight against climate change and supporting Trump’s anti-immigrant program. During the previous administration, President Barack Obama’s White House issued statements slamming two GOP bills backed by the 46-year-old Democratic legislator.
O’Rourke’s votes for Republican tax, trade, health care, criminal justice and immigration-related legislation not only defied his national party, but also at times put him at odds even with a majority of Texas Democratic lawmakers in Congress. Such votes underscore his membership in the New Democrat Coalition, the faction of House Democrats most closely aligned with business interests.
The possibility of an O’Rourke presidential candidacy has been boosted in recent weeks by former Obama aides and fundraisers, as well as by Third Way — a finance-industry funded think tank that previously made headlines deriding Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren. He has also been lauded by former Hillary Clinton aide Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress — a Democratic think tank whose officials recently slammed Republican tax and immigration legislation that O’Rourke voted for. Much of the party elite’s support for an O’Rourke candidacy has not mentioned his policy record or agenda. capitalandmain.comCentrists of the Beto/Hillary/Kamala camp have more in common with Republicans (economically) than they do the progressive Sanders wing. If Trump knows they're undocumented then he's responsible. The only way that logic works is if he is a) completely unaware of the undocumented immigrants working for him and b) works to either get them fired and replaced or naturalised with proper paperwork when he does. You're talking about 'wink wink' not knowing, instead of actually not knowing, which is not the same thing. Amazon knew full well it wouldn't have to pay those employees, that's why it used agencies. Let's use a hypothetical. Greenhorizons asks iamthedave to get him a diamond for his girlfriend for their upcoming anniversary. iamthedave says 'cool, I know a guy' and proceeds to talk to his friend in the Mafia. Said man produces a diamond, telling iamthedave he murdered someone and cleaned all the blood off. iamthedave says 'cool, thanks man', and goes to Greenhorizons. Greenhorizons asks 'Is this on the level?' iamthedave says 'told you, I know a guy'. Is Greenhorizons now accountable because iamthedave used the Mafia to acquire a diamond for him completely without his knowledge, and assured him it's all on the level? is it Greenhorizons' fault that iamthedave essentially had a man murdered on his behalf without him knowing anything about it?
In the US best believe I'm going to end up in prison for that. Whether I'm truly accountable is another question. That depends on a load of details that at one point or another boils down to he said she said and becomes a matter of predisposition and faith. Alas it remains the same reasoning. What's in contention is how reasonable it is for the person to know better.
Granted I'm not trying to say they are of equal significance, just that it's the same reasoning that's frequently used to get exploitative people off the hook and throw some person or group with less power under the bus.
It's not unlike the corporate practice of documenting unrealistic rules they explicitly tell employees to ignore for productivity sake only to point at them when something inevitably goes wrong and the employee seeks compensation.
"You see there you were violating our wait 5 minutes in between jobs rule. Never mind that you can't physically make quota at that rate."
On December 21 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2018 19:53 iamthedave wrote:On December 20 2018 00:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 22:08 iamthedave wrote:On December 19 2018 12:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 08:24 Nouar wrote:On December 19 2018 08:06 xDaunt wrote:
You don't see any problem with a political candidate retaining a foreign agent to compile a dossier (that we now know is false) for the express purpose of challenging the validity of an election? Foreign agent : A foreign agent is anyone who actively carries out the interests of a foreign country (...) Steele is not a foreign agent for one. Second : the law firm wanted to be "in a position to" contest "based on evidence found" that the opposition unlawfully influenced elections. I have no issue with that. By itself it doesn't undermine the election or the confidence voters have on the us institutions. I have issue with the fact that the evidence was not corroborated enough to be conclusive, thus should have been kept under wraps. But it was still disseminated by Steele. THIS had an influence and I'm not happy about. Giving it to the FBI was fine by me, the rest is more questionable. The FBI at least kept it under wrap to not influence the election itself. But that is not conspiring to advance the interests of a foreign country, and cannot be compared. I fail to see if it is even illegal, since opposition research is legal in the USA. PS : how can you assure that the whole dossier is false? Even if only part ends up being true, it is a really huge deal... First of all, I wasn't referring to "foreign agent" as someone necessarily working for a state. I was referring to it in the more basic sense of a retained agent who is a foreigner. But that aside, I do wonder whether Steele is a Russian agent. Consider his quoted sources, the falseness of the allegations, and his throwing of Hillary under the bus in that interrogatory. Putin may indeed be having a good laugh right now. Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main thrusts of the Trump/Russia collusion scandal this idea that Trump got information adverse to Hillary from a foreign person -- and potentially someone working for a foreign government? Let's just flip the script. Hillary actually paid someone from a foreign country with direct ties to the Kremlin (again, look at the sources in the dossier) to get dirt on her political opponent, and she did it for the purpose of having information with which she might contest election results. This is okay because.... why? Speaking of which, do we actually know how Hillary became connected to Steele in the first place? How did she know that Steele had dirt on Trump? Daunt... did you read your own bolded text? It says that the law firm wanted to be in a position to challenge the election because of evidence Steele found that Trump colluded with Russia. In other words, they believed the dossier - which fine is now seemingly false - and thus wanted to be in a position to challenge an election they believed - because of the dossier - was being tampered with by the Russians. They were responding to their belief that Trump was working with foreign nationals - the Russians - to screw with the US election. In addition, they never actually did anything. What are you supposed to investigate them for? Thinking about maybe doing something that they then never did? Even by your standards this is lazy. I did read it. The idea that Hillary's campaign would buy this information from a foreigner and sit on it for the purpose of contesting the election only after she lost is outrageous. Though to be clear, I think that Steele is only telling a half truth here. Hillary wanted this dirt to leak to the press as well. But Steele was working for a US company at the time! She didn't buy it from a foreigner, she bought it from Fusion GPS, a US company who sub-contracted the work to Steele. I don't understand how you can't see that the two allegations are completely different. It's fine to say that it's outrageous to sit on it and wait until after the election before doing anything, I'd even agree with that; if she had the information it should have gone public instantly if she believed it to be true. But it's nothing like collusion. It just isn't. She worked with a US firm who in turn worked with a UK investigator. Hilary has no place in this chain of events past asking them to do some digging (and even then, she was picking up where the GOP left off). I'm okay if you think Fusion GPS did something bad by hiring Steele, but their decision has nothing to do with Hilary. Steele was a contractor. He wasn’t working for Fusion GPS. Hillary simply laundered the relationship and money through two entities to insulate herself.
This seems as obvious to me as Trump knowing he was (probably still is really) employing undocumented workers.
|
On December 21 2018 01:01 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like Pelosi pissed Trump off by shaking her ass celebrating at a bar last night. It’s veto time!
let’s stop paying people in time for christmas! woo! victory!
bill gets signed. ban bet from this thread on it. Either Trump or the entirety of the government’s employees are gonna take it in the teeth here. My bet’s clearly on the former.
|
I don't get it. What's wrong with shaking your ass? Or celebrating? Or being at a bar?
|
On December 21 2018 01:41 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 01:01 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like Pelosi pissed Trump off by shaking her ass celebrating at a bar last night. It’s veto time! let’s stop paying people in time for christmas! woo! victory! bill gets signed. ban bet from this thread on it.
Don't think you post here or enough to make that enticing. With the odds and rate in mind I think you need to up your side of the wager to make that a reasonable gamble, I admit I appreciate the confidence though.
Since the Dems are reluctant to post here (other than to pick fights with the right leaning posters) I have to take this opportunity to ask you your read on 2020 so far?
On December 21 2018 01:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I don't get it. What's wrong with shaking your ass? Or celebrating? Or being at a bar?
Nothing really, it just obviously provokes Trump to act petulantly.
|
On December 21 2018 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 01:41 brian wrote:On December 21 2018 01:01 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like Pelosi pissed Trump off by shaking her ass celebrating at a bar last night. It’s veto time! let’s stop paying people in time for christmas! woo! victory! bill gets signed. ban bet from this thread on it. Don't think you post here or enough to make that enticing. With the odds and rate in mind I think you need to up your side of the wager to make that a reasonable gamble, I admit I appreciate the confidence though. Since the Dems are reluctant to post here (other than to pick fights with the right leaning posters) I have to take this opportunity to ask you your read on 2020 so far?
i know  .
my read isn’t worth shit as far as left leaning people go i think, i’m admittedly clueless on the pulse of the country at large. i’m 50/50 on whether it’s a Trump re-election or not irrespective of the opponent. and i have no impression on a dem candidate that’s both electable and ‘good’ on my own personal preference.
