|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 19 2018 09:34 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 09:31 Doodsmack wrote:On March 19 2018 08:41 Excludos wrote:On March 19 2018 08:34 Doodsmack wrote:
WH personnel serve the public and the First Amendment protects their ability to speak about their work. That speech is a matter of public concern which is the reason it's protected. The NDAs are in all likelihood unenforceable though so in that sense it doesn't matter. Remember there's a difference between civil law and criminal law. First amendment only protects you against the latter. I don't know if this is enforceable either, but in a normal business (Which the WH most certainly is not), you can indeed make people sign an NDA and sue them if they don't follow it. The first amendment protects you for speaking about your work, but you're still breaching a contract (Criminal law is above civil law tho, so it's all a bit complicated on when you're allowed to break an NDA and not. But unless your name is Snowden, whistle-blowing is legal) The first amendment applies to civil law as well. If you sign an NDA for a company before releasing secret tech, no amount of screaming "first amendment" is going to stop them from successfully suing you. Criminal laws are of course priorities tho, so you're allowed to tell people about it if your company is doing illegal or unsafe activity. But not for "the lulz"
Yes because illegal or unsafe activity is a matter of public concern, as is the work of WH personnel. So the first amendment is relevant to them and their NDA.
|
On March 19 2018 09:37 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 09:36 zlefin wrote:On March 19 2018 09:32 Excludos wrote:
Btw I should point out, since we're discussing legality, that human right rules are above your own country's rules. Laws aren't equal, and it's ok to break one to stop another under certain circumstances. That said laws are only laws because the government made them and enforces them, and they can decide whatever they damn well want to. And atm they've decided that he embarrassed them enough that they're not even willing to give him a fair trial. on what basis are you claiming they're not willing to give him a fair trial? His own interviews where he claims that he is willing to return if given assurance that they will give him a fair trial (which they apparently refuse to do). And no wonder. If he's given a fair trial he is going to be able to share openly about national secrets and explain his case in a court room. They'd much rather just hook him for espionage and hide him away in a dark cellar.
that's not a remotely credible basis for the claim they're unwilling to give him a fair trial.
|
On March 19 2018 09:42 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 09:37 Excludos wrote:On March 19 2018 09:36 zlefin wrote:On March 19 2018 09:32 Excludos wrote:
Btw I should point out, since we're discussing legality, that human right rules are above your own country's rules. Laws aren't equal, and it's ok to break one to stop another under certain circumstances. That said laws are only laws because the government made them and enforces them, and they can decide whatever they damn well want to. And atm they've decided that he embarrassed them enough that they're not even willing to give him a fair trial. on what basis are you claiming they're not willing to give him a fair trial? His own interviews where he claims that he is willing to return if given assurance that they will give him a fair trial (which they apparently refuse to do). And no wonder. If he's given a fair trial he is going to be able to share openly about national secrets and explain his case in a court room. They'd much rather just hook him for espionage and hide him away in a dark cellar. that's not a remotely credible basis for the claim they're unwilling to give him a fair trial.
https://www.popsugar.com/news/Can-Edward-Snowden-Get-Fair-Trial-43252039
I'm sorry I didn't include sources right away
Edit: and yes, his own words is credible in this circumstance because it would be incredibly easy for the right people to prove him wrong by openly agreeing to let him have a fair trial, which they refuse to do.
|
Snowden's actions might have been protected under whistle-blower laws if he had stayed in the US. But fleeing through Hong Kong and getting past Chinese and into Russia ended that as a option. Last I read people still don't know how get got out of Hong Kong and to Russia. But they suspect he gave something to China to do it.
|
On March 19 2018 09:46 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 09:42 zlefin wrote:On March 19 2018 09:37 Excludos wrote:On March 19 2018 09:36 zlefin wrote:On March 19 2018 09:32 Excludos wrote:
Btw I should point out, since we're discussing legality, that human right rules are above your own country's rules. Laws aren't equal, and it's ok to break one to stop another under certain circumstances. That said laws are only laws because the government made them and enforces them, and they can decide whatever they damn well want to. And atm they've decided that he embarrassed them enough that they're not even willing to give him a fair trial. on what basis are you claiming they're not willing to give him a fair trial? His own interviews where he claims that he is willing to return if given assurance that they will give him a fair trial (which they apparently refuse to do). And no wonder. If he's given a fair trial he is going to be able to share openly about national secrets and explain his case in a court room. They'd much rather just hook him for espionage and hide him away in a dark cellar. that's not a remotely credible basis for the claim they're unwilling to give him a fair trial. https://www.popsugar.com/news/Can-Edward-Snowden-Get-Fair-Trial-43252039I'm sorry I didn't include sources right away Edit: and yes, his own words is credible in this circumstance because it would be incredibly easy for the right people to prove him wrong by openly agreeing to let him have a fair trial, which they refuse to do.
