|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage)
Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now.
|
On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now.
are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI?
|
On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI?
I should probably quickly point out that 1972 != 2018
|
On March 17 2018 23:16 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI? I should probably quickly point out that 1972 != 2018
unnecessary; I'm simply checking cuz in an international forum, especially for people listed as being from another country, sometimes people are unaware of certain parts of the history that others may be aware of and assuming everyone knows about. i.e. just making sure we're operating on somewhat similar knowledge bases.
|
On March 17 2018 23:16 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI? I should probably quickly point out that 1972 != 2018
They got worse and more powerful in a lot of ways in between.
|
On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI?
Actually, I am passingly familiar but if there's a salient point or two you really want to make sure I know, by all means share. I know he was very important and did a lot of work modernising the FBI, and much of that rep of being committed, hard-working and thorough is a legacy of his, but specifics are a little fuzzy.
|
On March 17 2018 23:29 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI? Actually, I am passingly familiar but if there's a salient point or two you really want to make sure I know, by all means share. I know he was very important and did a lot of work modernising the FBI, and much of that rep of being committed, hard-working and thorough is a legacy of his, but specifics are a little fuzzy.
Oh man... If that's what you think when you think J Edgar Hoover, we got a lot of splainin to do.
Assassinating US citizens (as I just covered), covert black-bag jobs, warrantless surveillance of civil rights leaders and Vietnam-era peace activists, use of secret files to bully government officials, the snooping on movie stars and senators are just some of the things that should also come to mind.
On March 17 2018 23:39 Gorsameth wrote:
Sigh
There is room for the FBI to function in between "kiss the ring or get fired" and "Hoover".
And?
|
Sigh
There is room for the FBI to function in between "kiss the ring or get fired" and "Hoover".
|
On March 17 2018 23:29 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI? Actually, I am passingly familiar but if there's a salient point or two you really want to make sure I know, by all means share. I know he was very important and did a lot of work modernising the FBI, and much of that rep of being committed, hard-working and thorough is a legacy of his, but specifics are a little fuzzy.
the main point is making sure people are aware of the controversy over the amount of power hoover had amassed in the fbi. (especially since there wasn't a limited term for fbi leaders at that time, so he remained in office until he died, some ~37 years)
the opening section of the wiki page explains it well:
Later in life and after his death, Hoover became a controversial figure as evidence of his secretive abuses of power began to surface. He was found to have exceeded the jurisdiction of the FBI,[1] and to have used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders,[2] and to collect evidence using illegal methods.[3] Hoover consequently amassed a great deal of power and was in a position to intimidate and threaten sitting presidents.[4]
One of his biographers, Kenneth Ackerman, writes that the allegation that Hoover's secret files kept presidents from firing him is “a myth”.[5] However, Richard Nixon was recorded in 1971 stating that one of the reasons he did not fire Hoover was that he was afraid of reprisals against him from Hoover.[6] President Truman said that Hoover transformed the FBI into his private secret police force:
"... we want no Gestapo or secret police. The FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail. J. Edgar Hoover would give his right eye to take over, and all congressmen and senators are afraid of him." — Harry S. Truman[7]
|
On March 17 2018 20:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 11:20 ChristianS wrote:On March 17 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 09:10 ChristianS wrote:On March 17 2018 08:35 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 08:19 ChristianS wrote:On March 17 2018 08:13 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:52 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 07:25 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 07:22 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Are you for real right now? Can you tell the difference between people who voted for Trump and Trump's polled approval rating today? This isn't a widespread skill, given the latest question-response. You're not even trying. If 35% of the population actually vote, and 50% vote for Trump, that's not 50% of the population, is it? Once he's in the office, of course the percentage of population that has an opinion on him is going to increase. He's the president. You know as well as everyone else does that Trump's approval ratings have mostly been record lows, so stop trying to pretend everybody wanted him. Even people on your side held their nose while voting for Trump, and it's generally considered that anybody but Hilary would have beat him. We have a reading comprehension gap. Please review my actual words, and point out to me where I said something was 50% of the population. You see to be convinced some other person with a name similar to mine was making outrageous claims. "50% of the country at large"? Is this a trick question? Kinda smelled out your game, but you're well known. 