|
On December 21 2018 02:15 xDaunt wrote:
I don’t do ban bets. Regardless, I don’t trust Trump to follow through with the veto threat.
I suspect he'll cave. Once a man caves, he is done forever. The idea of a coward suddenly becoming a lion is movie stuff. In real life a coward remains a coward.
edit: Well there's some egg on my face for now. Literally ten minutes after this post it's reported that Trump is holding out for the border wall. Let's see if he stays course. I still predict an eventual cave, but this is a good sign.
|
Good for Trump. Shut this shit down.
|
never mind, i’ll just wait to see what happens.
On December 21 2018 03:47 ReditusSum wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 02:15 xDaunt wrote:
I don’t do ban bets. Regardless, I don’t trust Trump to follow through with the veto threat. I suspect he'll cave. Once a man caves, he is done forever. The idea of a coward suddenly becoming a lion is movie stuff. In real life a coward remains a coward. edit: Well there's some egg on my face for now. Literally ten minutes after this post it's reported that Trump is holding out for the border wall. Let's see if he stays course. I still predict an eventual cave, but this is a good sign.
he’s already caved on several of his inanities over the course of the last two years. i’m sure he’ll keep managing.
|
On December 21 2018 04:18 xDaunt wrote:
Good for Trump. Shut this shit down.
And keep it shut down.
|
I was thinking of how comical it would be with Trump running for re-election and blaming everybody else for why he couldn’t deliver on the wall. How many spending bills did you sign without funding and how many times did you say this one was the last?
And Americans rediscover the 3/4 of government that runs during a “shutdown” and all the brinksmanship on the debt limit that both parties ignore.
|
to be clear, the problem isn’t that people aren’t working. it’s that they work without being paid. it’s a bit of a delicate time of year to skip a pay check.
|
On December 21 2018 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 03:27 iamthedave wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I don't know if you're right. This is fruit of the poisoned tree stuff. It's not easy to be jailed for receiving stolen goods, for example.
On December 21 2018 04:18 xDaunt wrote:
Good for Trump. Shut this shit down.
How is it good for Trump? He couldn't more obviously be setting himself up to be blamed for the shutdown if he walked around with a neon sign pointing at himself reading 'I DID IT, IT WAS ME, BLAME ME AND ONLY ME'. He can't win, and he won't win. Not on this one. The Dems have zero reason to bend.
|
Shutting down plays very well for his base, and probably plays pretty badly everywhere else. Only his base voted for an actual physical wall running down the center of the river. The rest took him "seriously but not literally."
|
Recall that Republicans lambasted Al Gore for having a personal home that consumed a huge amount of energy.
The state Attorney General’s Office is investigating claims of harassment and immigration fraud at President Donald Trump’s National Golf Club in Bedminster following claims of abuse by several housekeepers.
The probe, first reported Friday by the New York Daily News, centers on claims made by women who are all former or current housekeepers. The women are either undocumented or were undocumented at the time they worked at the club.
www.northjersey.com
|
One might deduce a connection between the fact that Mattis's departure was announced on the same day that Trump made this Syria withdrawal decision. One can only hope that Trump's pick is not a TV general or someone who is a loyalist. Many reports have said that Mattis was highly critical of Trump's abilities (or lack thereof). This is the one part of the government in which we can't afford to have idiocy.
|
On December 21 2018 05:51 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 21 2018 03:27 iamthedave wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[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. 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. I don't know if you're right. This is fruit of the poisoned tree stuff. It's not easy to be jailed for receiving stolen goods, for example. How is it good for Trump? He couldn't more obviously be setting himself up to be blamed for the shutdown if he walked around with a neon sign pointing at himself reading 'I DID IT, IT WAS ME, BLAME ME AND ONLY ME'. He can't win, and he won't win. Not on this one. The Dems have zero reason to bend.
Considering a bit more than 9 out of 10 cases end up getting a plea I'd bet it's a lot easier than you think. The real problem is that property crimes under $1000 (up to $10,000 in some cities) simply don't get investigated at all.