I think you're just using a bad definition of a fair trial.
it's pretty standard that people accused of crimes claim "it's a frame job" or "it's a political prosecution" regardless of whether it is or not. and that they accuse the trial of being unfair.
it's also pretty reasonable to not negotiate terms with alleged criminals about the details of their trial; given that we have an extensive court system which already exists to ensure the rights of the accused (however imperfectly it functions). I could easily claim that they've already offered to give him a fair trial; the same fair trial all defendants are entitled to under the constitution, and which is enforced/adjudicated by the courts and appeals process, etc etc.
|
On March 19 2018 09:54 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 09:46 Excludos wrote:On March 19 2018 09:42 zlefin wrote:On March 19 2018 09:37 Excludos wrote:On March 19 2018 09:36 zlefin wrote:On March 19 2018 09:32 Excludos wrote:
Btw I should point out, since we're discussing legality, that human right rules are above your own country's rules. Laws aren't equal, and it's ok to break one to stop another under certain circumstances. That said laws are only laws because the government made them and enforces them, and they can decide whatever they damn well want to. And atm they've decided that he embarrassed them enough that they're not even willing to give him a fair trial. on what basis are you claiming they're not willing to give him a fair trial? His own interviews where he claims that he is willing to return if given assurance that they will give him a fair trial (which they apparently refuse to do). And no wonder. If he's given a fair trial he is going to be able to share openly about national secrets and explain his case in a court room. They'd much rather just hook him for espionage and hide him away in a dark cellar. that's not a remotely credible basis for the claim they're unwilling to give him a fair trial. https://www.popsugar.com/news/Can-Edward-Snowden-Get-Fair-Trial-43252039I'm sorry I didn't include sources right away Edit: and yes, his own words is credible in this circumstance because it would be incredibly easy for the right people to prove him wrong by openly agreeing to let him have a fair trial, which they refuse to do. I think you're just using a bad definition of a fair trial. it's pretty standard that people accused of crimes claim "it's a frame job" or "it's a political prosecution" regardless of whether it is or not. and that they accuse the trial of being unfair. it's also pretty reasonable to not negotiate terms with alleged criminals about the details of their trial; given that we have an extensive court system which already exists to ensure the rights of the accused (however imperfectly it functions). I could easily claim that they've already offered to give him a fair trial; the same fair trial all defendants are entitled to under the constitution, and which is enforced/adjudicated by the courts and appeals process, etc etc.
You didn't open the link I gave you at all, did you? The reason it won't be a fair trial is because of the espionage act (which has nothing to do with him because he's not a spy, but that doesn't really matter when you want to hide something from the public). It's also a load of bull that you can't negotiate terms with alleged criminals. That's something which literally happens regularly. I don't think a fair trial is an unfair thing to ask for, and given history of other whistle blowers before him, something he is not going to be given unless spesifically required before his return.
|
On March 19 2018 09:54 Plansix wrote:
Snowden's actions might have been protected under whistle-blower laws if he had stayed in the US. But fleeing through Hong Kong and getting past Chinese and into Russia ended that as a option. Last I read people still don't know how get got out of Hong Kong and to Russia. But they suspect he gave something to China to do it.
Let's try not to speculate wildly based on thin ideas shall we? If they have incriminating questions they should be allowed to ask them during a fair trial.