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large Now tell me, how do we usually quote percentage of votes received by each candidate? This is like one last shot to establish some reasonable grounds here. "My game"? Jesus Christ. Your grudge holding has made discussing anything with you consistently a chore. Okay, so you didn't say ~50% of the voting population. You said ~50% of the country at large, which any reasonable observer would interpret as "the whole country," not "the part of the country that voted in 2016." Here's the stupid thing, this doesn't actually matter. Your underlying point, that Trump has more support in the country as a whole than in this thread, is 100% correct. But you said the number wrong, and somebody corrected you. Since it doesn't matter to your point, you could have just accepted the correction, but you're so combative you couldn't accept that, so you're making a fuss over wanting to use 2016 voting results instead of 2018 approval numbers for how large Trump's support is. That's a stupid statistical argument - you're trying to use data from before he was president - but again, it doesn't matter to your original point anyway. So what the hell are we even arguing about? You could just say "I meant of voters, not of voting-age adults" and this whole stupid thing could be skipped. Nope. It's clear from context I was talking about the proportion of Trump voters here vs Trump voters in the country. You're venturing into some pretty post-factual blind territory here. I hate to say it, but it seems the left is projecting when they call Trump voters tenuously connected to reality. You can't even let somebody point out just how much of the voting population went for Trump, compared to how poorly representative and left-wing-spin-zone this forum is. It's nothing but waaaaaah as far as the eye can see. I quoted it, and you're still wailing
ChristianS interprets:
5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to omg what follows here cannot realistically be seen as a contrast with 5-8% of Trump voters, it must only be taken to mean the population at large, bam take that racist
Ugh. ~46% of the voting population picked Trump in 2016. I'm fine with acknowledging that. I'm also fine with acknowledging that the thread is more anti-Trump than the country as a whole. Literally all this boils down to is using the phrase "country at large," a very clearly broad term. We can play the game where I google the definition of "at large" and try to show that the idiom is, by nature, broad and all-inclusive, but that's all fucking pointless because all I need to show is that the people who were correcting you read it as "country at large = the whole country," not "country at large = the 120 million or w/e that voted in 2016." All this other shit you're throwing out about "you're the real post-factual one, you're projecting, you're in denial" is completely irrelevant and borderline ad hominem. At this point I'm thinking you've either given up on any hope of a good-faith discussion in this thread and you just wanna score points, or you've got some grudge against me for something I said at somd point. If it's the former, be good enough to let me know so I can stop bothering to engage with you. If it's the latter, just bring up what you're mad about instead of this passive aggressive shit. I still really hope it's neither, but I'm having trouble coming up with another explanation for how perpetually aggro you've been. Edit: to my recollection I have never called you a racist. Google subordinate clauses while you’re at it.
Ha, that's great because this is actually a perfect repeat of what just happened. The sentence:
Simply take the roughly 5-8% of Trump voters in the US politics thread compared to the ~50% in the country at large.
has no subordinate clause. "compared to the ~50% in the country at large" is a participial phrase. Does that matter at all? No! Your point is merely that the meaning of that phrase is modified by the sentence it is attached to, which of course is true. Now imagine if I corrected you on that not being a subordinate clause, and you proceeded to spend the next ten pages of the thread insisting that my liberal dishonesty and hysteria are the only reason I can't acknowledge it really was a subordinate clause, and we'd have some approximation of the current conversation.
I don't give a shit about miscategorized grammar, by you or anyone else, for the record.
I’m way overindulging conversations stemming from one troll that thought a current job approval rating was at all relevant. Percentage of Trump voters in this forum compared to the country at large. Cleanliness of Austin facilities compared to the country at large. You don’t get to claim ambiguity in service of a reading against the authors intent.
I fully acknowledge what the author's intent was based on your follow-ups, but the sentence by itself wasn't just ambiguous, I and everybody else who read it thought it meant something other than your intent. I read it, saw it established a comparison between two groups, "people in the US politics thread" and "people in the country at large," then said that ~5-8% of the former category are Trump voters, while ~50% of the latter category are Trump voters. Several liberals pointed out that the number of Trump voters is nowhere near ~160 million that would be half of the population, or even the ~120 million that would be half of voting age adults. You asked where you said population as a whole, and I was literally so confused I thought you must have forgotten you wrote the sentence I quoted at the top. The normal, sane response to everybody misunderstanding what you said would be to just say "Didn't realize it was unclear, what I actually meant was this."