I’d happily throw my vote in for Bernie but i do have the old ‘electability’ reservations from the rest of the voting party. the rest of the viable candidates from the numbers you had provided recently are not inspiring (though, who is ‘Michelle?’ Obama? yikes.) anyone just to the right of Bernie, I think, would be a more certain victory.
really i’d vote for anyone that platformed on just issues and managed to escape all the shitty politics we’ve been quickly accustomed to.
|
I'm excited for electability, round two. The best days of Democratic primary maneuvering are just around the corner!
|
On December 21 2018 02:04 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 21 2018 01:41 brian wrote:On December 21 2018 01:01 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like Pelosi pissed Trump off by shaking her ass celebrating at a bar last night. It’s veto time! let’s stop paying people in time for christmas! woo! victory! bill gets signed. ban bet from this thread on it. Don't think you post here or enough to make that enticing. With the odds and rate in mind I think you need to up your side of the wager to make that a reasonable gamble, I admit I appreciate the confidence though. Since the Dems are reluctant to post here (other than to pick fights with the right leaning posters) I have to take this opportunity to ask you your read on 2020 so far? i know . my read isn’t worth shit as far as left leaning people go i think, i’m admittedly clueless on the pulse of the country at large. i’m 50/50 on whether it’s a Trump re-election or not irrespective of the opponent. and i have no impression on a dem candidate that’s both electable and ‘good’ on my own personal preference. I’d happily throw my vote in for Bernie but i do have the old ‘electability’ reservations from the rest of the voting party. the rest of the viable candidates from the numbers you had provided recently are not inspiring. anyone just to the right of Bernie, I think, would be a more certain victory. really i’d vote for anyone that platformed on just issues and managed to escape all the shitty politics we’ve been quickly accustomed to.
Pay attention to how the media presents those alternatives, how much they focus on packaging and recent rhetoric over policy and votes. How they allow things to be intentionally distorted and in what ways.
It'll become abundantly clear rather quickly that you're being convinced by corporate media, not informed.
On December 21 2018 02:10 Danglars wrote:
I'm excited for electability, round two. The best days of Democratic primary maneuvering are just around the corner!
Beto, Kamala, and Joe are already there. Within the establishment those are the factions (Warren's support being split between Bernie's wing and the 'progressive' establishment) and between those three the Kamala camp is the "progressive" mostly by way of being a Black woman.
They've been jockeying for donors since Joe can shut them down if he takes the donors and they need as much as possible to make them viable outside of their home states.
The lack of unifying around Beto/Biden indicates either friction between Kamala's and Beto's backers (not reflected in their online support yet) or she's just there to keep Bernie from winning SC and California through super Tuesday and then they are going to drop her.
|
I don’t do ban bets. Regardless, I don’t trust Trump to follow through with the veto threat.
|
On December 21 2018 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 00:35 iamthedave wrote:On December 21 2018 00:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 20 2018 22:06 iamthedave wrote:On December 20 2018 20:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 20 2018 19:53 iamthedave wrote:On December 20 2018 00:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 22:08 iamthedave wrote:On December 19 2018 12:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 08:24 Nouar wrote:
[quote]
Foreign agent : A foreign agent is anyone who actively carries out the interests of a foreign country (...)
Steele is not a foreign agent for one.
Second : the law firm wanted to be "in a position to" contest "based on evidence found" that the opposition unlawfully influenced elections.
I have no issue with that. By itself it doesn't undermine the election or the confidence voters have on the us institutions. I have issue with the fact that the evidence was not corroborated enough to be conclusive, thus should have been kept under wraps. But it was still disseminated by Steele. THIS had an influence and I'm not happy about.
Giving it to the FBI was fine by me, the rest is more questionable. The FBI at least kept it under wrap to not influence the election itself.
But that is not conspiring to advance the interests of a foreign country, and cannot be compared. I fail to see if it is even illegal, since opposition research is legal in the USA.
