|
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 April 14 2018 00:37 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2018 00:28 Mohdoo wrote:On April 14 2018 00:17 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2018 00:12 Mohdoo wrote:On April 14 2018 00:05 Introvert wrote:On April 13 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote:On April 13 2018 23:55 Introvert wrote:On April 13 2018 23:47 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2018 23:20 Introvert wrote:On April 13 2018 21:10 Grumbels wrote:
[quote]
The conservative understanding of politics implies a willingness to play dirty. If you have a renegade figure such as Comey, who used to be a reliable bureaucrat presiding over a right wing law enforcement policy, but who was misfortunate enough to become a political liability, then the answer is clear. You immediately turn on that person, distance yourself from them, and covertly try to destroy them. It's a mercenary sort of mindset, which I think is particularly common to right-wing movements, but which is especially noticeable for being entirely absent within the liberal establishment. This otherwise pleasant characteristic has a downside, as liberals tend to tolerate and rehabilitate conservatives at an alarming rate, constantly insisting on compromise and understanding with the same figures that earlier plotted to lead the country into right-wing misery and eternal war.
Personally I can hardly stand it for David Frum or Bill Kristol to be part of the #resistance, or for Paul Ryan to be rehabilitated as a responsible politician who tried, but failed, to have Trump follow proper procedure. The left spent hours trashing Comey for sinking Hillary until the moment he was fired. Now he's a hero. Meanwhile he's busy beclowning himself and showing his massive ego. But some people so hate Trump that apparently Trump asking for something to be proven to not exist is evidence of its existence while Comey comes out and says "I don't know," code for "I have no evidence it does but that's not a headline." Someone said, I don't remember who (not on TL) that while Trump is a scumbag he also has a way of revealing who else is too. Doesn't seem half wrong. the left is a big group, with many people who did different things. is it the SAME people saying those things, or simpyl different people on the left, that you decided to group together as a single entity to cast unsound aspersions upon? also, who are you implying is a scumbag? It was and is pretty universal. Find me someone on the left who thinks Comey did a good job handling the email investigation. Can you please be more specific about “the left”? There is nothing universal about a group that large. And which part of the investigation? Uh, the entire left? Except maybe a few Bernie people who hate Hillary? Why am I getting push back on this contention? Every Democrat or other leftwing person thinks Comey shouldn't have released his October letter for instance. Some are still upset he was so harsh on Hillary even in July. Democrat leadership said he should lose his job, if I recall. Certainly enough people to make that statement generally true. I know there is a bugaboo about using " the left" but it seems pretty justified here. At the time, it felt like an overly rigid interpretation/execution of the law. It was like telling your wife she was fat, because she is objectively fat, but is also 34 weeks pregnant. Sure, she's fat, but have a fucking brain. In retrospect, I am very glad Comey did what he did. Comey's handling of Clinton ended up providing a lot of necessary credibility for when the FBI went after the Trump goons. After Comey body slamming Clinton's presumed victory, political parties are going to think twice about who they let grab the nomination. Clinton was a very mixed bag. Democrats got burned really, really hard. They won't put their hand on that stove again. I am happy about the PTSD Comey gave every Democrat in the country. It will burn for a long time and we won't let it happen again. We all turned a blind eye to the shady, arrogant nature of Clinton. I say this as no insult but I don't get your reasoning sometimes. At any rate this is one form of exactly what I described. Albeit "I liked the result in the end" is not the most common expression of it. I should elaborate. Society nowadays is hyper partisan and there are a lot of competing ideas and theories and philosophies. I like the idea of the FBI treating law the same way my autistic friend treats Warcraft lore. The FBI caring about nothing but making sure anyone who does illegal shit gets taken down for exactly what they have done sounds great to me. I realize this is far from the truth, currently, but I saw Comey's decision to Burn Clinton's campaign to the ground as Comey thinking "consequences be damned, this is the correct thing to do". The FBI has not always been so rigid or principled. I choose to see Comey's Clinton letter as an attempt to bring the FBI back to a more rigid, unfeeling entity. I want the FBI to be that, an unfeeling yet ferociously persistent animal that wants nothing more than to make people answer for their crimes. What are you saying you don't get? What I mean by liking the end result is that (more) people had confidence the FBI was not just being partisan by going after Manafort and Flynn. People thinking "damn, apparently the FBI just rips apart anyone who has done bad shit, party be damned" is a good thing. The next high profile democrat taken down by the FBI will have less reasons to cry about partisan bullshit after all this. There have been some very, very partisan investigations throughout history. I would like to think the Clinton and Trump investigations were not partisan in nature. That is the "end result" I am happy about. And I am happy about the fact that it will make political parties think twice before trying to get away with someone shady. why would you think that was comey's reasoning? I mean, you can as you say, choose to see it that way, but that doesn't mean it is that way. you also seem to be glossing over the point wherein comey's actions may have themselves violated the law and fbi policy. and the current results don' tdiscourage people from using someone shady; as the shadier (by far) candidate won. oh and @introvert, i'm gonna assume based on your non-response that you're not even aware of the previous argument you made, the one to which I objected. so you're just being very sloppy in posting and arguing.