Of course...
You’re simply dishonest, but not as bad as some others in the forum based on accompanying stipulations.
The other option to just go ahead and assume that everybody who disagrees with you actually knew what you meant and is just pretending to misunderstand you to make your life difficult or something. Then when people bring it up, instead of just clarifying what you meant, you can go off on "your reading comprehension sucks, go read it again," or "you're only saying this because you're a dishonest liberal" or "clearly the real post-factuality is on the left." All I can tell you is, you're wrong in assuming I'm lying about my intentions or beliefs or whatever it is you think I'm being dishonest about. I have no incentive to lie about it, I gain nothing from it, and it would make following this thread even more of a waste of time.
My surmises regarding what motivates you is only of interest since I misread your character from past exchanges. I see no point to continue it. You fit in very well in the Trump reactionary zeitgeist. In two or six more years, I’ll see if everyone goes back to normal (or maybe pretend complaisance).
I should have guessed you're still beefing from last time we talked. I think I need to keep a sticky note at all times that says "last conversation with Danglars was about ______" and just assume any time you're all aggro with me about something, it's really about whatever we discussed last. For those that don't remember, Danglars and I don't remember or care who else were criticizing someone who thought Trump was "literally Hitler" by saying, essentially, "you're dumb for thinking he wants to set up concentration camps for blacks and Jews," and I pointed out that the person they were criticizing never said he thought that. I believe Danglars' exact words were that I was "caught dead to rights," although what crime I was caught for, we may never know.
If he's reading, I'm sure Seeker is about to tell us to drop this right now, and even if he doesn't say to, I'm sure you'd be glad to (I certainly don't much want to keep analyzing the semantics of a single sentence of yours; I didn't even want to post in the thread yesterday, and only did because I thought it would surely be brief). But honestly, and feel free to wait to answer this question until you're less mad at me, or to never answer it at all if that strikes your fancy: I'm reading the above, and my honest interpretation is that you're saying you've decided that I'm not worth discussing with any more. You maybe thought I was at some point, but you've finally realized I'm just another dishonest liberal poster and I'm not worth talking to. Am I interpreting that correctly? And if so, how many people are there left in the thread that you do still find worth discussing with?
|
It seems weird seeing people grasping at straws and bringing stuff from 40 years ago to somehow justify this firing a few hours before he was gone anyways. Is this rhetoric running on Fox News or something? It absolutely makes no sense.
I don't care for McCabe but this move looks absolutely awful for someone, who is under investigation, to make. This will, like all the other decisions he made, backfire tremendously.
Luckily for us we don't have to go back 20, 30, or 40 years and connect dots to find explanation or reasoning for something, we can all see the stupidity of this president and his decisions very clearly. For those who don't see this, I feel sorry for you, you will have a really, really hard time trying to justify his actions, they seem to be getting crazier every day.
|
On March 18 2018 00:00 ReTr0[p.S] wrote:
It seems weird seeing people grasping at straws and bringing stuff from 40 years ago to somehow justify this firing a few hours before he was gone anyways. Is this rhetoric running on Fox News or something? It absolutely makes no sense.
I don't care for McCabe but this move looks absolutely awful for someone, who is under investigation, to make. This will, like all the other decisions he made, backfire tremendously.
Luckily for us we don't have to go back 20, 30, or 40 years and connect dots to find explanation or reasoning for something, we can all see the stupidity of this president and his decisions very clearly. For those who don't see this, I feel sorry for you, you will have a really, really hard time trying to justify his actions, they seem to be getting crazier every day.
Contrary to the representations of those who have posted a lot relative to the past dozen or so pages, I think quite a few posters would agree with this take.
