|
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 |
On February 05 2019 03:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
He doesn't want to change anyone's mind, so what's the point? What is the point of his goal of challenging Bannon's populist views on the eve of the midterms to say Bannon's populists start losing now? Since you are lauding him, what goal does this declaration acheive?
Me thinks he isn't trying to change Bannon's mind, but he hopes that all the drones that waddle around the middle waiting for someone charismatic to say something that resonates with them, vote that way, then wait for the next guy to tell them something else.
|
On February 05 2019 03:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
He doesn't want to change anyone's mind, so what's the point? What is the point of his goal of challenging Bannon's populist views on the eve of the midterms to say Bannon's populists start losing now? Since you are lauding him, what goal does this declaration acheive?
To inspire and give heart to people who were about to vote in the midterms, who he believed were pretty besieged by pessimism from the last two years. He felt that the Democrats were poised to turn the tide and have a big win. So he wanted to challenge Bannon's populism on the eve of that and say that those people were going to prove Bannon wrong. He wanted to use the platform and Bannon as a way to get out his own message on what he felt was the eve of when Bannon's populists would face real opposition for the first time since the election.
|
Then in essence his aim is to change peoples' minds. I don't see how it is not.
|
On February 05 2019 03:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Then in essence his aim is to change peoples' minds. I don't see how it is not.
No. He wanted to use the platform to bolster the hearts of people that already agreed with him.
|
I always thought of these big profile debates like the Munk Debates or ones between the two or four heavyweight public intellectuals (looking at you Zizek vs Peterson soon!) aren't really meant to change minds. They're nice soapboxes for their fans to gawk at and hear from the other side, but people tend to be deadset on their views and won't significantly change it. It's the intellectual equivalent of gladiatorial bouts; more for entertainment than a finishing blow to a side.
|
On February 05 2019 03:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 03:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Then in essence his aim is to change peoples' minds. I don't see how it is not. No. He wanted to use the platform to bolster the hearts of people that already agreed with him.
Then you should had just wrote that.
|
On February 05 2019 04:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 03:37 Plansix wrote:On February 05 2019 03:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Then in essence his aim is to change peoples' minds. I don't see how it is not. No. He wanted to use the platform to bolster the hearts of people that already agreed with him. Then you should had just wrote that.
I literally did.
On February 05 2019 03:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2019 03:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
He doesn't want to change anyone's mind, so what's the point? What is the point of his goal of challenging Bannon's populist views on the eve of the midterms to say Bannon's populists start losing now? Since you are lauding him, what goal does this declaration acheive? To inspire and give heart to people who were about to vote in the midterms, who he believed were pretty besieged by pessimism from the last two years. He felt that the Democrats were poised to turn the tide and have a big win. So he wanted to challenge Bannon's populism on the eve of that and say that those people were going to prove Bannon wrong. He wanted to use the platform and Bannon as a way to get out his own message on what he felt was the eve of when Bannon's populists would face real opposition for the first time since the election.
|
|
|
P6
Just listened to a podcast with David Frum where he talked about recently agreeing to debate Steve Bannon on the eve of the midterm elections.
Dude's thats awesome I watched him on the Rubin report a few months ago + Show Spoiler + I don't remember the episode well enough but I'm sure I enjoyed it.
|
So the SDNY is forcing Trump Inaugural Committee to hand over information. As far as I know SDNY doesn't fuck around when it comes to federal investigations. And this is also outside of Mueller's investigation. I mean Rick Gates, and Cohen are already in deep shit, and they were part of the Inaugural committee... On top of it, in the report below it mentions there were tapes! Sam Patten's guilty plea also proves this happened.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/us/politics/trump-inaugural-committee-subpoena.html
President Trump’s inaugural committee was ordered on Monday to turn over documents about its donors, finances and activities to federal prosecutors in Manhattan, according to two people familiar with the investigation into the committee’s activities.
Prosecutors are seeking documents related to all of the committee’s donors and event attendees; any benefits handed out, including tickets and photo opportunities with the president; federal disclosure filings; vendors; contracts; and more, one of the people said.
The subpoena marked an escalation of the investigation, which the prosecutors opened late last year amid a flurry of scrutiny of the inaugural committee. And it showed that the investigations surrounding Mr. Trump, once centered on potential ties to Russia during the 2016 presidential election, have spread far beyond the special counsel’s office to include virtually all aspects of his adult life: his business, his campaign, his inauguration and his presidency.
In the subpoena, investigators also showed interest in whether any foreigners illegally donated to the committee, as well as whether committee staff knew that such donations were illegal, asking for documents laying out legal requirements for donations. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to federal campaigns, political action committees and inaugural funds.
|
If Pence goes down, we end up with the first female president, Nancy Pelosi.
|
I'm trying to remember where it was, but a while back there was a court filing (I think was the special counsel's outline of how Cohen helped them at his sentencing) that listed what Cohen had helped the government with. It listed 3 things including the Mueller investigation. Something that caught people's eye was that of the 3 things, the Mueller investigation was listed as the second thing he helped with, hinting that he was helping with something else also incredibly serious. I bet that redacted list item is this newer investigation. If this is as bad as it seems (and unlike the Buzzfeed story that deflated, this has multiple reputable outlets confirming it), this is probably as bad or worse than the Mueller investigation for Trump. I imagine this will be heavily based on paperwork and it won't be nearly as easy for them to deny since so much of the information about their inauguration has been out in the open.
At the same time, who didn't see something like this coming? One of the earliest reportings of this presidency has been that there was a bunch of weird business going on with the inauguration. Trump's inauguration had a massively out of proportion budget (something like twice Obama's?) with little explanation where the money came from. It was a visibly lower budget affair that still somehow costed a significant amount of money. Then it came out that tens of millions of dollars went missing from the inauguration fund with no explanation given where it went. There's been reporting on it for at least a couple years now and all of it has pointed to suggesting that the fund was being used to take bribes and buy access.
|
On February 05 2019 13:17 Mohdoo wrote:
If Pence goes down, we end up with the first female president, Nancy Pelosi.
Assuming Trump goes down too, which is highly unlikely.
|
|
|
|
|
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in lieu of an answer and that lawsuit should go away right quick.
|
The entire case seems to be motivated by the Proud Boys crowd funding the legal defense, so I don’t’ think they will mind a quick dismissal. Then they appeal that and keep that graft coming in while the pointless appeal ferments. And then finally fails.
|
They’ll prolly do that, but appealing a dismissal predicated on a purely legal question is risky business in terms of being nailed with attorney fees 
|
God we can only pray. Hopefully the SPLC’s counsel is smart enough to keep an eye on that very public crowd sourcing the Proud Boys are using and drops that into the pleadings. From personal experience nothing pleases a judge more than finding out the appeal is being paid for through a monthly fee. Nothing makes them happier than knowing the attorney income is based on the length of the case, not the final result. They fucking love it.
|
The SPLC is nothing but a slander throwing wing of the democrat party at this point. Look at what they did to Maajid Nawaz + Show Spoiler +https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-nawaz-v-splc/562646/
+ Show Spoiler +
All that said I don't think Gavin Mcinnes or the proud boys are likely to win anything here, but I hope they do, the SPLC needs to be knocked down a few pegs.
User was warned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