I don't have a lot of reason to see it any other way. I think he had no "good" way out. And while yes, I do believe Trump to be the shadier one, he had not yet entered politics and didn't have nearly the presence/history for investigating. After Mueller is done with his investigation, I think trying to elect another Trump will feel like a bad idea.
|
On April 14 2018 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2018 00:37 zlefin wrote:On April 14 2018 00:28 Mohdoo wrote:On April 14 2018 00:17 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2018 00:12 Mohdoo wrote:On April 14 2018 00:05 Introvert wrote:On April 13 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote:On April 13 2018 23:55 Introvert wrote:On April 13 2018 23:47 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2018 23:20 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
The left spent hours trashing Comey for sinking Hillary until the moment he was fired. Now he's a hero.
Meanwhile he's busy beclowning himself and showing his massive ego.
But some people so hate Trump that apparently Trump asking for something to be proven to not exist is evidence of its existence while Comey comes out and says "I don't know," code for "I have no evidence it does but that's not a headline."
Someone said, I don't remember who (not on TL) that while Trump is a scumbag he also has a way of revealing who else is too. Doesn't seem half wrong.
the left is a big group, with many people who did different things. is it the SAME people saying those things, or simpyl different people on the left, that you decided to group together as a single entity to cast unsound aspersions upon? also, who are you implying is a scumbag? It was and is pretty universal. Find me someone on the left who thinks Comey did a good job handling the email investigation. Can you please be more specific about “the left”? There is nothing universal about a group that large. And which part of the investigation? Uh, the entire left? Except maybe a few Bernie people who hate Hillary? Why am I getting push back on this contention? Every Democrat or other leftwing person thinks Comey shouldn't have released his October letter for instance. Some are still upset he was so harsh on Hillary even in July. Democrat leadership said he should lose his job, if I recall. Certainly enough people to make that statement generally true. I know there is a bugaboo about using " the left" but it seems pretty justified here. At the time, it felt like an overly rigid interpretation/execution of the law. It was like telling your wife she was fat, because she is objectively fat, but is also 34 weeks pregnant. Sure, she's fat, but have a fucking brain. In retrospect, I am very glad Comey did what he did. Comey's handling of Clinton ended up providing a lot of necessary credibility for when the FBI went after the Trump goons. After Comey body slamming Clinton's presumed victory, political parties are going to think twice about who they let grab the nomination. Clinton was a very mixed bag. Democrats got burned really, really hard. They won't put their hand on that stove again. I am happy about the PTSD Comey gave every Democrat in the country. It will burn for a long time and we won't let it happen again. We all turned a blind eye to the shady, arrogant nature of Clinton. I say this as no insult but I don't get your reasoning sometimes. At any rate this is one form of exactly what I described. Albeit "I liked the result in the end" is not the most common expression of it. I should elaborate. Society nowadays is hyper partisan and there are a lot of competing ideas and theories and philosophies. I like the idea of the FBI treating law the same way my autistic friend treats Warcraft lore. The FBI caring about nothing but making sure anyone who does illegal shit gets taken down for exactly what they have done sounds great to me. I realize this is far from the truth, currently, but I saw Comey's decision to Burn Clinton's campaign to the ground as Comey thinking "consequences be damned, this is the correct thing to do". The FBI has not always been so rigid or principled. I choose to see Comey's Clinton letter as an attempt to bring the FBI back to a more rigid, unfeeling entity. I want the FBI to be that, an unfeeling yet ferociously persistent animal that wants nothing more than to make people answer for their crimes. What are you saying you don't get? What I mean by liking