|
On March 17 2018 23:42 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 23:29 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI? Actually, I am passingly familiar but if there's a salient point or two you really want to make sure I know, by all means share. I know he was very important and did a lot of work modernising the FBI, and much of that rep of being committed, hard-working and thorough is a legacy of his, but specifics are a little fuzzy. the main point is making sure people are aware of the controversy over the amount of power hoover had amassed in the fbi. (especially since there wasn't a limited term for fbi leaders at that time, so he remained in office until he died, some ~37 years) the opening section of the wiki page explains it well: Later in life and after his death, Hoover became a controversial figure as evidence of his secretive abuses of power began to surface. He was found to have exceeded the jurisdiction of the FBI,[1] and to have used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders,[2] and to collect evidence using illegal methods.[3] Hoover consequently amassed a great deal of power and was in a position to intimidate and threaten sitting presidents.[4] One of his biographers, Kenneth Ackerman, writes that the allegation that Hoover's secret files kept presidents from firing him is “a myth”.[5] However, Richard Nixon was recorded in 1971 stating that one of the reasons he did not fire Hoover was that he was afraid of reprisals against him from Hoover.[6] President Truman said that Hoover transformed the FBI into his private secret police force: "... we want no Gestapo or secret police. The FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail. J. Edgar Hoover would give his right eye to take over, and all congressmen and senators are afraid of him." — Harry S. Truman[7]
To think, one of the few times I don't check wikipedia you end up quoting it at me :D
So the argument of GH would be that the FBI has gone even further in that direction since then. Do you feel the same, Zlef? Where do you stand on the current shenanigans?
On March 17 2018 23:54 ChristianS wrote:
If he's reading, I'm sure Seeker is about to tell us to drop this right now, and even if he doesn't say to, I'm sure you'd be glad to (I certainly don't much want to keep analyzing the semantics of a single sentence of yours; I didn't even want to post in the thread yesterday, and only did because I thought it would surely be brief). But honestly, and feel free to wait to answer this question until you're less mad at me, or to never answer it at all if that strikes your fancy: I'm reading the above, and my honest interpretation is that you're saying you've decided that I'm not worth discussing with any more. You maybe thought I was at some point, but you've finally realized I'm just another dishonest liberal poster and I'm not worth talking to. Am I interpreting that correctly? And if so, how many people are there left in the thread that you do still find worth discussing with?
He seems to quite like Green Horizons of late, what with GH criticising liberals constantly.
|
On March 18 2018 00:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 00:00 ReTr0[p.S] wrote:
It seems weird seeing people grasping at straws and bringing stuff from 40 years ago to somehow justify this firing a few hours before he was gone anyways. Is this rhetoric running on Fox News or something? It absolutely makes no sense.
I don't care for McCabe but this move looks absolutely awful for someone, who is under investigation, to make. This will, like all the other decisions he made, backfire tremendously.
Luckily for us we don't have to go back 20, 30, or 40 years and connect dots to find explanation or reasoning for something, we can all see the stupidity of this president and his decisions very clearly. For those who don't see this, I feel sorry for you, you will have a really, really hard time trying to justify his actions, they seem to be getting crazier every day.
Contrary to the representations of those who have posted a lot relative to the past dozen or so pages, I think quite a few posters would agree with this take.
Not contrary, no one was justifying McCabe's firing by bringing up FBI history. I mean, I agree it looks petty as hell and in all likelihood is. I was making another point entirely.
On March 18 2018 00:17 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 23:42 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:29 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI? Actually, I am passingly familiar but if there's a salient point or two you really want to make sure I know, by all means share. I know he was very important and did a lot of work modernising the FBI, and much of that rep of being committed, hard-working and thorough is a legacy of his, but specifics are a little fuzzy. the main point is making sure people are aware of the controversy over the amount of power hoover had amassed in the fbi. (especially since there wasn't a limited term for fbi leaders at that time, so he remained in office until he died, some ~37 years) the opening section of the wiki page explains it well: Later in life and after his death, Hoover became a controversial figure as evidence of his secretive abuses of power began to surface. He was found to have exceeded the jurisdiction of the FBI,[1] and to have used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders,[2] and to collect evidence using illegal methods.[3] Hoover consequently amassed a great deal of power and was in a position to intimidate and threaten sitting presidents.[4] One of his biographers, Kenneth Ackerman, writes that the allegation that Hoover's secret files kept presidents from firing him is “a myth”.[5] However, Richard Nixon was recorded in 1971 stating that one of the reasons he did not fire Hoover was that he was afraid of reprisals against him from Hoover.[6] President Truman said that Hoover transformed the FBI into his private secret police force: "... we want no Gestapo or secret police. The FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail. J. Edgar Hoover would give his right eye to take over, and all congressmen and senators are afraid of him." — Harry S. Truman[7] To think, one of the few times I don't check wikipedia you end up quoting it at me :D So the argument of GH would be that the FBI has gone even further in that direction since then. Do you feel the same, Zlef? Where do you stand on the current shenanigans?
