|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States42966 Posts
On April 12 2018 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 12 2018 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:57 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2018 05:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:48 Excludos wrote:On April 12 2018 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 23:44 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump had no idea that the Ukrainian was going to donate to his charity. It was all arranged by someone else, without trumps knowledge.
Just to be clear, that's the same Ukranian that donated ~100x that to the Clinton Foundation, for what I'm sure are completely different reasons right? Just to be clear, you're going straight for whataboutism? No, just clarifying context. This is a common confusion here I've noticed. I mean, Clinton Foundation was already investigated over this and other such donations. And this is also tied to Cohen. Oh, well if there was an investigation... So? The point is that there's some ambiguous cloud around the idea this guy gave Trump's foundation 150k but knowing he gave 100x that to the Clinton foundation puts it in a rather different context. So is it fine because Clinton did it? Or is it bad for both of them? Do we need a footer in every single post citing the three common ways Clinton did the same thing and how those are also bad to discuss anything that Trump and his people do? I mean whatever influence $150k buys one has to presume ~100x that buys substantially more. So of course they are both bad, but only one seemed to raise any concern among liberals. Are we going to rehash the secret Clinton sex apartment dungeon above the Presidential Library again or are you willing to concede that there is a difference between paying Hillary $15m and donating $15m to the Clinton Foundation? Of course there is. We'd probably dispute the distance, but I'm not going to suggest they are the same thing. I feel it's relevant to note the much smaller amount in question was also given to Trump's foundation, not Trump himself. Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 11:45 Introvert wrote:Maybe this isn't super interesting but I though it was. Hopefully Pompeo, who is getting pounded in some media corners, really is serious about his new job. And of course there is the tidbit that he called Clinton at all. And she took it. And it shows that really no one liked Tillerson, lol.
Pompeo asks Clinton for advice as he preps for confirmation battle
The secretary of state nominee, who trashed his Democratic predecessor over Benghazi, isn’t taking any Senate votes for granted.
As a sharply partisan Republican member of Congress, CIA Director Mike Pompeo tormented former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over her response to the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, which Pompeo called “morally reprehensible.” He also once liked a tweet that branded her successor, John Kerry, a “traitor.”
But now that Pompeo faces a tough confirmation process to become secretary of state himself, he has reached out to Clinton and Kerry, as well as every other living occupant of the office, to ask for guidance. Clinton, for one, has been willing to help.
“These were lengthy calls seeking advice” from the former secretaries, a person familiar with Pompeo’s prep work told POLITICO. “He understands the gravity of the challenge before him.”
While juggling his day job at the CIA, the person said, Pompeo has been participating in briefing sessions at the State Department, reading thick stacks of material, much of it country-specific, and participating in mock Q&As to prepare for a sure-fire grilling before U.S. senators. He’s also talking to a range of people at the State Department, including career civil and foreign service staffers who felt sidelined under former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
It’s part of Pompeo’s mixture of crash course and charm offensive as he prepares for a Thursday confirmation hearing before a closely divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Although no one thinks Pompeo has had a political conversion, he seems determined to gain some Democratic votes — and demonstrate more respect for his predecessors and future employees than did Tillerson, who never spoke at length to either Kerry or Clinton and who alienated his department’s rank and file.
Former U.S. officials say that — in both his confirmation hearing and in the job, if he is confirmed — Pompeo will have to find a way to get along with both Donald Trump and a diplomatic crew that the Republican president disdains.
“Pompeo’s most challenging task is to keep the trust of the president while also earning the trust of the State Department bureaucracy,” said Ilan Goldenberg, who served at State in the Obama administration. “If he is too hard-line and ideological, he will not earn the trust of the diplomats and won’t be an effective negotiator and spokesman on the international stage. But he also has to avoid the perception that he has been co-opted by the ‘softies’ at Foggy Bottom or he’ll lose influence in the West Wing.”