And also, he wouldn't be protected under shit. People before him who have done similar things (and even more correctly than how he did it) have been nailed under the espionage act without a proper trial. Fleeing was 100% the correct move for what he did. There was zero ways they were going to let him claim a case to the public
Edit: It's 2am here and I'm going to bed now. But nothing I'm stating here is new or in any way hidden. A swift google will give you hundreds of results written by people much smarter than me if you're interested.
|
The government has a history for being extra shitty to whistleblowers. I read an article a few years ago that went pretty heavy into the history of it, but I have no idea about how to find it now.
|
On March 19 2018 10:05 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 09:54 zlefin wrote:On March 19 2018 09:46 Excludos wrote:On March 19 2018 09:42 zlefin wrote:On March 19 2018 09:37 Excludos wrote:On March 19 2018 09:36 zlefin wrote:On March 19 2018 09:32 Excludos wrote:
Btw I should point out, since we're discussing legality, that human right rules are above your own country's rules. Laws aren't equal, and it's ok to break one to stop another under certain circumstances. That said laws are only laws because the government made them and enforces them, and they can decide whatever they damn well want to. And atm they've decided that he embarrassed them enough that they're not even willing to give him a fair trial. on what basis are you claiming they're not willing to give him a fair trial? His own interviews where he claims that he is willing to return if given assurance that they will give him a fair trial (which they apparently refuse to do). And no wonder. If he's given a fair trial he is going to be able to share openly about national secrets and explain his case in a court room. They'd much rather just hook him for espionage and hide him away in a dark cellar. that's not a remotely credible basis for the claim they're unwilling to give him a fair trial. https://www.popsugar.com/news/Can-Edward-Snowden-Get-Fair-Trial-43252039I'm sorry I didn't include sources right away Edit: and yes, his own words is credible in this circumstance because it would be incredibly easy for the right people to prove him wrong by openly agreeing to let him have a fair trial, which they refuse to do. I think you're just using a bad definition of a fair trial. it's pretty standard that people accused of crimes claim "it's a frame job" or "it's a political prosecution" regardless of whether it is or not. and that they accuse the trial of being unfair. it's also pretty reasonable to not negotiate terms with alleged criminals about the details of their trial; given that we have an extensive court system which already exists to ensure the rights of the accused (however imperfectly it functions). I could easily claim that they've already offered to give him a fair trial; the same fair trial all defendants are entitled to under the constitution, and which is enforced/adjudicated by the courts and appeals process, etc etc. You didn't open the link I gave you at all, did you? The reason it won't be a fair trial is because of the espionage act (which has nothing to do with him because he's not a spy, but that doesn't really matter when you want to hide something from the public). It's also a load of bull that you can't negotiate terms with alleged criminals. That's something which literally happens regularly. I don't think a fair trial is an unfair thing to ask for, and given history of other whistle blowers before him, something he is not going to be given unless spesifically required before his return.
I did read the link; and it does not establish your thesis.
|
|
|
On March 19 2018 10:23 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 10:05 Excludos wrote:On March 19 2018 09:54 zlefin wrote:On March 19 2018 09:46 Excludos wrote:On March 19 2018 09:42 zlefin wrote:On March 19 2018 09:37 Excludos wrote:On March 19 2018 09:36 zlefin wrote:On March 19 2018 09:32 Excludos wrote:
Btw I should point out, since we're discussing legality, that human right rules are above your own country's rules. Laws aren't equal, and it's ok to break one to stop another under certain circumstances. That said laws are only laws because the government made them and enforces them, and they can decide whatever they damn well want to. And atm they've decided that he embarrassed them enough that they're not even willing to give him a fair trial. on what basis are you claiming they're not willing to give him a fair trial? His own interviews where he claims that he is willing to return if given assurance that they will give him a fair trial (which they apparently refuse to do). And no wonder. If he's given a fair trial he is going to be able to share openly about national secrets and explain his case in a court room. They'd much rather just hook him for espionage and hide him away in a dark cellar. that's not a remotely credible basis for the claim they're unwilling to give him a fair trial. https://www.popsugar.com/news/Can-Edward-Snowden-Get-Fair-Trial-43252039I'm sorry I didn't include sources right away Edit: and yes, his own words is credible in this circumstance because it would be incredibly easy for the right people to prove him wrong by openly agreeing to let him have a fair trial, which they refuse to do. I think you're just using a bad definition of a fair trial. it's pretty standard that people accused of crimes claim "it's a frame job" or "it's a political prosecution" regardless of whether it is or not. and that they accuse the trial of being unfair. it's also pretty reasonable to not negotiate terms with alleged criminals about the details of their trial; given that we have an extensive court system which already exists to ensure the rights of the accused (however imperfectly it functions). I could easily claim that they've already offered to give him a fair trial; the same fair trial all defendants are entitled to under the constitution, and which is enforced/adjudicated by the courts and appeals process, etc etc. You didn't open the link I gave you at all, did you? The reason it won't be a fair trial is because of the espionage act (which has nothing to do with him because he's not a spy, but that doesn't really matter when you want to hide something from the public). It's also a load of bull that you can't negotiate terms with alleged criminals. That's something which literally happens regularly. I don't think a fair trial is an unfair thing to ask for, and given history of other whistle blowers before him, something he is not going to be given unless spesifically required before his return. I did read the link; and it does not establish your thesis.