Well the concentration of power at the director position was definitely diffused since then, but in many other ways it's gotten worse. I'd imagine they've gotten better in some ways, like they're probably a more diverse than they were under Hoover. And in others not gone significantly in one direction or another.
He seems to quite like Green Horizons of late, what with GH criticising liberals constantly.
Amazing how easily he ignored my critique of him in the same post when he was distracted by liberal blood in the water isn't it?
|
On March 17 2018 22:05 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 21:24 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 21:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 21:15 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 20:54 Gorsameth wrote:On March 17 2018 20:41 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 20:28 Gorsameth wrote:On March 17 2018 20:23 Danglars wrote:
I share GH’s bewilderment at the left’s newfound love for the CIA and FBI. There’s too little caution about acting with impunity to trample civil liberties because Trump is so-bad and everybody is automatically justified in sensitive or criminal leaks and lying or misleading congressional oversight.
Trump leaves office, and everybody suddenly rediscovers that these are civil servants charged with a duty on investigations and oversight. The IG and an internal office at least appear to be concerned that justice doesn’t take four-year breaks under Republicans. Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all. How is this so hard to understand. In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on. I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired. All just pure coincidence... (note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway. Ignore the evidence, focus on a tweet. Let’s just say, don’t perform in your job so badly that makes anyone have a reason to fire you and ought to fire you, much less when the boss up the chain is an asshole about the affair. Retiring with full benefits after that dereliction of duty would send the wrong message to our civil servants. I don’t care if you’re serving under Trump, Clinton, or the Jolly Green Giant. See, rather than point out the millions of Americans who are forced to work in ways that leaves them in constant violation of protocol/corporate policy that Danglars and Republicans don't ever talk about, liberals want to bicker back and forth about the rumor on E! about what the subtext of a angry tweet was. On March 17 2018 21:17 Gorsameth wrote:On March 17 2018 21:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 21:03 Gorsameth wrote:On March 17 2018 20:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 20:54 Gorsameth wrote:On March 17 2018 20:41 Danglars wrote:On March 17 2018 20:28 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Again, you can hold not love for the FBI and think that the President should not be firing people in purely vindictive ways for failing to kill the ring. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.
How is this so hard to understand. In this case, it is alleged that he betrayed the standards of his office and lied/mislead his offices oversight. It’s not about “kissing the ring.” It’s not very hard to understand. The only refuge is pretending Sessions made the whole thing up, and didn’t receive reports of the kind he described. I suggest residing there if you want a leg to stand on. I'm sure that is it. And totally not the obvious vindictive reaction Trump is known for. Especially not when you look at Trumps tweet from 88? days ago where he specifically mentions that McCabe is 'racing the clock to retirement'. Or Trump not mentioning the report/investigation in his tweet about McCabe being fired. All just pure coincidence... (note that I don't think the IG was necessarily wrong or that McCabe might not have done something wrong but I can easily accept that it was just a convenient excuse for Sessions to use to do what Trump wanted anyway. Is it also possible that Trump fired him for petty vindictive reasons that don't really matter legally or otherwise with consideration of the person, the org, and the allegations. That his pettiness only matters insomuch as it's being used to score political points against Trump/'the other side'. Perhaps, at the cost of legitimate criticisms/consistency about how problematic the FBI is or anyone who runs it? That we've heard the heroified tales of integrity and decency that ignore the dark underbelly the Pence like pleasantries mask, from the left too much as of late? Yes I think intent matters. If something ends up doing the right thing for the wrong reasons its still not a good thing. Especially for someone as powerful as the POTUS. And I don't even know what you mean with that last bit. So we cant criticize Trump because then we would get Pence who is also bad? Bullshit. "not a good thing" isn't a very infrequent occurrence at any level of government. I don't think this is a big deal. As to the second part, I'm saying Comey's "Lordy, gee wilikers" act is very much like Pence's nice guy act, masking a deeper much more twisted person. And that this "how could Trump do such a thing, just days before getting benefits no less" is nauseating. If liberals cared half as much about the millions of people (who by the way don't run despicable organizations paid for in part with tax money from communities they helped destroy) similar things happen to year after year, we wouldn't have a president Trump to be fixated on in the first place. Go ask some liberal's if they care about those millions of people. I'll wait. .. right, so they do care about that aswell. Gee who could have guessed it. you wouldn't know it by watching liberal media, reading liberal papers, or following the posts of liberals in this thread. If you went by what they focus their attention on it's all Russia/Trump all the time, with an occasional pointing out how the government still sucks under Trump. With a healthy helping of disdain toward all those who aren't obsessed with Russiagate like they are. I’m waiting for Russia to have ordered his firing. Maybe that story will print in a month. The latest revelation that Tillerson can be a Russian stooge acting in office as a Russian stooge, but then fired because he was too tough on Russia opens up new realms of possibility for collusion accusations. The conspiracy theory for Tillerson Russia is that Russia wants Tillerson in because of the Exxon contract, Trump doesn't know/like Tillerson but accepts, then they hate each other for a while but he's protected, then the Exxon contract fails and the protection ends so Trump immediately fires him. Your portrayal made it seem more confusing than it is, I thought I'd clear that up.