Another component is whether people believe you didn't know it was stolen. As you can imagine that aspect suffers from the same bias as the rest of the system.
This is why I don't care much for the slippery slope argument here. It's already like that for marginalized people, so essentially it's exploiting the victims the argument is claiming to want to protect.
On December 21 2018 11:15 Doodsmack wrote:One might deduce a connection between the fact that Mattis's departure was announced on the same day that Trump made this Syria withdrawal decision. One can only hope that Trump's pick is not a TV general or someone who is a loyalist. Many reports have said that Mattis was highly critical of Trump's abilities (or lack thereof). This is the one part of the government in which we can't afford to have idiocy. https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1075918734500528128
Mad Dog is going and there's a bipartisan call for deeper engagement in the middle east and Democrats constantly implying that Trump is resisting such conflict because he's helping Russia which the news has told me is the single most important foreign country and unreasonably hostile to US interests.
This should end well.
|
Neoliberals and Neocons have left the door wide open for Trump...
If there isn't a left counterpart for Trump in 2020 we're all fucked lol.
|
On December 21 2018 05:51 iamthedave wrote:
How is it good for Trump? He couldn't more obviously be setting himself up to be blamed for the shutdown if he walked around with a neon sign pointing at himself reading 'I DID IT, IT WAS ME, BLAME ME AND ONLY ME'. He can't win, and he won't win. Not on this one. The Dems have zero reason to bend.
Border security is a winning issue for Trump. Not only is it popular, but it's a major distinguishing issue that separates him from the Swamp. There's really no reason for him not to play that card as hard as he can. In contrast, Trump is finished as a president if he caves on border security/the wall. Everyone knows this. That's why Pelosi was celebrating last night when she believed that Trump had caved.
|
Yeah, the whole idea that we have to maintain a permanent presence in the Middle East is ridiculous. It is time to bring our boys home.
|
On December 21 2018 16:31 ReditusSum wrote:
Yeah, the whole idea that we have to maintain a permanent presence in the Middle East is ridiculous. It is time to bring our boys home.
Why is that time now?
I mean, strategically, what is the benefit of withdrawing right now?
No-one else seems to know, other than Trump, so 'its time to bring our boys home' seems like you are just going along with whatever Trump says.
|
On December 21 2018 16:52 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 16:31 ReditusSum wrote:
Yeah, the whole idea that we have to maintain a permanent presence in the Middle East is ridiculous. It is time to bring our boys home. Why is that time now? I mean, strategically, what is the benefit of withdrawing right now? No-one else seems to know, other than Trump, so 'its time to bring our boys home' seems like you are just going along with whatever Trump says.
Honestly? The time was ten years ago or more. The time was to never get involved without a solid gameplan of what we were trying to accomplish, and "establishing democracy" doesn't count.
What is the strategic benefit to staying? How long are we going to stay? What is our goal? When can we declare victory or defeat and end it? What standards can we use to judge whether or not we're "winning" or "losing"? Why are we doing any of it?
Answer those questions and maybe I'd consider staying. But if the answer is: "We stay until the job is done. The job is to establish functioning democracy and ensure a continuing peace in the region" then the strategic benefit to withdrawing right now is we don't spend one more minute or one more American life on an absurd and immoral goal.
|
On December 21 2018 17:11 ReditusSum wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 16:52 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 21 2018 16:31 ReditusSum wrote:
Yeah, the whole idea that we have to maintain a permanent presence in the Middle East is ridiculous. It is time to bring our boys home. Why is that time now? I mean, strategically, what is the benefit of withdrawing right now? No-one else seems to know, other than Trump, so 'its time to bring our boys home' seems like you are just going along with whatever Trump says. Honestly? The time was ten years ago or more. The time was to never get involved without a solid gameplan of what we were trying to accomplish, and "establishing democracy" doesn't count. What is the strategic benefit to staying? How long are we going to stay? What is our goal? When can we declare victory or defeat and end it? What standards can we use to judge whether or not we're "winning" or "losing"? Why are we doing any of it? Answer those questions and maybe I'd consider staying. But if the answer is: "We stay until the job is done. The job is to establish functioning democracy and ensure a continuing peace in the region" then the strategic benefit to withdrawing right now is we don't spend one more minute or one more American life on an absurd and immoral goal.