Pompeo has managed to stay in Trump’s good graces for more than a year — something a shrinking number of other presidential aides can say. And by all accounts, he also is eager to serve as secretary of state, despite the largely painful experience of Tillerson, who clashed with the president and never earned his department’s trust.
Pompeo, a former Army officer who graduated first in his class at West Point and has a degree from Harvard Law School, actually began quiet preparations for the job well before Trump fired Tillerson in mid-March — seeking advice about the position while sizing up potential deputies.
During their talk, Clinton advised Pompeo to stem the flight of career diplomats who quit under Tillerson, according to a person familiar with the call.
But standing between Pompeo and Foggy Bottom are dozens of hostile Democratic senators, and at least one Republican — raising questions about his ability to win majority approval from the Foreign Relations Committee, which is divided 11-10 in favor of Republicans.
Second half at Politico Welcome to the #resistance Mike Pompeo! No, but seriously, shouldn't Clinton be lobbying friends to keep him the F out of state?
Yes GH but the Clinton Foundation has been examined so thoroughly and repeatedly that at this point it's pretty much established that it's all above board whereas the Trump Foundation has been repeatedly found to be operating as a Trump slush fund and paying his own business debts.
|
On April 12 2018 11:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 11:40 KwarK wrote:On April 12 2018 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:57 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2018 05:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:48 Excludos wrote:On April 12 2018 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Just to be clear, that's the same Ukranian that donated ~100x that to the Clinton Foundation, for what I'm sure are completely different reasons right? Just to be clear, you're going straight for whataboutism? No, just clarifying context. This is a common confusion here I've noticed. I mean, Clinton Foundation was already investigated over this and other such donations. And this is also tied to Cohen. Oh, well if there was an investigation... So? The point is that there's some ambiguous cloud around the idea this guy gave Trump's foundation 150k but knowing he gave 100x that to the Clinton foundation puts it in a rather different context. So is it fine because Clinton did it? Or is it bad for both of them? Do we need a footer in every single post citing the three common ways Clinton did the same thing and how those are also bad to discuss anything that Trump and his people do? I mean whatever influence $150k buys one has to presume ~100x that buys substantially more. So of course they are both bad, but only one seemed to raise any concern among liberals. Are we going to rehash the secret Clinton sex apartment dungeon above the Presidential Library again or are you willing to concede that there is a difference between paying Hillary $15m and donating $15m to the Clinton Foundation? Of course there is. We'd probably dispute the distance, but I'm not going to suggest they are the same thing. I feel it's relevant to note the much smaller amount in question was also given to Trump's foundation, not Trump himself. On April 12 2018 11:45 Introvert wrote:Maybe this isn't super interesting but I though it was. Hopefully Pompeo, who is getting pounded in some media corners, really is serious about his new job. And of course there is the tidbit that he called Clinton at all. And she took it. And it shows that really no one liked Tillerson, lol.
Pompeo asks Clinton for advice as he preps for confirmation battle
The secretary of state nominee, who trashed his Democratic predecessor over Benghazi, isn’t taking any Senate votes for granted.
As a sharply partisan Republican member of Congress, CIA Director Mike Pompeo tormented former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over her response to the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, which Pompeo called “morally reprehensible.” He also once liked a tweet that branded her successor, John Kerry, a “traitor.”
But now that Pompeo faces a tough confirmation process to become secretary of state himself, he has reached out to Clinton and Kerry, as well as every other living occupant of the office, to ask for guidance. Clinton, for one, has been willing to help.
“These were lengthy calls seeking advice” from the former secretaries, a person familiar with Pompeo’s prep work told POLITICO. “He understands the gravity of the challenge before him.”