No, there's been three or four separate theories. The contract angle I've heard. Maybe all the nutcases will eventually unite behind that one. Who knows?
|
United States8001 Posts
On March 18 2018 00:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 00:05 farvacola wrote:On March 18 2018 00:00 ReTr0[p.S] wrote:
It seems weird seeing people grasping at straws and bringing stuff from 40 years ago to somehow justify this firing a few hours before he was gone anyways. Is this rhetoric running on Fox News or something? It absolutely makes no sense.
I don't care for McCabe but this move looks absolutely awful for someone, who is under investigation, to make. This will, like all the other decisions he made, backfire tremendously.
Luckily for us we don't have to go back 20, 30, or 40 years and connect dots to find explanation or reasoning for something, we can all see the stupidity of this president and his decisions very clearly. For those who don't see this, I feel sorry for you, you will have a really, really hard time trying to justify his actions, they seem to be getting crazier every day.
Contrary to the representations of those who have posted a lot relative to the past dozen or so pages, I think quite a few posters would agree with this take. Not contrary, no one was justifying McCabe's firing by bringing up FBI history. I mean, I agree it looks petty as hell and in all likelihood is. I was making another point entirely. Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 00:17 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 23:42 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:29 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI? Actually, I am passingly familiar but if there's a salient point or two you really want to make sure I know, by all means share. I know he was very important and did a lot of work modernising the FBI, and much of that rep of being committed, hard-working and thorough is a legacy of his, but specifics are a little fuzzy. the main point is making sure people are aware of the controversy over the amount of power hoover had amassed in the fbi. (especially since there wasn't a limited term for fbi leaders at that time, so he remained in office until he died, some ~37 years) the opening section of the wiki page explains it well: Later in life and after his death, Hoover became a controversial figure as evidence of his secretive abuses of power began to surface. He was found to have exceeded the jurisdiction of the FBI,[1] and to have used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders,[2] and to collect evidence using illegal methods.[3] Hoover consequently amassed a great deal of power and was in a position to intimidate and threaten sitting presidents.[4] One of his biographers, Kenneth Ackerman, writes that the allegation that Hoover's secret files kept presidents from firing him is “a myth”.[5] However, Richard Nixon was recorded in 1971 stating that one of the reasons he did not fire Hoover was that he was afraid of reprisals against him from Hoover.[6] President Truman said that Hoover transformed the FBI into his private secret police force: "... we want no Gestapo or secret police. The FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail. J. Edgar Hoover would give his right eye to take over, and all congressmen and senators are afraid of him." — Harry S. Truman[7] To think, one of the few times I don't check wikipedia you end up quoting it at me :D So the argument of GH would be that the FBI has gone even further in that direction since then. Do you feel the same, Zlef? Where do you stand on the current shenanigans? Well the concentration of power at the director position was definitely diffused since then, but in many other ways it's gotten worse. I'd imagine they've gotten better in some ways, like they're probably a more diverse than they were under Hoover. And in others not gone significantly in one direction or another.
