| Forum Index > Closed |
|
oBlade
United States6102 Posts
On December 07 2018 02:39 Plansix wrote: It only furthers the theory that Trumps foreign policy plans all revolve around who is willing to lend/give him money. How does Trump Tower Pyongyang fit into this nuanced theory of yours? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On December 08 2018 13:53 Danglars wrote: Ocasio-Cortez is really starting to channel Trump on the national stage. The thought of "you'll regret trolling me with memes once I get subpoena power" is cribbed from Trump's normal "Oh you did this media? How about challenging your license!" and blather. She's upping her game and shows two elected politicians can say crazy shit on twitter and it's no big deal. First term of Trump opposition, versus second term of Trump opposition. And say what you want about AOC and the younger lot: they're a whole lot better than Pelosi Corp. What AOC says on twitter and what Trump say on twitter have virtually nothing in common other than they piss people off. Trump says ACTUAL "crazy shit" on twitter. Like climate change being a Chinese hoax or birth certificate conspiracies. I almost missed you try that nonsense lol. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12451 Posts
On December 08 2018 18:12 iamthedave wrote: In fairness to Danglars, he has said multiple times that he thinks liberal ideas are insane, so from his perspective the two might well look the same. In this case we're doing a switch between something that is insane because it has no connexion to reality and something that is insane because someone doesn't like it or agree with it, which is not a switch that we should embolden =/ Unless Danglars wants to demonstrate that AOC says stuff that are insane under the first definition, in which case, be my guest. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 08 2018 17:11 GreenHorizons wrote: What AOC says on twitter and what Trump say on twitter have virtually nothing in common other than they piss people off. Trump says ACTUAL "crazy shit" on twitter. Like climate change being a Chinese hoax or birth certificate conspiracies. I almost missed you try that nonsense lol. I say this as somebody who has heard nonstop all the supposedly dangerous assaults on a free press that Trump has executed through his tweets. Now AOC is threatening to use state power over a meme (if we play fair with the analysis of both sides). Distinctly Trumpian. And totally unaddressed by anyone right now. Well, is it now alright to threaten citizens with political consequences, or is this just another example on holding Trump to standards you don’t care to hold others to? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On December 09 2018 02:50 Danglars wrote: I say this as somebody who has heard nonstop all the supposedly dangerous assaults on a free press that Trump has executed through his tweets. Now AOC is threatening to use state power over a meme (if we play fair with the analysis of both sides). Distinctly Trumpian. And totally unaddressed by anyone right now. Well, is it now alright to threaten citizens with political consequences, or is this just another example on holding Trump to standards you don’t care to hold others to? No one addressed it because it's silly. You know she's practically a pariah in her own party as well with the small little difference of being a freshman congressperson as opposed to the president of the country. Lest we go down the rabbit hole of Jr.'s blending of politics and profit for his dad. Just so you know, yes it would be problematic if congresspeople were threatening random trolls with investigations. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 09 2018 02:54 GreenHorizons wrote: No one addressed it because it's silly. You know she's practically a pariah in her own party as well with the small little difference of being a freshman congressperson as opposed to the president of the country. Lest we go down the rabbit hole of Jr.'s blending of politics and profit for his dad. Just so you know, yes it would be problematic if congresspeople were threatening random trolls with investigations. Does it not matter because she’s a pariah within her party threatening someone, or because she chose her target (Jr) better than Trump (CNN). I grant you if it’s Jr saying “I’m innocent, there’s no substance to these accusations,” then it colors the subpoena much different. This was “haha funny meme,” and the response that you shouldn’t be making fun of me because I’m about to have Congressional power. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On December 09 2018 03:04 Danglars wrote: Does it not matter because she’s a pariah within her party threatening someone, or because she chose her target (Jr) better than Trump (CNN). I grant you if it’s Jr saying “I’m innocent, there’s no substance to these accusations,” then it colors the subpoena much different. This was “haha funny meme,” and the response that you shouldn’t be making fun of me because I’m about to have Congressional power. It's a silly attempt at a "gotcha" for both her status and their respective targets. It's also silly because of the context and content itself. Trump threw a tantrum and kicked a reporter out of the white house until the adults were able to explain to him why that wasn't a long term option. AOC made a joke at the expense of Jr's pride because he says and does stupid things. The two aren't remotely comparable in the way you're attempting beyond they both know their twitter audience reasonably well. I dunno where this line of argumentation came from (doesn't seem like something you would come up with) but it's dead in the water. Democrats should take note that AOC isn't even going to run for President in 2020 and she's still doing a better job of it than any other Dem. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 09 2018 06:45 Doodsmack wrote: The attempt to excuse trump's behavior by way of a single AOC tweet is a failed one. No, quite literally people are copying him. Nobody here has even condemned what AOC has done. You may condemn or excuse both at will. Call it disrespect, inappropriate, abuse of power, "presidential" (should you think she aspires to be president), but every person here has the ability to lay down a standard they will fairly apply to people violating it. Copying someone is not an excuse for the original behavior, and maybe you can now or later admit the truth of that. I'll be reading. Trump will be gone 50 years and I'm sure you will still say "what you have done is trying to excuse Trump's behavior, and it in no way excuses Trump's behavior." | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On December 09 2018 07:20 Danglars wrote: No, quite literally people are copying him. Nobody here has even condemned what AOC has done. You may condemn or excuse both at will. Call it disrespect, inappropriate, abuse of power, "presidential" (should you think she aspires to be president), but every person here has the ability to lay down a standard they will fairly apply to people violating it. Copying someone is not an excuse for the original behavior, and maybe you can now or later admit the truth of that. I'll be reading. Trump will be gone 50 years and I'm sure you will still say "what you have done is trying to excuse Trump's behavior, and it in no way excuses Trump's behavior." Your argument is nonsensical. It also undermines the entire justification we've heard from Republicans for Trump's behavior. So when you condemn Trump for pretty much the entirety of his presidency people might think your argument isn't empty rhetoric. Until then it's obviously hollow. Alas you're not actually opposed to what she said anyway, you're just sour it's hitting and Trump is exponentially more problematic so that's the best argument you could summon. Unfortunately it's a terrible argument. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 09 2018 10:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Your argument is nonsensical. It also undermines the entire justification we've heard from Republicans for Trump's behavior. So when you condemn Trump for pretty much the entirety of his presidency people might think your argument isn't empty rhetoric. Until then it's obviously hollow. Alas you're not actually opposed to what she said anyway, you're just sour it's hitting and Trump is exponentially more problematic so that's the best argument you could summon. Unfortunately it's a terrible argument. Same here as I responded earlier: if you think Trump is justified in his style, then you really have nothing to complain about AOC. I don’t really know why you want to bring “justification,” it’s about a continuation of the pattern, friend or foe of it. It’s a news story about changing rhetoric from a bright young star that’s out of the Democratic mainstream and power structure. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On December 09 2018 10:45 Danglars wrote: Same here as I responded earlier: if you think Trump is justified in his style, then you really have nothing to complain about AOC. I don’t really know why you want to bring “justification,” it’s about a continuation of the pattern, friend or foe of it. It’s a news story about changing rhetoric from a bright young star that’s out of the Democratic mainstream and power structure. Part of the problem was you initially made it about "crazy shit" and you can't be taken seriously unless you can first admit Trump tweets and says actual "crazy shit" that's on a completely different level. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 09 2018 10:48 GreenHorizons wrote: Part of the problem was you initially made it about "crazy shit" and you can't be taken seriously unless you can first admit Trump tweets and says actual "crazy shit" that's on a completely different level. Sorry, that was a phrase within a post centering on AOC following in Trump’s path with threats of state power. It’s an example of crazy shit, not equating two piles of crazy shit based on size. Your problem is forgetting context. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On December 09 2018 11:01 Danglars wrote: Sorry, that was a phrase within a post centering on AOC following in Trump’s path with threats of state power. It’s an example of crazy shit, not equating two piles of crazy shit based on size. Your problem is forgetting context. I'm going to take that as admitting that Trump tweets and says way more "crazy shit" so that we have somewhere to go. You're drawing very weak parallels between AOC's tweet and Trump's actual threats of state power with the addition of having the power/authority to do it. If you can acknowledge the chasm between the two we can continue to entertain your argument seriously. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