Might it be reasonable, given the US's established (and modern) history of not giving fair trials to people it considers political dissidents or enemies, for Snowden to at least believe he won't receive a fair trial?
I mean, the mere existence of Guantanamo Bay would give me pause in Ed's position.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/11-years-in-guantanamo-without-trial-or-charges/
|
On March 19 2018 10:31 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 10:23 zlefin wrote:On March 19 2018 10:05 Excludos wrote:On March 19 2018 09:54 zlefin wrote:On March 19 2018 09:46 Excludos wrote:On March 19 2018 09:42 zlefin wrote:On March 19 2018 09:37 Excludos wrote:On March 19 2018 09:36 zlefin wrote:On March 19 2018 09:32 Excludos wrote:
Btw I should point out, since we're discussing legality, that human right rules are above your own country's rules. Laws aren't equal, and it's ok to break one to stop another under certain circumstances. That said laws are only laws because the government made them and enforces them, and they can decide whatever they damn well want to. And atm they've decided that he embarrassed them enough that they're not even willing to give him a fair trial. on what basis are you claiming they're not willing to give him a fair trial? His own interviews where he claims that he is willing to return if given assurance that they will give him a fair trial (which they apparently refuse to do). And no wonder. If he's given a fair trial he is going to be able to share openly about national secrets and explain his case in a court room. They'd much rather just hook him for espionage and hide him away in a dark cellar. that's not a remotely credible basis for the claim they're unwilling to give him a fair trial. https://www.popsugar.com/news/Can-Edward-Snowden-Get-Fair-Trial-43252039I'm sorry I didn't include sources right away Edit: and yes, his own words is credible in this circumstance because it would be incredibly easy for the right people to prove him wrong by openly agreeing to let him have a fair trial, which they refuse to do. I think you're just using a bad definition of a fair trial. it's pretty standard that people accused of crimes claim "it's a frame job" or "it's a political prosecution" regardless of whether it is or not. and that they accuse the trial of being unfair. it's also pretty reasonable to not negotiate terms with alleged criminals about the details of their trial; given that we have an extensive court system which already exists to ensure the rights of the accused (however imperfectly it functions). I could easily claim that they've already offered to give him a fair trial; the same fair trial all defendants are entitled to under the constitution, and which is enforced/adjudicated by the courts and appeals process, etc etc. You didn't open the link I gave you at all, did you? The reason it won't be a fair trial is because of the espionage act (which has nothing to do with him because he's not a spy, but that doesn't really matter when you want to hide something from the public). It's also a load of bull that you can't negotiate terms with alleged criminals. That's something which literally happens regularly. I don't think a fair trial is an unfair thing to ask for, and given history of other whistle blowers before him, something he is not going to be given unless spesifically required before his return. I did read the link; and it does not establish your thesis. Might it be reasonable, given the US's established (and modern) history of not giving fair trials to people it considers political dissidents or enemies, for Snowden to at least believe he won't receive a fair trial? I mean, the mere existence of Guantanamo Bay would give me pause in Ed's position. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/11-years-in-guantanamo-without-trial-or-charges/
if it were plausible he'd end up in gitmo it might be; but it clearly wouldn't apply/happen in his case; and it's not the kind of "not a fair trial" he's talking about.
it might indeed be reasonable for snowden to have considerable doubt as to whether he'd get a fair trial. that is VERY different from affirmatively and definitively claiming (as an outside observor) that he will NOT be given one and was actively denied one.
|
On March 19 2018 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 07:39 mierin wrote:
It seems like a matter of accidental vs purposeful justice. If some corrupt guy gets fired only because the president doesn't like him, is that really justice? It seems like the entire broken justice system is based on moves like these...the people deserving of guilt and innocence aren't getting punished / exonerated by a just system, but on the winds of political whims.