While juggling his day job at the CIA, the person said, Pompeo has been participating in briefing sessions at the State Department, reading thick stacks of material, much of it country-specific, and participating in mock Q&As to prepare for a sure-fire grilling before U.S. senators. He’s also talking to a range of people at the State Department, including career civil and foreign service staffers who felt sidelined under former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
It’s part of Pompeo’s mixture of crash course and charm offensive as he prepares for a Thursday confirmation hearing before a closely divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Although no one thinks Pompeo has had a political conversion, he seems determined to gain some Democratic votes — and demonstrate more respect for his predecessors and future employees than did Tillerson, who never spoke at length to either Kerry or Clinton and who alienated his department’s rank and file.
Former U.S. officials say that — in both his confirmation hearing and in the job, if he is confirmed — Pompeo will have to find a way to get along with both Donald Trump and a diplomatic crew that the Republican president disdains.
“Pompeo’s most challenging task is to keep the trust of the president while also earning the trust of the State Department bureaucracy,” said Ilan Goldenberg, who served at State in the Obama administration. “If he is too hard-line and ideological, he will not earn the trust of the diplomats and won’t be an effective negotiator and spokesman on the international stage. But he also has to avoid the perception that he has been co-opted by the ‘softies’ at Foggy Bottom or he’ll lose influence in the West Wing.”
Pompeo has managed to stay in Trump’s good graces for more than a year — something a shrinking number of other presidential aides can say. And by all accounts, he also is eager to serve as secretary of state, despite the largely painful experience of Tillerson, who clashed with the president and never earned his department’s trust.
Pompeo, a former Army officer who graduated first in his class at West Point and has a degree from Harvard Law School, actually began quiet preparations for the job well before Trump fired Tillerson in mid-March — seeking advice about the position while sizing up potential deputies.
During their talk, Clinton advised Pompeo to stem the flight of career diplomats who quit under Tillerson, according to a person familiar with the call.
But standing between Pompeo and Foggy Bottom are dozens of hostile Democratic senators, and at least one Republican — raising questions about his ability to win majority approval from the Foreign Relations Committee, which is divided 11-10 in favor of Republicans.
Second half at Politico Welcome to the #resistance Mike Pompeo! No, but seriously, shouldn't Clinton be lobbying friends to keep him the F out of state? Yes GH but the Clinton Foundation has been examined so thoroughly and repeatedly that at this point it's pretty much established that it's all above board whereas the Trump Foundation has been repeatedly found to be operating as a Trump slush fund and paying his own business debts.
What qualifies as "above board" in today's political society and what I view as good are different. So conceding for the moment that's the finding (I think I heard it was under investigation back in January), I'd say it's worth mentioning that donations have curiously plummeted dramatically.
But to your point, I'd consider the differences between their two foundations matched by the differences between their political presentations. So Trump's selfish, brash lack of consideration for appearances and some mostly superficial protocols/laws and voluminous idiocy is analogous to Clinton, as are their foundations.
But no I wouldn't call the foundations 'the same' any more than I would the people.
|
As Sec of State, I don't doubt Clinton used her clout to benefit her legit charity organization. It seems very well likely. It's one of the actual valid criticisms of her behavior. And it's been said for years.
It's still far besides the point. It's conflating a minor ethical violation (and I do mean minor), to true criminality. And I do mean criminal. Without venturing into the realm of Trump's personal foreign-investments and what all that means, things like Trump University were illegal, settled in court that he stole at least $25 million. And it wasn't illegally taking people's money to fund infrastructure projects, it was simply to fund the Trump family.
And this is what GH et al were talking about before the election, right? In regards to "Wikileaks and e-mails!" -- all that was about the Clinton Foundation, right? Or was it about something else? Or was it about nothing? And now we're just bringing the Clinton Foundation back up, in what is a blatant mode of self-justification? Because why the hell else are we talking about Clinton at all? Is this Fox News?
edit. completely separate to that, here's a sign of things to come: https://www.axios.com/preview-of-exclusive-abc-interview-with-james-comey-1523413777-c6002b59-9545-4329-9734-92ffcc70cfef.html According to the source:
The Comey interview left people in the room stunned — he told George things that he’s never said before.