PS : how can you assure that the whole dossier is false? Even if only part ends up being true, it is a really huge deal... First of all, I wasn't referring to "foreign agent" as someone necessarily working for a state. I was referring to it in the more basic sense of a retained agent who is a foreigner. But that aside, I do wonder whether Steele is a Russian agent. Consider his quoted sources, the falseness of the allegations, and his throwing of Hillary under the bus in that interrogatory. Putin may indeed be having a good laugh right now. Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main thrusts of the Trump/Russia collusion scandal this idea that Trump got information adverse to Hillary from a foreign person -- and potentially someone working for a foreign government? Let's just flip the script. Hillary actually paid someone from a foreign country with direct ties to the Kremlin (again, look at the sources in the dossier) to get dirt on her political opponent, and she did it for the purpose of having information with which she might contest election results. This is okay because.... why? Speaking of which, do we actually know how Hillary became connected to Steele in the first place? How did she know that Steele had dirt on Trump? Daunt... did you read your own bolded text? It says that the law firm wanted to be in a position to challenge the election because of evidence Steele found that Trump colluded with Russia. In other words, they believed the dossier - which fine is now seemingly false - and thus wanted to be in a position to challenge an election they believed - because of the dossier - was being tampered with by the Russians. They were responding to their belief that Trump was working with foreign nationals - the Russians - to screw with the US election. In addition, they never actually did anything. What are you supposed to investigate them for? Thinking about maybe doing something that they then never did? Even by your standards this is lazy. I did read it. The idea that Hillary's campaign would buy this information from a foreigner and sit on it for the purpose of contesting the election only after she lost is outrageous. Though to be clear, I think that Steele is only telling a half truth here. Hillary wanted this dirt to leak to the press as well. But Steele was working for a US company at the time! She didn't buy it from a foreigner, she bought it from Fusion GPS, a US company who sub-contracted the work to Steele. I don't understand how you can't see that the two allegations are completely different. It's fine to say that it's outrageous to sit on it and wait until after the election before doing anything, I'd even agree with that; if she had the information it should have gone public instantly if she believed it to be true. But it's nothing like collusion. It just isn't. She worked with a US firm who in turn worked with a UK investigator. Hilary has no place in this chain of events past asking them to do some digging (and even then, she was picking up where the GOP left off). I'm okay if you think Fusion GPS did something bad by hiring Steele, but their decision has nothing to do with Hilary. This is the same reasoning Trump (and a lot of bad actors) use to avoid accountability. You're going to have to explain that one. If Hilary asked Fusion to do something illegal she is accountable, is my point. If she asked them to do something legal but they hired someone else to do it, and that hiring is illegal, she is not accountable for that illegal hiring. I see nothing wrong with anyone using that logic to avoid accountability for things they obviously aren't accountable for because they had nothing to do with it. By the same token, I wouldn't hold Trump accountable for any sort of collusion that might come out if he literally knew nothing about it and just the people around him were doing it under his nose. Trump has literally built his "empire" on the back of undocumented workers for which he claims to hold no responsibility because he hired people who hired them. Corporations claimed that they simply hired people in other countries, they didn't tell them to build sweatshops. Amazon claimed no responsibility for it's workers getting shafted on their pay because they were hired through agencies. So on and so on. It's basically one of the first lessons of Avoiding Accountability 101. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Remember way back when I said the Hillary and her supporters were pulling the party even further to the right in response to Republicans? This is what I'm talking about. The new hope for Democrats is basically a Republican on some key issues. Beto vs. Democrats: Texas Lawmaker Frequently Voted to Help Trump and GOP
A rising Democratic star has voted for GOP bills that Trump critics say have aided big banks, undercut the fight against climate change and supported the president’s anti-immigrant agenda.
...a Capital & Main review of congressional votes shows that even as O’Rourke has represented one of the most Democratic congressional districts in the entire country, he has in many instances undermined his own party’s efforts to halt the GOP agenda, frequently voting against the majority of House Democrats in support of Republican bills and Trump administration positions.
Amid persistently high economic inequality and a climate change crisis, O’Rourke has voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said reinforced Republicans’ tax agenda, chipped away at the Affordable Care Act, weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the fossil fuel industry and bolstered Trump’s immigration policy. Consumer, environmental, public health and civil rights organizations have cast legislation backed by O’Rourke as aiding big banks, undermining the fight against climate change and supporting Trump’s anti-immigrant program. During the previous administration, President Barack Obama’s White House issued statements slamming two GOP bills backed by the 46-year-old Democratic legislator.
O’Rourke’s votes for Republican tax, trade, health care, criminal justice and immigration-related legislation not only defied his national party, but also at times put him at odds even with a majority of Texas Democratic lawmakers in Congress. Such votes underscore his membership in the New Democrat Coalition, the faction of House Democrats most closely aligned with business interests.