Well I wasn't there when the military were planning the beginning of US involvement in Syria, so I don't know what the objectives are. What I do know is that alliances on the ground are incredibly important, and once you pack up and leave - leaving your allies to die - without proper preparation you are going to burn bridges and weaken your own position in the future.
The correct thing to do would be to never have put troops on the ground in the first place. Once you are there and you have forged alliances with people who come to depend on you its prudent to honour that - or at least be clear about a timetable and what the objectives are.
Pulling out because Trump needs a distraction from something isn't good form.
|
What is "proper prepration"? What does that mean? How does that look? What does that entail?
If you think Mattis or anyone else has a solid answer to those questions, then find some way to get them to tell everyone else what they're thinking, because otherwise that is just another vaguery. To be fair, Trump wasn't there when troops hit the ground either. He inherited this mess. (Yes I realize that Obama was blasted by conservatives for "cut and running" from the crap he inherited. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa)
|
On December 21 2018 17:29 ReditusSum wrote:
What is "proper prepration"? What does that mean? How does that look? What does that entail?
If you think Mattis or anyone else has a solid answer to those questions, then find some way to get them to tell everyone else what they're thinking, because otherwise that is just another vaguery. To be fair, Trump wasn't there when troops hit the ground either. He inherited this mess. (Yes I realize that Obama was blasted by conservatives for "cut and running" from the crap he inherited. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa)
I'm not trying to blame Trump over anyone else here really. He's responsible for the latest mess about pulling out, but he inherited this, as you say.
Proper preparation involves slowly phasing out involvement while empowering the local allies to step up and fill the gap that is left when you leave. This means things need to be planned, discussed and decided beforehand, not just simply announced with a tweet when something stressful happens at home.
Basically my point is this:
Obama and his friends decided to give the US some responsibility in Syria, and Trump has decided that he doesn't want it. This is going to have some effects in the long term, but Trump doesn't seem concerned about that. I'm saying it should be a concern.
|
On December 21 2018 17:38 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 17:29 ReditusSum wrote:
What is "proper prepration"? What does that mean? How does that look? What does that entail?
If you think Mattis or anyone else has a solid answer to those questions, then find some way to get them to tell everyone else what they're thinking, because otherwise that is just another vaguery. To be fair, Trump wasn't there when troops hit the ground either. He inherited this mess. (Yes I realize that Obama was blasted by conservatives for "cut and running" from the crap he inherited. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa) I'm not trying to blame Trump over anyone else here really. He's responsible for the latest mess about pulling out, but he inherited this, as you say. Proper preparation involves slowly phasing out involvement while empowering the local allies to step up and fill the gap that is left when you leave. This means things need to be planned, discussed and decided beforehand, not just simply announced with a tweet when something stressful happens at home. Basically my point is this: Obama and his friends decided to give the US some responsibility in Syria, and Trump has decided that he doesn't want it. This is going to have some effects in the long term, but Trump doesn't seem concerned about that. I'm saying it should be a concern.
We have 20k+ in South Korea, 30k+ in Germany, 50k+ in Japan, and 14k in Afghanistan the US pretty much only leaves when forced. There's no level of stability or local empowerment that changes that really. Iraq would be the closest example of that and that obviously went swimmingly.
Granted Trump's going about it in a haphazard way, it's not like "planning" shit made it go much better.
The main point is now he's got bipartisan support for further military conflict, not just the people that already agreed to fund it, but the people (primarily liberals) that would say we need to leave are instead making the arguments Republicans did with Iraq.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