Some described the experience as surreal. The question will be how to fit it all into a one-hour show.
Comey answered every question.
If anyone wonders if Comey will go there, he goes there.
|
On April 12 2018 11:45 Introvert wrote:Maybe this isn't super interesting but I though it was. Hopefully Pompeo, who is getting pounded in some media corners, really is serious about his new job. And of course there is the tidbit that he called Clinton at all. And she took it. And it shows that really no one liked Tillerson, lol. Show nested quote +
Pompeo asks Clinton for advice as he preps for confirmation battle
The secretary of state nominee, who trashed his Democratic predecessor over Benghazi, isn’t taking any Senate votes for granted.
As a sharply partisan Republican member of Congress, CIA Director Mike Pompeo tormented former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over her response to the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, which Pompeo called “morally reprehensible.” He also once liked a tweet that branded her successor, John Kerry, a “traitor.”
But now that Pompeo faces a tough confirmation process to become secretary of state himself, he has reached out to Clinton and Kerry, as well as every other living occupant of the office, to ask for guidance. Clinton, for one, has been willing to help.
“These were lengthy calls seeking advice” from the former secretaries, a person familiar with Pompeo’s prep work told POLITICO. “He understands the gravity of the challenge before him.”
While juggling his day job at the CIA, the person said, Pompeo has been participating in briefing sessions at the State Department, reading thick stacks of material, much of it country-specific, and participating in mock Q&As to prepare for a sure-fire grilling before U.S. senators. He’s also talking to a range of people at the State Department, including career civil and foreign service staffers who felt sidelined under former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
It’s part of Pompeo’s mixture of crash course and charm offensive as he prepares for a Thursday confirmation hearing before a closely divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Although no one thinks Pompeo has had a political conversion, he seems determined to gain some Democratic votes — and demonstrate more respect for his predecessors and future employees than did Tillerson, who never spoke at length to either Kerry or Clinton and who alienated his department’s rank and file.
Former U.S. officials say that — in both his confirmation hearing and in the job, if he is confirmed — Pompeo will have to find a way to get along with both Donald Trump and a diplomatic crew that the Republican president disdains.
“Pompeo’s most challenging task is to keep the trust of the president while also earning the trust of the State Department bureaucracy,” said Ilan Goldenberg, who served at State in the Obama administration. “If he is too hard-line and ideological, he will not earn the trust of the diplomats and won’t be an effective negotiator and spokesman on the international stage. But he also has to avoid the perception that he has been co-opted by the ‘softies’ at Foggy Bottom or he’ll lose influence in the West Wing.”
Pompeo has managed to stay in Trump’s good graces for more than a year — something a shrinking number of other presidential aides can say. And by all accounts, he also is eager to serve as secretary of state, despite the largely painful experience of Tillerson, who clashed with the president and never earned his department’s trust.
Pompeo, a former Army officer who graduated first in his class at West Point and has a degree from Harvard Law School, actually began quiet preparations for the job well before Trump fired Tillerson in mid-March — seeking advice about the position while sizing up potential deputies.
During their talk, Clinton advised Pompeo to stem the flight of career diplomats who quit under Tillerson, according to a person familiar with the call.
But standing between Pompeo and Foggy Bottom are dozens of hostile Democratic senators, and at least one Republican — raising questions about his ability to win majority approval from the Foreign Relations Committee, which is divided 11-10 in favor of Republicans.