The possibility of an O’Rourke presidential candidacy has been boosted in recent weeks by former Obama aides and fundraisers, as well as by Third Way — a finance-industry funded think tank that previously made headlines deriding Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren. He has also been lauded by former Hillary Clinton aide Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress — a Democratic think tank whose officials recently slammed Republican tax and immigration legislation that O’Rourke voted for. Much of the party elite’s support for an O’Rourke candidacy has not mentioned his policy record or agenda. capitalandmain.comCentrists of the Beto/Hillary/Kamala camp have more in common with Republicans (economically) than they do the progressive Sanders wing. If Trump knows they're undocumented then he's responsible. The only way that logic works is if he is a) completely unaware of the undocumented immigrants working for him and b) works to either get them fired and replaced or naturalised with proper paperwork when he does. You're talking about 'wink wink' not knowing, instead of actually not knowing, which is not the same thing. Amazon knew full well it wouldn't have to pay those employees, that's why it used agencies. Let's use a hypothetical. Greenhorizons asks iamthedave to get him a diamond for his girlfriend for their upcoming anniversary. iamthedave says 'cool, I know a guy' and proceeds to talk to his friend in the Mafia. Said man produces a diamond, telling iamthedave he murdered someone and cleaned all the blood off. iamthedave says 'cool, thanks man', and goes to Greenhorizons. Greenhorizons asks 'Is this on the level?' iamthedave says 'told you, I know a guy'. Is Greenhorizons now accountable because iamthedave used the Mafia to acquire a diamond for him completely without his knowledge, and assured him it's all on the level? is it Greenhorizons' fault that iamthedave essentially had a man murdered on his behalf without him knowing anything about it? In the US best believe I'm going to end up in prison for that. Whether I'm truly accountable is another question. That depends on a load of details that at one point or another boils down to he said she said and becomes a matter of predisposition and faith. Alas it remains the same reasoning. What's in contention is how reasonable it is for the person to know better. Granted I'm not trying to say they are of equal significance, just that it's the same reasoning that's frequently used to get exploitative people off the hook and throw some person or group with less power under the bus. It's not unlike the corporate practice of documenting unrealistic rules they explicitly tell employees to ignore for productivity sake only to point at them when something inevitably goes wrong and the employee seeks compensation. "You see there you were violating our wait 5 minutes in between jobs rule. Never mind that you can't physically make quota at that rate." Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On December 20 2018 19:53 iamthedave wrote:On December 20 2018 00:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 22:08 iamthedave wrote:On December 19 2018 12:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 08:24 Nouar wrote:On December 19 2018 08:06 xDaunt wrote:
You don't see any problem with a political candidate retaining a foreign agent to compile a dossier (that we now know is false) for the express purpose of challenging the validity of an election? Foreign agent : A foreign agent is anyone who actively carries out the interests of a foreign country (...) Steele is not a foreign agent for one. Second : the law firm wanted to be "in a position to" contest "based on evidence found" that the opposition unlawfully influenced elections. I have no issue with that. By itself it doesn't undermine the election or the confidence voters have on the us institutions. I have issue with the fact that the evidence was not corroborated enough to be conclusive, thus should have been kept under wraps. But it was still disseminated by Steele. THIS had an influence and I'm not happy about. Giving it to the FBI was fine by me, the rest is more questionable. The FBI at least kept it under wrap to not influence the election itself. But that is not conspiring to advance the interests of a foreign country, and cannot be compared. I fail to see if it is even illegal, since opposition research is legal in the USA. PS : how can you assure that the whole dossier is false? Even if only part ends up being true, it is a really huge deal... First of all, I wasn't referring to "foreign agent" as someone necessarily working for a state. I was referring to it in the more basic sense of a retained agent who is a foreigner. But that aside, I do wonder whether Steele is a Russian agent. Consider his quoted sources, the falseness of the allegations, and his throwing of Hillary under the bus in that interrogatory. Putin may indeed be having a good laugh right now. Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main thrusts of the Trump/Russia collusion scandal this idea that Trump got information adverse to Hillary from a foreign person -- and potentially someone working for a foreign government? Let's just flip the script. Hillary actually paid someone from a foreign country with direct ties to the Kremlin (again, look at the sources in the dossier) to get dirt on her political opponent, and she did it for the purpose of having information with which she might contest election results. This is okay because.... why? Speaking of which, do we actually know how Hillary became connected to Steele in the first place? How did she know that Steele had dirt on Trump? Daunt... did you read your own bolded text? It says that the law firm wanted to be in a position to challenge the election because of evidence Steele found that Trump colluded with Russia. In other words, they believed the dossier - which fine is now seemingly false - and thus wanted to be in a position to challenge an election they believed - because of the dossier - was being tampered with by the Russians. They were responding to their belief that Trump was working with foreign nationals - the Russians - to screw with the US election. In addition, they never actually did anything. What are you supposed to investigate them for? Thinking about maybe doing something that they then never did? Even by your standards this is lazy. I did read it. The idea that Hillary's campaign would buy this information from a foreigner and sit on it for the purpose of contesting the election only after she lost is outrageous. Though to be clear, I think that Steele is only telling a half truth here. Hillary wanted this dirt to leak to the press as well. But Steele was working for a US company at the time! She didn't buy it from a foreigner, she bought it from Fusion GPS, a US company who sub-contracted the work to Steele. I don't understand how you can't see that the two allegations are completely different. It's fine to say that it's outrageous to sit on it and wait until after the election before doing anything, I'd even agree with that; if she had the information it should have gone public instantly if she believed it to be true. But it's nothing like collusion. It just isn't. She worked with a US firm who in turn worked with a UK investigator. Hilary has no place in this chain of events past asking them to do some digging (and even then, she was picking up where the GOP left off). I'm okay if you think Fusion GPS did something bad by hiring Steele, but their decision has nothing to do with Hilary. Steele was a contractor. He wasn’t working for Fusion GPS. Hillary simply laundered the relationship and money through two entities to insulate herself. This seems as obvious to me as Trump knowing he was (probably still is really) employing undocumented workers.