Unimportant people aren't given a second thought and are sent through the judicial meat grinder on a daily basis. Is one person getting fired like this really a triumph? Or more of a sad accident? I'd go with 'sad accident' presuming the sad is in reference to the pathetic nature of the just outcome in relation to the encroachments and the way it happened...and the way liberals responded.
I was trying to understand where you stood on the "oh the democrats are so bad, so burn down the system" (which I agree with actually) with the "corrupt person getting fired amongst the plethora of corrupt people" train of thought. It seems like you are totally fine with a couple FBI folks fired for 'legitimate' reasons but are not fine with people's contention that voting for (I'll admit right now pretty sorry) democratic candidates is a temporary solution. If you want to burn down the whole system, burn it all down...not just from the tip top.
|
A lot of former government attorney and staff are weighing on on the NDAs. A lot of folks are questioning if they are enforceable and if they don't run afoul of existing regulations. The White House employees don't work for Trump, they work for the public. And executive privilege already exists, so a further deed for protection is unnecessary.
Edit: Also - damn facebook has stepped in it this time. Not only did that not tell users about their data beings stolen by Cambridge analytics, but they also threatened to sue the papers for publishing the story that they new to be 100% true. And suspended the whistle blowers Facebook account because why not.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/18/us/cambridge-analytica-facebook-privacy-data.html
|
On March 19 2018 10:51 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 19 2018 07:39 mierin wrote:
It seems like a matter of accidental vs purposeful justice. If some corrupt guy gets fired only because the president doesn't like him, is that really justice? It seems like the entire broken justice system is based on moves like these...the people deserving of guilt and innocence aren't getting punished / exonerated by a just system, but on the winds of political whims.
Unimportant people aren't given a second thought and are sent through the judicial meat grinder on a daily basis. Is one person getting fired like this really a triumph? Or more of a sad accident? I'd go with 'sad accident' presuming the sad is in reference to the pathetic nature of the just outcome in relation to the encroachments and the way it happened...and the way liberals responded. I was trying to understand where you stood on the "oh the democrats are so bad, so burn down the system" (which I agree with actually) with the "corrupt person getting fired amongst the plethora of corrupt people" train of thought. It seems like you are totally fine with a couple FBI folks fired for 'legitimate' reasons but are not fine with people's contention that voting for (I'll admit right now pretty sorry) democratic candidates is a temporary solution. If you want to burn down the whole system, burn it all down...not just from the tip top.
I'm not sure I understand the critique. I don't know how being okay with people voting for the status quo would make me more consistent about 'burning it down' than just not getting upset (for McCabe) about Trump doing a Trump thing that happened to actually have a just outcome (an FBI person engaged in much of the incredibly problematic policy/actions post 9/11 was fired and we might not have to pay him for the rest of his life). Albeit a small victory or 'sad accident' if you prefer on the individual and systemic level (though not really a victory on the systemic level as a result of the context of the firings).
|
On March 19 2018 10:51 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 19 2018 07:39 mierin wrote:
It seems like a matter of accidental vs purposeful justice. If some corrupt guy gets fired only because the president doesn't like him, is that really justice? It seems like the entire broken justice system is based on moves like these...the people deserving of guilt and innocence aren't getting punished / exonerated by a just system, but on the winds of political whims.
Unimportant people aren't given a second thought and are sent through the judicial meat grinder on a daily basis. Is one person getting fired like this really a triumph? Or more of a sad accident? I'd go with 'sad accident' presuming the sad is in reference to the pathetic nature of the just outcome in relation to the encroachments and the way it happened...and the way liberals responded. I was trying to understand where you stood on the "oh the democrats are so bad, so burn down the system" (which I agree with actually) with the "corrupt person getting fired amongst the plethora of corrupt people" train of thought. It seems like you are totally fine with a couple FBI folks fired for 'legitimate' reasons but are not fine with people's contention that voting for (I'll admit right now pretty sorry) democratic candidates is a temporary solution. If you want to burn down the whole system, burn it all down...not just from the tip top.
Systems don't burn in isolation.