Second half at Politico
We all hope trumps cabinet members will take their job seriously. When it comes to trumps cabinet picks, it’s the best we can hope for.
|
On April 12 2018 14:13 Leporello wrote:As Sec of State, I don't doubt Clinton used her clout to benefit her legit charity organization. It seems very well likely. It's one of the actual valid criticisms of her behavior. And it's been said for years. It's still far besides the point. It's conflating a minor ethical violation (and I do mean minor), to true criminality. And I do mean criminal. Without venturing into the realm of Trump's personal foreign-investments and what all that means, things like Trump University were illegal, settled in court that he stole at least $25 million. And it wasn't illegally taking people's money to fund infrastructure projects, it was simply to fund the Trump family. And this is what GH et al were talking about before the election, right? In regards to "Wikileaks and e-mails!" -- all that was about the Clinton Foundation, right? Or was it about something else? Or was it about nothing? And now we're just bringing the Clinton Foundation back up, in what is a blatant mode of self-justification? Because why the hell else are we talking about Clinton at all? Is this Fox News? edit. completely separate to that, here's a sign of things to come: https://www.axios.com/preview-of-exclusive-abc-interview-with-james-comey-1523413777-c6002b59-9545-4329-9734-92ffcc70cfef.html Show nested quote +According to the source:
The Comey interview left people in the room stunned — he told George things that he’s never said before.
Some described the experience as surreal. The question will be how to fit it all into a one-hour show.
Comey answered every question.
If anyone wonders if Comey will go there, he goes there.
That's at least a real argument (at least the first part) even if I disagree with it. I'm content to let it go though unless you really want to discuss why I disagree or what the emails were about.
It was literally mentioned in the NYT article from the tweet, that's why it came up.
EDIT: That promo video for his book/this special is unbelievably obnoxious.
|
"But the Clinton foundation" is merely an admission that the Trump foundation needs to be interrogated by at least 9 congressional committees. If you say "but the Clinton foundation", that is an admission that Trump needs to sit under oath before congress to explain these donations. HRC was cleared. Republicans tried as hard as they could and couldn't make anything that wasn't a Jordan Peterson myth stick. So let's see it. Go nuts. Bring on the Trump hearings.
|
On April 12 2018 16:28 Wulfey_LA wrote:
"But the Clinton foundation" is merely an admission that the Trump foundation needs to be interrogated by at least 9 congressional committees. If you say "but the Clinton foundation", that is an admission that Trump needs to sit under oath before congress to explain these donations. HRC was cleared. Republicans tried as hard as they could and couldn't make anything that wasn't a Jordan Peterson myth stick. So let's see it. Go nuts. Bring on the Trump hearings.
I think Trump should have been in prison long before he had a chance to run for president, so it's not like I'm defending the Trump foundation. I'm sure that argument is a mic dropper against Trump supporters though.
I mean it's obviously a waste of time. Mueller's going to have his go, give his bill of health on Trump and it will be time for the 2020 election.
Maybe in the most fevered liberal dreams this persists after his presidency (or his first term if liberals nominate the establishment pick) but afterwords everything will go back to normal and Hillary might even show up at his next wedding.
To your point though, there probably will be congressional hearings going from now until then with Russia and Trump as a theme.
|
Greenie, you have been a bit of a 'whataboutism' vending machine recently. It seems that you regularly go into versions of 'but Hilary's e-mails' when people link tweets or other articles critical of Trump. I think that's why the last couple of pages have been a lot of frustration in your direction. You seem to derail things regularly just to say things you say all the time. I mean, the abolish the police conversation has happened at least three times now, and generic 'liberals are as bad as the other side' arguments have happened enough that I can't put a number to it.
Those are, however, particularly annoying because it's largely untrue, even if it is along the lines of a lesser evil (there's plenty of liberal hypocrisy on certain issues).
Side note: the guy who was in a few pages ago before getting permabanned... does anyone remember why? Apparently its a legacy banning from the old thread, but it must have gone down before I was a participant. Just struck me as odd. Did he do something bad?
|
On April 12 2018 18:01 iamthedave wrote:
Greenie, you have been a bit of a 'whataboutism' vending machine recently. It seems that you regularly go into versions of 'but Hilary's e-mails' when people link tweets or other articles critical of Trump. I think that's why the last couple of pages have been a lot of frustration in your direction. You seem to derail things regularly just to say things you say all the time. I mean, the abolish the police conversation has happened at least three times now, and generic 'liberals are as bad as the other side' arguments have happened enough that I can't put a number to it.