Can you provide specific examples please?
|
On March 18 2018 00:17 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 23:42 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:29 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI? Actually, I am passingly familiar but if there's a salient point or two you really want to make sure I know, by all means share. I know he was very important and did a lot of work modernising the FBI, and much of that rep of being committed, hard-working and thorough is a legacy of his, but specifics are a little fuzzy. the main point is making sure people are aware of the controversy over the amount of power hoover had amassed in the fbi. (especially since there wasn't a limited term for fbi leaders at that time, so he remained in office until he died, some ~37 years) the opening section of the wiki page explains it well: Later in life and after his death, Hoover became a controversial figure as evidence of his secretive abuses of power began to surface. He was found to have exceeded the jurisdiction of the FBI,[1] and to have used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders,[2] and to collect evidence using illegal methods.[3] Hoover consequently amassed a great deal of power and was in a position to intimidate and threaten sitting presidents.[4] One of his biographers, Kenneth Ackerman, writes that the allegation that Hoover's secret files kept presidents from firing him is “a myth”.[5] However, Richard Nixon was recorded in 1971 stating that one of the reasons he did not fire Hoover was that he was afraid of reprisals against him from Hoover.[6] President Truman said that Hoover transformed the FBI into his private secret police force: "... we want no Gestapo or secret police. The FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail. J. Edgar Hoover would give his right eye to take over, and all congressmen and senators are afraid of him." — Harry S. Truman[7] To think, one of the few times I don't check wikipedia you end up quoting it at me :D So the argument of GH would be that the FBI has gone even further in that direction since then. Do you feel the same, Zlef? Where do you stand on the current shenanigans?
I don't know what GH's argument is, but i'm sure he'll explain it himself; I'd say the FBI is'nt nearly as problematic as it used to be. To what extent it still has problems, I don't know, and only have a vague impression. My main concern was that if someone engages in this discussion without being aware of that history they'll be missing some very important context.
there's so many shenanigans i'm not sure whihc one you're asking on, so i'll answer for a few of them:
the firing of mccabe was just a jerk move, and terrible optics. whether or not there was a valid underlying reason, the timing indicates this was more likely about petty revenge. It reminds me of the firing of Comey; in that the timing/talk of it indicated that the pretextual reasons were just that, a pretext; and that the actual reasons were revenge/investigation interference.
I feel the fbi did some moderately improper thinsg (in admittedly difficult circumstances) in how they've handled the larger issues around all this; in particular the "reopening" of the investigation into hillary that occurred just before the election. from what i've seen of htem in hearings though, while I have misgivings about them, they still seem far better on average than the politicians/congressfolk on any side.
|
On March 17 2018 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 23:16 Excludos wrote:On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI? I should probably quickly point out that 1972 != 2018 They got worse and more powerful in a lot of ways in between.
That's one thing I wouldn't haven't believed up until the FBI's behavior at the top in the last couple years (exempting the lower rungs which have put out stellar work).
FISA court abuse. Comey. Strzok/Page. McCabe. One of the latest was FBI redacting texts between Strzok/Page that mentioned the FISC judge (Contreras) who accepted Flynn's guilty plea. He recused himself immediately aftewards.
The judge who took over immediately demanded the FBI turn over exonerating information to Flynn's lawyers. I'm guessing that more bombshells are coming in that story.
|
On March 18 2018 00:30 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 00:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 18 2018 00:05 farvacola wrote:On March 18 2018 00:00 ReTr0[p.S] wrote:
It seems weird seeing people grasping at straws and bringing stuff from 40 years ago to somehow justify this firing a few hours before he was gone anyways. Is this rhetoric running on Fox News or something? It absolutely makes no sense.
I don't care for McCabe but this move looks absolutely awful for someone, who is under investigation, to make. This will, like all the other decisions he made, backfire tremendously.
Luckily for us we don't have to go back 20, 30, or 40 years and connect dots to find explanation or reasoning for something, we can all see the stupidity of this president and his decisions very clearly. For those who don't see this, I feel sorry for you, you will have a really, really hard time trying to justify his actions, they seem to be getting crazier every day.