GH isn't just touting someone like McCabe getting ransacked. He is touting McCabe getting ransacked by Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions and Donald "The Birther" Trump, and replaced by them. I don't know how he could be anymore lopsided if he tried.
I get not trusting or liking American law-enforcement. It became the foster-home for America's systemic-racism, partially through policy such as the Drug War. But it's a broad subject. Homicide investigation, for example, is something that has cleaned up its act quite well over the years. But I don't think people like McCabe and Mueller are really the evil GH wants them to be. They're high-crime prosecutors, and McCabe is mostly just a spokesman (which is precisely why they were able to screw him over for making public statements, similar to Comey).
Wanting improvements to the system is valid. More progressive countries than us have such better records and statistics, while we are... the police-state. But progressive is not the direction GH is touting when he applauds McCabe being fired. He is touting the other direction. The most corrupt, racist, white-supremacist, right-wing, autocratic system possible. We can see it in Moscow, what happens when a sensational right-wing autocrat "burns down the system".
It was a horribly corrupt system under Gorbachev/Yeltsin (horribly corrupt before them, too). Good thing it's gone? Burn it down? At the same time Putin was locking away Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's ministers, GH would be pointing out how corrupt they were, a la McCabe (this is a terribly unfair comparison for McCabe, but it better fits GH's narrative). Except what Putin replaced it with is, of course, much worse -- especially if you're brown, Jewish, or not hetero. Moscow has incorporated its seclusion and Putin's autocracy into its culture and has become the most brazenly white-supremacist place in the world.
Beauregard Sessions' usual job is escalating the war on drugs, denigrating minorities, and ruining immigrants' lives. Friday he issues a firing of an FBI spokesman days before the man's pension was due. He does so at the request of a President who began his political-career by asking Obama for his birth-certificate. And GH finds disdain for... the FBI spokesman. Look at what ICE agents are currently doing, and see what kind of people could one day replace McCabe. How bad things could actually be.
If you want to burn down a system, you should really know what you're doing, because it does backfire if you don't. GH's disdain for "the liberals" (keep in mind he's not a conservative... or is he?) suggests he knows that the upcoming results in 2018 and 2020 aren't going to be a Bernie revolution, albeit he refuses to appreciate why that is. The Trump-era is just going to make Democrats more conservative, or at least broader-based.
Instead of being able to argue about whether or not Hillary's policies were really progressive and such, we're dealing with a crisis. Instead of seeing Democrats and liberals debate Hillary's policies, we're begging for FBI stiffs and Washington-insiders to save us like they're angels of mercy. This is why instead of burning shit down, you need to just vote for the person most ideologically-aligned to you -- because regardless of everything they do, they move the goalposts. It's boring and disappointing and sometimes hard, but it's never stupid. Being an "anti-racist" that spends his time denying the crimes of the Trump administration -- that is fucking stupid.
|
I'm going to ignore all the grandstanding cause it's par for the course at that point, let's try something else:
On March 19 2018 16:50 Leporello wrote:
he knows that the upcoming results in 2018 and 2020 aren't going to be a Bernie revolution, albeit he refuses to appreciate why that is. The Trump-era is just going to make Democrats more conservative, or at least broader-based.
So, why?
|
On March 19 2018 16:50 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 10:51 mierin wrote:On March 19 2018 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 19 2018 07:39 mierin wrote:
It seems like a matter of accidental vs purposeful justice. If some corrupt guy gets fired only because the president doesn't like him, is that really justice? It seems like the entire broken justice system is based on moves like these...the people deserving of guilt and innocence aren't getting punished / exonerated by a just system, but on the winds of political whims.