Those are, however, particularly annoying because it's largely untrue, even if it is along the lines of a lesser evil (there's plenty of liberal hypocrisy on certain issues).
Side note: the guy who was in a few pages ago before getting permabanned... does anyone remember why? Apparently its a legacy banning from the old thread, but it must have gone down before I was a participant. Just struck me as odd. Did he do something bad?
Whataboutism implies I'm not willing or able to engage with the substance of the critique, but merely mic dropping with some random Hillary point. I very much am willing and able and did engage with the substance when it was attempted by kwark for example.
The issue is that people want to take any critique that includes how it applies to Democrats as refusing to discuss the aspects of how Trump is worse. I'll do it, feels like preaching to the choir on Monday, but I do it anyway. So that's why it rings so hollow when people accuse my pointing out how the same critiques apply to Democrats (though often less overtly egregious) as preventing them from talking about Trump. It doesn't, there's just lots of inconvenient context that disrupts the often incomprehensible and evolving Russia-Trump conspiracy narrative that's usually just implied with the type of things that sparked this whole thing.
That's why several people pushed the bs about me interrupting their conversation about it when it was just a Trump tweet and bad joke posts.
They don't actually want to engage with what was implied by the tweet/post but not explicitly said, they probably didn't even read the article that included the 'whataboutism' that was the article the tweet was about, and the "criminality' justification rings as hollow as the rest.
We've spent at least some posts practically every day talking about every fart from the Mueller investigation, many knowing full well it's just a distraction without serious consequences, save for maybe a few lackeys. So much so someone was in here the other day saying Democrats should run on impeachment...
For all the complaining about me mentioning the same article Trump was complaining about and calling a hit piece also mentioned that Hillary took ~100x more from the guy into her foundation I'm starting to think you guys really don't understand my point at all.
|
On April 12 2018 18:01 iamthedave wrote:
Greenie, you have been a bit of a 'whataboutism' vending machine recently. It seems that you regularly go into versions of 'but Hilary's e-mails' when people link tweets or other articles critical of Trump. I think that's why the last couple of pages have been a lot of frustration in your direction. You seem to derail things regularly just to say things you say all the time. I mean, the abolish the police conversation has happened at least three times now, and generic 'liberals are as bad as the other side' arguments have happened enough that I can't put a number to it.
Those are, however, particularly annoying because it's largely untrue, even if it is along the lines of a lesser evil (there's plenty of liberal hypocrisy on certain issues).
Side note: the guy who was in a few pages ago before getting permabanned... does anyone remember why? Apparently its a legacy banning from the old thread, but it must have gone down before I was a participant. Just struck me as odd. Did he do something bad? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread?page=118#2359
|
Thanks for that. Didn't realise Danglars was threadbanned. I had been wondering where he was.
|
On April 12 2018 20:29 iamthedave wrote:
Thanks for that. Didn't realise Danglars was threadbanned. I had been wondering where he was.
Don't think he is? Testie isn't Danglars.
|
On April 12 2018 21:44 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 20:29 iamthedave wrote:
Thanks for that. Didn't realise Danglars was threadbanned. I had been wondering where he was. Don't think he is? Testie isn't Danglars.
Danglars got a threadban around the time he was arguing with everyone about cake.
Its all in the website feedback forum
|
On April 12 2018 18:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 18:01 iamthedave wrote:
Greenie, you have been a bit of a 'whataboutism' vending machine recently. It seems that you regularly go into versions of 'but Hilary's e-mails' when people link tweets or other articles critical of Trump. I think that's why the last couple of pages have been a lot of frustration in your direction. You seem to derail things regularly just to say things you say all the time. I mean, the abolish the police conversation has happened at least three times now, and generic 'liberals are as bad as the other side' arguments have happened enough that I can't put a number to it.