I suppose I can better see the logic behind the accusation now. It still seems flimsy to me.
I do understand your point. But how do you fix that loophole without just creating still more imbalances that get vulnerable groups shafted even harder? If you take the stance that Hilary is fair game because she might maybe have known that Fusion did something questionable (though I'm still uncertain that what they did actually is questionable, I'm just working off the assumption it is for the purpose of discussion), then how many other situations and related persons does that apply to?
To me it seems to open up a very dangerous pandora's box.
|
On December 21 2018 03:27 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 21 2018 00:35 iamthedave wrote:On December 21 2018 00:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 20 2018 22:06 iamthedave wrote:On December 20 2018 20:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 20 2018 19:53 iamthedave wrote:On December 20 2018 00:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 22:08 iamthedave wrote:On December 19 2018 12:43 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
First of all, I wasn't referring to "foreign agent" as someone necessarily working for a state. I was referring to it in the more basic sense of a retained agent who is a foreigner. But that aside, I do wonder whether Steele is a Russian agent. Consider his quoted sources, the falseness of the allegations, and his throwing of Hillary under the bus in that interrogatory. Putin may indeed be having a good laugh right now.
Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main thrusts of the Trump/Russia collusion scandal this idea that Trump got information adverse to Hillary from a foreign person -- and potentially someone working for a foreign government? Let's just flip the script. Hillary actually paid someone from a foreign country with direct ties to the Kremlin (again, look at the sources in the dossier) to get dirt on her political opponent, and she did it for the purpose of having information with which she might contest election results. This is okay because.... why?
Speaking of which, do we actually know how Hillary became connected to Steele in the first place? How did she know that Steele had dirt on Trump? Daunt... did you read your own bolded text? It says that the law firm wanted to be in a position to challenge the election because of evidence Steele found that Trump colluded with Russia. In other words, they believed the dossier - which fine is now seemingly false - and thus wanted to be in a position to challenge an election they believed - because of the dossier - was being tampered with by the Russians. They were responding to their belief that Trump was working with foreign nationals - the Russians - to screw with the US election. In addition, they never actually did anything. What are you supposed to investigate them for? Thinking about maybe doing something that they then never did? Even by your standards this is lazy. I did read it. The idea that Hillary's campaign would buy this information from a foreigner and sit on it for the purpose of contesting the election only after she lost is outrageous. Though to be clear, I think that Steele is only telling a half truth here. Hillary wanted this dirt to leak to the press as well. But Steele was working for a US company at the time! She didn't buy it from a foreigner, she bought it from Fusion GPS, a US company who sub-contracted the work to Steele. I don't understand how you can't see that the two allegations are completely different. It's fine to say that it's outrageous to sit on it and wait until after the election before doing anything, I'd even agree with that; if she had the information it should have gone public instantly if she believed it to be true. But it's nothing like collusion. It just isn't. She worked with a US firm who in turn worked with a UK investigator. Hilary has no place in this chain of events past asking them to do some digging (and even then, she was picking up where the GOP left off). I'm okay if you think Fusion GPS did something bad by hiring Steele, but their decision has nothing to do with Hilary. This is the same reasoning Trump (and a lot of bad actors) use to avoid accountability. You're going to have to explain that one. If Hilary asked Fusion to do something illegal she is accountable, is my point. If she asked them to do something legal but they hired someone else to do it, and that hiring is illegal, she is not accountable for that illegal hiring. I see nothing wrong with anyone using that logic to avoid accountability for things they obviously aren't accountable for because they had nothing to do with it. By the same token, I wouldn't hold Trump accountable for any sort of collusion that might come out if he literally knew nothing about it and just the people around him were doing it under his nose. Trump has literally built his "empire" on the back of undocumented workers for which he claims to hold no responsibility because he hired people who hired them. Corporations claimed that they simply hired people in other countries, they didn't tell them to build sweatshops. Amazon claimed no responsibility for it's workers getting shafted on their pay because they were hired through agencies. So on and so on. It's basically one of the first lessons of Avoiding Accountability 101. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Remember way back when I said the Hillary and her supporters were pulling the party even further to the right in response to Republicans? This is what I'm talking about. The new hope for Democrats is basically a Republican on some key issues. Beto vs. Democrats: Texas Lawmaker Frequently Voted to Help Trump and GOP
A rising Democratic star has voted for GOP bills that Trump critics say have aided big banks, undercut the fight against climate change and supported the president’s anti-immigrant agenda.