Unimportant people aren't given a second thought and are sent through the judicial meat grinder on a daily basis. Is one person getting fired like this really a triumph? Or more of a sad accident? I'd go with 'sad accident' presuming the sad is in reference to the pathetic nature of the just outcome in relation to the encroachments and the way it happened...and the way liberals responded. I was trying to understand where you stood on the "oh the democrats are so bad, so burn down the system" (which I agree with actually) with the "corrupt person getting fired amongst the plethora of corrupt people" train of thought. It seems like you are totally fine with a couple FBI folks fired for 'legitimate' reasons but are not fine with people's contention that voting for (I'll admit right now pretty sorry) democratic candidates is a temporary solution. If you want to burn down the whole system, burn it all down...not just from the tip top. Systems don't burn in isolation. GH isn't just touting someone like McCabe getting ransacked. He is touting McCabe getting ransacked by Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions and Donald "The Birther" Trump, and replaced by them. I don't know how he could be anymore lopsided if he tried. I get not trusting or liking American law-enforcement. It became the foster-home for America's systemic-racism, partially through policy such as the Drug War. But it's a broad subject. Homicide investigation, for example, is something that has cleaned up its act quite well over the years. But I don't think people like McCabe and Mueller are really the evil GH wants them to be. They're high-crime prosecutors, and McCabe is mostly just a spokesman (which is precisely why they were able to screw him over for making public statements, similar to Comey). Wanting improvements to the system is valid. More progressive countries than us have such better records and statistics, while we are... the police-state. But progressive is not the direction GH is touting when he applauds McCabe being fired. He is touting the other direction. The most corrupt, racist, white-supremacist, right-wing, autocratic system possible. We can see it in Moscow, what happens when a sensational right-wing autocrat "burns down the system". It was a horribly corrupt system under Gorbachev/Yeltsin (horribly corrupt before them, too). Good thing it's gone? Burn it down? At the same time Putin was locking away Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's ministers, GH would be pointing out how corrupt they were, a la McCabe (this is a terribly unfair comparison for McCabe, but it better fits GH's narrative). Except what Putin replaced it with is, of course, much worse -- especially if you're brown, Jewish, or not hetero. Moscow has incorporated its seclusion and Putin's autocracy into its culture and has become the most brazenly white-supremacist place in the world. Beauregard Sessions' usual job is escalating the war on drugs, denigrating minorities, and ruining immigrants' lives. Friday he issues a firing of an FBI spokesman days before the man's pension was due. He does so at the request of a President who began his political-career by asking Obama for his birth-certificate. And GH finds disdain for... the FBI spokesman. Look at what ICE agents are currently doing, and see what kind of people could one day replace McCabe. How bad things could actually be. If you want to burn down a system, you should really know what you're doing, because it does backfire if you don't. GH's disdain for "the liberals" (keep in mind he's not a conservative... or is he?) suggests he knows that the upcoming results in 2018 and 2020 aren't going to be a Bernie revolution, albeit he refuses to appreciate why that is. The Trump-era is just going to make Democrats more conservative, or at least broader-based. Instead of being able to argue about whether or not Hillary's policies were really progressive and such, we're dealing with a crisis. Instead of seeing Democrats and liberals debate Hillary's policies, we're begging for FBI stiffs and Washington-insiders to save us like they're angels of mercy. This is why instead of burning shit down, you need to just vote for the person most ideologically-aligned to you -- because regardless of everything they do, they move the goalposts. It's boring and disappointing and sometimes hard, but it's never stupid. Being an "anti-racist" that spends his time denying the crimes of the Trump administration -- that is fucking stupid.
roflmao what a trash post.
You'd find your portrayal of my argument wouldn't be so far off if you engaged with it/me instead.
In the conversation you're injecting yourself into by caricaturing my position and displaying some ignorance (willful or otherwise) about McCabe's/Mueller's history at the FBI, particularly in NY post 9/11 where there were/are some egregious violations of US citizens constitutional rights at a systemic level supported by the most notorious and prolific agencies at such violations.
You mistake my small satisfaction in someone like McCabe getting hosed on a pension, for not seeing what's terribly problematic about how it happened. I don't think this is some huge particular event, or in the top 10 most egregiously terrible things Trump does (it's a rolling list), but I think it's plenty terrible.
When you and others try to make this into me defending Trump and insinuating I may actually be a conservative it falls completely flat. The reason why I am constantly dunking on liberals inability to engage with the larger problems outside the specific context of Trump is because there's no shortage of people to dunk on xDaunt, Danglars, or Intro occasionally, but I doubt any of them would suggest I don't disagree with them often enough or be under any illusion I may really be a conservative.
There are few people willing to welcome the dogpile of neoliberals that forms on top of anyone who dare critique liberals/Democrats from their left, so I do what I can. I assure you, I'm far more enraged at the inability/lack of desire of both Democrats and Republicans to stop Trump. The issue liberals have, is mine doesn't stop at Trump and then back to brunch.