Those are, however, particularly annoying because it's largely untrue, even if it is along the lines of a lesser evil (there's plenty of liberal hypocrisy on certain issues).
Side note: the guy who was in a few pages ago before getting permabanned... does anyone remember why? Apparently its a legacy banning from the old thread, but it must have gone down before I was a participant. Just struck me as odd. Did he do something bad? We've spent at least some posts practically every day talking about every fart from the Mueller investigation, many knowing full well it's just a distraction without serious consequences, save for maybe a few lackeys. So much so someone was in here the other day saying Democrats should run on impeachment...
I'll leave the rest to other posters if they're interested, since it's mostly them sparring with you anyway. I was really just speaking to the growing trend of people fighting with you, essentially, and why it's happening.
The problem with this bit of your post is that it only works with hindsight. Sure, the Mueller investigation probably won't amount to much. but if it does then it'll be probably the most important political story in recent American political history. I don't know if that would retrospectively make all the coverage justified, but that potential does warrant enduring interest in it.
Nobody knows 'full well' it won't, just some more politically cynical people like you or I don't believe it will in the end. For my own money I think if Trump was actually going to be badly hurt by this Mueller would have found the evidence by now.
On the other hand, I do feel this investigation has done some damage to the Trump brand. No matter how broad the Fox News hit pieces become, a lot of cautious Trump supporters are going to start seeing a certain theme emerging among his inner circle (i.e. being arrested and charged with crimes, if it goes that far). It could even be contributing to the blue wave by getting lazy Democrats out and active.
So I dunno. Maybe it's worth it in the end.
|
On April 12 2018 22:11 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 18:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 18:01 iamthedave wrote:
Greenie, you have been a bit of a 'whataboutism' vending machine recently. It seems that you regularly go into versions of 'but Hilary's e-mails' when people link tweets or other articles critical of Trump. I think that's why the last couple of pages have been a lot of frustration in your direction. You seem to derail things regularly just to say things you say all the time. I mean, the abolish the police conversation has happened at least three times now, and generic 'liberals are as bad as the other side' arguments have happened enough that I can't put a number to it.
Those are, however, particularly annoying because it's largely untrue, even if it is along the lines of a lesser evil (there's plenty of liberal hypocrisy on certain issues).
Side note: the guy who was in a few pages ago before getting permabanned... does anyone remember why? Apparently its a legacy banning from the old thread, but it must have gone down before I was a participant. Just struck me as odd. Did he do something bad? We've spent at least some posts practically every day talking about every fart from the Mueller investigation, many knowing full well it's just a distraction without serious consequences, save for maybe a few lackeys. So much so someone was in here the other day saying Democrats should run on impeachment... I'll leave the rest to other posters if they're interested, since it's mostly them sparring with you anyway. I was really just speaking to the growing trend of people fighting with you, essentially, and why it's happening. The problem with this bit of your post is that it only works with hindsight. Sure, the Mueller investigation probably won't amount to much. but if it does then it'll be probably the most important political story in recent American political history. I don't know if that would retrospectively make all the coverage justified, but that potential does warrant enduring interest in it. Nobody knows 'full well' it won't, just some more politically cynical people like you or I don't believe it will in the end. For my own money I think if Trump was actually going to be badly hurt by this Mueller would have found the evidence by now. On the other hand, I do feel this investigation has done some damage to the Trump brand. No matter how broad the Fox News hit pieces become, a lot of cautious Trump supporters are going to start seeing a certain theme emerging among his inner circle (i.e. being arrested and charged with crimes, if it goes that far). It could even be contributing to the blue wave by getting lazy Democrats out and active. So I dunno. Maybe it's worth it in the end. What do you think Mueller would have done if he had found hard evidence of Trump being involved?