...a Capital & Main review of congressional votes shows that even as O’Rourke has represented one of the most Democratic congressional districts in the entire country, he has in many instances undermined his own party’s efforts to halt the GOP agenda, frequently voting against the majority of House Democrats in support of Republican bills and Trump administration positions.
Amid persistently high economic inequality and a climate change crisis, O’Rourke has voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said reinforced Republicans’ tax agenda, chipped away at the Affordable Care Act, weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the fossil fuel industry and bolstered Trump’s immigration policy. Consumer, environmental, public health and civil rights organizations have cast legislation backed by O’Rourke as aiding big banks, undermining the fight against climate change and supporting Trump’s anti-immigrant program. During the previous administration, President Barack Obama’s White House issued statements slamming two GOP bills backed by the 46-year-old Democratic legislator.
O’Rourke’s votes for Republican tax, trade, health care, criminal justice and immigration-related legislation not only defied his national party, but also at times put him at odds even with a majority of Texas Democratic lawmakers in Congress. Such votes underscore his membership in the New Democrat Coalition, the faction of House Democrats most closely aligned with business interests.
The possibility of an O’Rourke presidential candidacy has been boosted in recent weeks by former Obama aides and fundraisers, as well as by Third Way — a finance-industry funded think tank that previously made headlines deriding Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren. He has also been lauded by former Hillary Clinton aide Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress — a Democratic think tank whose officials recently slammed Republican tax and immigration legislation that O’Rourke voted for. Much of the party elite’s support for an O’Rourke candidacy has not mentioned his policy record or agenda. capitalandmain.comCentrists of the Beto/Hillary/Kamala camp have more in common with Republicans (economically) than they do the progressive Sanders wing. If Trump knows they're undocumented then he's responsible. The only way that logic works is if he is a) completely unaware of the undocumented immigrants working for him and b) works to either get them fired and replaced or naturalised with proper paperwork when he does. You're talking about 'wink wink' not knowing, instead of actually not knowing, which is not the same thing. Amazon knew full well it wouldn't have to pay those employees, that's why it used agencies. Let's use a hypothetical. Greenhorizons asks iamthedave to get him a diamond for his girlfriend for their upcoming anniversary. iamthedave says 'cool, I know a guy' and proceeds to talk to his friend in the Mafia. Said man produces a diamond, telling iamthedave he murdered someone and cleaned all the blood off. iamthedave says 'cool, thanks man', and goes to Greenhorizons. Greenhorizons asks 'Is this on the level?' iamthedave says 'told you, I know a guy'. Is Greenhorizons now accountable because iamthedave used the Mafia to acquire a diamond for him completely without his knowledge, and assured him it's all on the level? is it Greenhorizons' fault that iamthedave essentially had a man murdered on his behalf without him knowing anything about it? In the US best believe I'm going to end up in prison for that. Whether I'm truly accountable is another question. That depends on a load of details that at one point or another boils down to he said she said and becomes a matter of predisposition and faith. Alas it remains the same reasoning. What's in contention is how reasonable it is for the person to know better. Granted I'm not trying to say they are of equal significance, just that it's the same reasoning that's frequently used to get exploitative people off the hook and throw some person or group with less power under the bus. It's not unlike the corporate practice of documenting unrealistic rules they explicitly tell employees to ignore for productivity sake only to point at them when something inevitably goes wrong and the employee seeks compensation. "You see there you were violating our wait 5 minutes in between jobs rule. Never mind that you can't physically make quota at that rate." On December 21 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On December 20 2018 19:53 iamthedave wrote:On December 20 2018 00:55 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 22:08 iamthedave wrote:On December 19 2018 12:43 xDaunt wrote:On December 19 2018 08:24 Nouar wrote:On December 19 2018 08:06 xDaunt wrote:
You don't see any problem with a political candidate retaining a foreign agent to compile a dossier (that we now know is false) for the express purpose of challenging the validity of an election? Foreign agent : A foreign agent is anyone who actively carries out the interests of a foreign country (...) Steele is not a foreign agent for one. Second : the law firm wanted to be "in a position to" contest "based on evidence found" that the opposition unlawfully influenced elections. I have no issue with that. By itself it doesn't undermine the election or the confidence voters have on the us institutions. I have issue with the fact that the evidence was not corroborated enough to be conclusive, thus should have been kept under wraps. But it was still disseminated by Steele. THIS had an influence and I'm not happy about. Giving it to the FBI was fine by me, the rest is more questionable. The FBI at least kept it under wrap to not influence the election itself. But that is not conspiring to advance the interests of a foreign country, and cannot be compared. I fail to see if it is even illegal, since opposition research is legal in the USA. PS : how can you assure that the whole dossier is false? Even if only part ends up being true, it is a really huge deal... First of all, I wasn't referring to "foreign agent" as someone necessarily working for a state. I was referring to it in the more basic sense of a retained agent who is a foreigner. But that aside, I do wonder whether Steele is a Russian agent. Consider his quoted sources, the falseness of the allegations, and his throwing of Hillary under the bus in that interrogatory. Putin may indeed be having a good laugh right now. Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main thrusts of the Trump/Russia collusion scandal this idea that Trump got information adverse to Hillary from a foreign person -- and potentially someone working for a foreign government? Let's just flip the script. Hillary actually paid someone from a foreign country with direct ties to the Kremlin (again, look at the sources in the dossier) to get dirt on her political opponent, and she did it for the purpose of having information with which she might contest election results. This is okay because.... why? Speaking of which, do we actually know how Hillary became connected to Steele in the first place? How did she know that Steele had dirt on Trump? Daunt... did you read your own bolded text? It says that the law firm wanted to be in a position to challenge the election because of evidence Steele found that Trump colluded with Russia. In other words, they believed the dossier - which fine is now seemingly false - and thus wanted to be in a position to challenge an election they believed - because of the dossier - was being tampered with by the Russians. They were responding to their belief that Trump was working with foreign nationals - the Russians - to screw with the US election. In addition, they never actually did anything. What are you supposed to investigate them for? Thinking about maybe doing something that they then never did? Even by your standards this is lazy. I did read it. The idea that Hillary's campaign would buy this information from a foreigner and sit on it for the purpose of contesting the election only after she lost is outrageous. Though to be clear, I think that Steele is only telling a half truth here. Hillary wanted this dirt to leak to the press as well. But Steele was working for a US company at the time! She didn't buy it from a foreigner, she bought it from Fusion GPS, a US company who sub-contracted the work to Steele. I don't understand how you can't see that the two allegations are completely different. It's fine to say that it's outrageous to sit on it and wait until after the election before doing anything, I'd even agree with that; if she had the information it should have gone public instantly if she believed it to be true. But it's nothing like collusion. It just isn't. She worked with a US firm who in turn worked with a UK investigator. Hilary has no place in this chain of events past asking them to do some digging (and even then, she was picking up where the GOP left off). I'm okay if you think Fusion GPS did something bad by hiring Steele, but their decision has nothing to do with Hilary. Steele was a contractor. He wasn’t working for Fusion GPS. Hillary simply laundered the relationship and money through two entities to insulate herself. This seems as obvious to me as Trump knowing he was (probably still is really) employing undocumented workers. I suppose I can better see the logic behind the accusation now. It still seems flimsy to me. I do understand your point. But how do you fix that loophole without just creating still more imbalances that get vulnerable groups shafted even harder? If you take the stance that Hilary is fair game because she might maybe have known that Fusion did something questionable (though I'm still uncertain that what they did actually is questionable, I'm just working off the assumption it is for the purpose of discussion), then how many other situations and related persons does that apply to? To me it seems to open up a very dangerous pandora's box.
No, not really, or at least not one that doesn't already exist for less powerful people. The problem is the legal system is obviously not intended to hold people like Hillary and Trump accountable to anyone but their peers. The political system is at least superficially supposed to be the corrective measure for corruption and incompetence among the powerful.
When powerful peers have failed to hold each other accountable for having an informed and capable underclass it's unsurprising then in a cyclical sycophantic relationship the underclass takes up the banner of their preferred oppressors rather than risk liberation.
Essentially we're entering the stage of a gang/mob movie where the powerful parties have chosen the chaos of positioning for more influence rather than accepting the balance of power (probably spurred on in part by the disruptive nature [to that balance] of the tech world). While you're Amazon's, GE's, and Walmarts have their own conflicts among themselves, they have aligned interests in subjugating the masses and cultivating their own overseers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