The problems Trump is calling attention to through brazen and wanton incompetence, the human scum like Sessions that were empowered by Republicans and Democrats, and the general despicable and inhumane existence of Trump combined with all the deplorable things he's done/said don't begin and end in Trump as liberals would have us believe.
Sessions was good buddies with his colleagues in the senate, Hillary was chumming it up with Trump at his wedding, McCabe and Mueller were participating/overseeing systemic violations of US citizens constitutional rights, Obama was deporting record numbers of people, 9 out 10 of the people he was killing with drones weren't the targets of the strikes, bankers went unprosecuted for criminal negligence/fraud/abuse, torture, wars on false pretenses, assassinated US citizens, democratically elected leaders in foreign countries and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
I don't forget all of that stuff to act in a huff about Trump's petty costing some FBI asshole his pension (where there's a non-zero chance he deserved to be fired for doing something wrong). It's not like he's not going to find a job or live in a damn tent like countless veterans who couldn't even get adequate mental healthcare to reintigrate them into a society that will happily send them to war and trow them in the gutter when it breaks their minds, then complain about them clogging the gutters or the countless people around the world suffering as a result of our citizenry's inability to pull their heads out and get these warmongering Mammon worshippers into rehab.
You'll find 100 neoliberal posts about Trump for every one you see about something not about Trump. It's fair he'd get some focus as president, but the problems he's amplifying and uncovering within our system aren't born of him and won't die when he's gone. Especially so long as every and all of these problems are always contextualized around Trump exclusively. To the point where people are just erasing huge parts of the past to justify welcoming shitbags like Bill Kristol or the FBI to the #Resistance if it means scoring points against Trump.
I don't beat you liberals over the head with this to score points or 'be right' or anything like that. I do it because I find it legitimately problematic and sometimes physically nauseating (think when liberals were advocating ethnic cleansing here). You all need to be called on your blindspots and you won't (and probably shouldn't) take it from people like Danglars or xDaunt who are appealing to the concept of the FBI violating people's constitutional rights for tribal reasons and not born out of a sincere and evenhanded desire for such protections. But you can't try to dismiss the legitimate criticisms by lumping me in with them.
We can both see the hypocrisy and weakness in a liberal argument and draw attention to it, while doing it for wildly different reasons with dramatically different end goals.
EDIT: This whole thing stems in part from how many liberal positions only make sense in the context of an opposition that represents near certain doom. When you remove the threat of the Republican party their positions just become the conservative position.
The worst thing that could happen to liberals is for the Republican party to fail, because then they become 'the right' they so demonized. Without Republicans, Democrats would be the only viable party for corporations to purchase influence in, they'd be stuck with the social conservatives too.
|
On March 19 2018 04:04 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
Do liberals really think McCabe shouldn't have been fired or just that Republicans are being blindly tribal and hypocritical about it? No. If McCabe did what he was theoretically fired for, then he should have been fired. But that should have happened a while ago - the alleged malfeasance was in the summer of 2016. Instead, he got fired just before he would have qualified for his pension, after having announced his retirement due to pressure from Trump, and Trump continuing to gun for him. The problem isn't necessarily that McCabe was fired, it's how and when he was fired that I object to. In the context of tweets like this, McCabe getting fired right before he qualifies for his pension looks like retaliation against McCabe for not kowtowing to Trump, and that's not acceptable.
I'm a bit confused why people have their panties in a bundle about this. The way one side is presenting this is that McCabe broke the law and got fired for it. Excellent, wish more people were held accountable in a similar manner, but at least it's one less scumbag (and this is regardless of timing). The way the other side presents it is that he hasn't really done anything wrong, but disagreed with his boss. The tweets seem to back that up. It looks like a wrongful termination lawsuit waiting to happen. So why not just wait for that instead of this mass hysteria?
|
On March 19 2018 17:17 Nebuchad wrote:I'm going to ignore all the grandstanding cause it's par for the course at that point, let's try something else: Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 16:50 Leporello wrote:
he knows that the upcoming results in 2018 and 2020 aren't going to be a Bernie revolution, albeit he refuses to appreciate why that is. The Trump-era is just going to make Democrats more conservative, or at least broader-based. So, why?
Because that's clearly what happened when Obama got elected as a progressive liberal black man. The conservatives all started leaning towards liberalism, social justice, racial equality and so forth. That's what happened, yes it did, uh-huh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