We don't know what he has found (other then those he is forced to reveal in subpoena's and indictments). And the investigation isn't going to reveal anything until it has finished and releases its report.
|
On April 12 2018 22:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 22:11 iamthedave wrote:On April 12 2018 18:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 18:01 iamthedave wrote:
Greenie, you have been a bit of a 'whataboutism' vending machine recently. It seems that you regularly go into versions of 'but Hilary's e-mails' when people link tweets or other articles critical of Trump. I think that's why the last couple of pages have been a lot of frustration in your direction. You seem to derail things regularly just to say things you say all the time. I mean, the abolish the police conversation has happened at least three times now, and generic 'liberals are as bad as the other side' arguments have happened enough that I can't put a number to it.
Those are, however, particularly annoying because it's largely untrue, even if it is along the lines of a lesser evil (there's plenty of liberal hypocrisy on certain issues).
Side note: the guy who was in a few pages ago before getting permabanned... does anyone remember why? Apparently its a legacy banning from the old thread, but it must have gone down before I was a participant. Just struck me as odd. Did he do something bad? We've spent at least some posts practically every day talking about every fart from the Mueller investigation, many knowing full well it's just a distraction without serious consequences, save for maybe a few lackeys. So much so someone was in here the other day saying Democrats should run on impeachment... I'll leave the rest to other posters if they're interested, since it's mostly them sparring with you anyway. I was really just speaking to the growing trend of people fighting with you, essentially, and why it's happening. The problem with this bit of your post is that it only works with hindsight. Sure, the Mueller investigation probably won't amount to much. but if it does then it'll be probably the most important political story in recent American political history. I don't know if that would retrospectively make all the coverage justified, but that potential does warrant enduring interest in it. Nobody knows 'full well' it won't, just some more politically cynical people like you or I don't believe it will in the end. For my own money I think if Trump was actually going to be badly hurt by this Mueller would have found the evidence by now. On the other hand, I do feel this investigation has done some damage to the Trump brand. No matter how broad the Fox News hit pieces become, a lot of cautious Trump supporters are going to start seeing a certain theme emerging among his inner circle (i.e. being arrested and charged with crimes, if it goes that far). It could even be contributing to the blue wave by getting lazy Democrats out and active. So I dunno. Maybe it's worth it in the end. What do you think Mueller would have done if he had found hard evidence of Trump being involved? We don't know what he has found (other then those he is forced to reveal in subpoena's and indictments). And the investigation isn't going to reveal anything until it has finished and releases its report.
I believe something would have broken. It's been a leaky ship, of sorts, in that we've known for some time in advance almost any time something major happened. Whether it's people on the team leaking strategically or people in the WH when they have - what I assume - are regular contact with the team for progress updates.
I think by now something would have come out through one avenue or another. I'm aware of the procedural reasons and the way these things usually unfold (flip people lower on the totem pole to get to people higher up etc.), but I think that process would have revealed something by now.
|
The leaks seem to be coming from the Defense and witnesses, not from the investigation. All the reporting and assessments former AGs I have read say that we don’t really know exactly what the investigation has on Trump and his inners circle. And we likely won’t know until the very end, because if you come at the king, you best not miss.
|
Full court press against the law enforcement agencies right now. All it really does is ensures that trump won’t get impeached by a Republican House.
|
Not exactly news though, is it? We've known this for a good while. Unless Trump turns out to be literally guilty of murder, with a smoking gun in his hand, standing over the body in a bloodstained shirt and shouting 'I shot the bastard and I'm glad I did it', they're not impeaching him. And even then there'll be people praising him for 'telling it the way it is'.
They've spent a huge amount of energy depicting the law enforcement agency doing the investigation as literal criminals and traitors for doing the thing they asked him to do. If they turn around and impeach now, they'll never live it down in front of the base. They might be on top of the world, but the Republicans - which is to say, not the far right but the normal right wing politicians in America - are in severe danger.
Like it or loath it, they're the Trump show now. And if they feel the Clintons have stuck around too long... I suspect we'll be saying the same about Trump once he's gone. He's going to be a political force until he dies, I fear.
|
I really dislike comey being so active in the media. I think is discredits him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