I think I'm beginning to see why these things aren't taken seriously most of the time. I'm struggling to figure out what the actual point of this was. But maybe it was just to be seen to be attempting to do something? The only thing of value that seems to have been learned is related to the Steele dossier, and it doesn't seem that valuable. Basically they hadn't fully confirmed everything in it before acting on the contents (but had confirmed enough to feel they ought to act). Some takeaways/random thoughts/attempts to entertain myself from the readthrough * It boggles my mind that we're still talking about text messages between a pair of lovers as if they're some sort of watergate-level evidence of government corruption. * This Gowdy guy sounds like a grade-A premium cut twat.Twats this twattish do not grow in the wild, they must be manufactured. * This Gaetz guy objects to being asked to be polite and not talk over other people on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't bind him to do that. Sure. Why not. * Comey openly says that the only reason he'd have removed from the investigation was to avoid the appearance of bias, while the questioners clearly think it's proof of actual bias. * Apparently James Comey doesn't know the meaning of the word 'insidious'. Faintly surprising. * Fun Fact: Asking someone for details about a document he's explicitly said he's never seen nor read will result in him saying not much of anything. * Republicans really desperately want Peter Strzok to be someone worth talking about. * Every other question seems to be about trying to twist Comey's words, written or spoken. I've never read so much fishing for a 'gotcha' moment outside of a passage in a novel about actual fishing. * Every other other question seems to be about twisting Strzok or Page's texts or taking them at face value, depending on which looks the most suspicious (and in all cases it's 'not very') * Republicans are stunned - outraged, even - that after a year investigating Hilary Comey had a feeling that they weren't going to find any charges to bring against her. Even while using that exact logic to say the Mueller investigation is a waste of time... * James Comey would like you to know he is not psychic and cannot time travel. * The Democrats want you to know that they care about the feelings of the FBI staff. * Comey admits under oath that humans have feelings, and that the FBI is staffed by humans. This might be the biggest revelation from the whole thing. * Now we're getting into nails-on-chalkboard levels of technicality about obstruction of justice. And a hail mary pass at getting Obama caught up in this web of brilliant oratory. * Holy fuck now they're debating the definition of lying. * Even Kelley is getting sick of Gowdy blathering * The warrant on Carter Page sounds like it might have been issued pre-emptively. So there's something. But wasn't that mostly known already? * Minor insight on the FBI verification process when it comes to outside information. Apparently they take all the sources and subsources and what not and essentially do what the original source did to see if they get the same results, and only if they do do they consider it fully verified. * It's weird that they keep calling him 'Director' Comey. Is that because he's being interviewed in relation to what he did as Director? * More futile grasping for... something. I've read pages of this and I'm not sure what this Meadows guy is digging for. Paraphrase: "Why would you act as if Jeff Sessions had recused himself when he had not?" - "Because it was a clear case for recusal and we'd been advised as such." - "But why would they tell you that?" - "B-Because it... was a clear case... for recusal?" - "BUT WHY THO???" * For those who want to keep the server thing alive, Comey testifies that the FBI experts advised him that though they found no evidence of intrusion, they probably wouldn't have even if they had intruded due to weaknesses in the server that could be exploited to cover their tracks. * By the end of his time Gowdy sounds like a man clawing at a piece of floating wood at sea. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Regardless, Trump is the one holding the cards. He can force the answers when he wants to. He can declassify everything with a snap of his fingers. It's become clear that he has decided to wait to do it until after Mueller wraps up his investigation so as to avoid needless (if not frivolous) charges of obstruction of justice. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On December 10 2018 13:17 xDaunt wrote: Frankly, I'm not sure how seriously that the House investigation should be taken. If they aren't going to (or can't) compel answers where the DOJ lawyer objects, there really isn't much point. Regardless, Trump is the one holding the cards. He can force the answers when he wants to. He can declassify everything with a snap of his fingers. It's become clear that he has decided to wait to do it until after Mueller wraps up his investigation so as to avoid needless (if not frivolous) charges of obstruction of justice. Is that what you actually believe is happening/going to happen or just wishful thinking? | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
I remember when people were confidently saying when Trump would finally lock up Hilary... then he just said 'nah, not going to do it' and that was the end of it. Once the Mueller investigation is done it seems far more likely he'll go on a twitter rampage trumpeting his victory, maybe hold a rally, and never mention it again save to remind people that he was found innocent. To XDaunt directly, are you going to stop supporting him if this is the direction he takes? And if you're not - I think you'll admit that you'll support him still - why would he declassify things? Unless people like you are demanding it en masse and thus giving him the impression he needs to do it to keep you happy, I don't think Trump will do it. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games Organizations Other Games Dota 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Classic vs GgMaChine
Rogue vs Maru
WardiTV Invitational
Percival vs Shameless
ByuN vs YoungYakov
SC Evo League
IPSL
Ret vs Art_Of_Turtle
Radley vs TBD
BSL
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs TriGGeR
NightMare vs Solar
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