Contrary to the representations of those who have posted a lot relative to the past dozen or so pages, I think quite a few posters would agree with this take. Not contrary, no one was justifying McCabe's firing by bringing up FBI history. I mean, I agree it looks petty as hell and in all likelihood is. I was making another point entirely. On March 18 2018 00:17 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 23:42 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:29 iamthedave wrote:On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI? Actually, I am passingly familiar but if there's a salient point or two you really want to make sure I know, by all means share. I know he was very important and did a lot of work modernising the FBI, and much of that rep of being committed, hard-working and thorough is a legacy of his, but specifics are a little fuzzy. the main point is making sure people are aware of the controversy over the amount of power hoover had amassed in the fbi. (especially since there wasn't a limited term for fbi leaders at that time, so he remained in office until he died, some ~37 years) the opening section of the wiki page explains it well: Later in life and after his death, Hoover became a controversial figure as evidence of his secretive abuses of power began to surface. He was found to have exceeded the jurisdiction of the FBI,[1] and to have used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders,[2] and to collect evidence using illegal methods.[3] Hoover consequently amassed a great deal of power and was in a position to intimidate and threaten sitting presidents.[4] One of his biographers, Kenneth Ackerman, writes that the allegation that Hoover's secret files kept presidents from firing him is “a myth”.[5] However, Richard Nixon was recorded in 1971 stating that one of the reasons he did not fire Hoover was that he was afraid of reprisals against him from Hoover.[6] President Truman said that Hoover transformed the FBI into his private secret police force: "... we want no Gestapo or secret police. The FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail. J. Edgar Hoover would give his right eye to take over, and all congressmen and senators are afraid of him." — Harry S. Truman[7] To think, one of the few times I don't check wikipedia you end up quoting it at me :D So the argument of GH would be that the FBI has gone even further in that direction since then. Do you feel the same, Zlef? Where do you stand on the current shenanigans? Well the concentration of power at the director position was definitely diffused since then, but in many other ways it's gotten worse. I'd imagine they've gotten better in some ways, like they're probably a more diverse than they were under Hoover. And in others not gone significantly in one direction or another. Can you provide specific examples please?
In 1982, the FBI was given concurrent jurisdiction with the Drug Enforcement Agency over federal anti-narcotics laws, which led to stronger liaison and division of labor in tackling the growing drug problem in America. That same year, following an explosion of terrorist incidents worldwide, Director Webster made counterterrorism the FBI’s fourth national priority. The Bureau was ready: it had already begun building new partnerships and skills to respond to and prevent both domestic and international terrorist attacks. The first Joint Terrorism Task Force in the nation, for example, had been created with the New York Police Department in 1980 to serve as the front-line defense against terrorism in the city. And in 1983, the Bureau had stood up a specially-trained Hostage Rescue Team to use negotiation and tactical response techniques to save lives during terrorist attacks and other hostage situations.
Director Webster also pressed for changes in the rules covering FBI national security investigations. In 1983, Attorney General William French Smith modified the guidelines for conducting intelligence investigations; the next year, Congress authorized the Bureau to pursue criminals who attacked Americans beyond our shores.
Source
So now the FBI is more deeply involved in the Drug War (intended to silence the same people Hoover was illegally surveilling and killing) on more organized and national scale. Combined with a new ability to take their operations international.
It goes on, but I think you get the point.
I think it's unfair to presume it got better, without those who think that, providing some evidence of when and how that happened.
|
On March 18 2018 00:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2018 23:16 Excludos wrote:On March 17 2018 23:14 zlefin wrote:On March 17 2018 23:10 Excludos wrote:The FBI seems to me both more likely to get reforms put upon it (it's an actual threat to the government, so keeping it in some degree of check makes sense, and a rogue FBI could do untold damage) Seems to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's trying to keep the government in check but is unable to do so because of how much influence the president has over it. FBI was the first to start investigating Trump + Russia, and was hampered to the degree that a special investigation separate of FBI had to be set up. FBI isn't a threat to the government as long as the government directly controls it, as is the case right now. are you familiar (even passingly) with the history of J Edgar Hoover's long tenure in the FBI? I should probably quickly point out that 1972 != 2018 They got worse and more powerful in a lot of ways in between. That's one thing I wouldn't haven't believed up until the FBI's behavior at the top in the last couple years (exempting the lower rungs which have put out stellar work). FISA court abuse. Comey. Strzok/Page. McCabe. One of the latest was FBI redacting texts between Strzok/Page that mentioned the FISC judge (Contreras) who accepted Flynn's guilty plea. He recused himself immediately aftewards. The judge who took over immediately demanded the FBI turn over exonerating information to Flynn's lawyers. I'm guessing that more bombshells are coming in that story.
I'm still in the dark about this supposed scandal about Strzok/Page. What exactly did they do wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