the end result is that (more) people had confidence the FBI was not just being partisan by going after Manafort and Flynn. People thinking "damn, apparently the FBI just rips apart anyone who has done bad shit, party be damned" is a good thing. The next high profile democrat taken down by the FBI will have less reasons to cry about partisan bullshit after all this. There have been some very, very partisan investigations throughout history. I would like to think the Clinton and Trump investigations were not partisan in nature. That is the "end result" I am happy about. And I am happy about the fact that it will make political parties think twice before trying to get away with someone shady. why would you think that was comey's reasoning? I mean, you can as you say, choose to see it that way, but that doesn't mean it is that way. you also seem to be glossing over the point wherein comey's actions may have themselves violated the law and fbi policy. and the current results don' tdiscourage people from using someone shady; as the shadier (by far) candidate won. oh and @introvert, i'm gonna assume based on your non-response that you're not even aware of the previous argument you made, the one to which I objected. so you're just being very sloppy in posting and arguing. I don't have a lot of reason to see it any other way. I think he had no "good" way out. And while yes, I do believe Trump to be the shadier one, he had not yet entered politics and didn't have nearly the presence/history for investigating. After Mueller is done with his investigation, I think trying to elect another Trump will feel like a bad idea.
he maynot have had a "good" way out, in that it's safe for him, but it's quite possible that he did the morally (and legally) wrong thing; but some methods are more about covering his ass than others. why would you ascribe such a positive motivation to it, rathe rthan the simple one: there may be no good way out, but some bads are less bad than others; and a bureacrat chose the path that he believed most protected himself/covered his own ass.
you've also done little to establish/argue that what he did was actually the right thing to do. why was it the right thing to do in the circumstance? (and do you recall the specifics of the situation well enough?)
i'm not sure what your point about him not having entered politics before has to do with the matter, as it was well proven that trump was shadier for some time prior to the voting.
we knew trump was a bad idea before the election, some people did it anyways.
|
I think there's a degree of truth to the idea that generalisations work better when talking about the right than the left.
One of the great strengths of right wing politics is that people on that political spectrum seem to agree with each other on a broad swath of ideas and come together behind their guys when it matters. See: Trump. A looooooot of people swallowed personal misgivings in the sake of political identity.
The left, on the other hand, eats itself and fights internally constantly, and there are very broad disagreements about an awful lot of things.
I think the plurality of left wing main media sources vs the relatively centralised right wing media sources might play a role in that, and it doesn't seem coincidental to me that the real disagreement on the right these days - between 'regular' right and alt-right - has arisen now that there's a whole subset of conservative media that only some conservatives/right wing folk are consuming.
But still, generalisations are generalisations, and it pays to be careful about them.
Within this thread however, since I think most of the posters are left or centre-left, more precision is required. There's worlds of difference between, say, Plansix and Greenhorizons, though I think politically - broadly speaking - they're both on the same side of the aisle.
|
It is almost like we are completely separate people with our own experiences and world views who just happen to be “left” of the group that makes up the conservative “right”. In our discussions of politics we treat the left and right dynamic as natural, rather than an artifice that was perfected by media to make politics palpable for TV audiences.
|
On April 14 2018 00:48 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2018 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On April 14 2018 00:37 zlefin wrote:On April 14 2018 00:28 Mohdoo wrote:On April 14 2018 00:17 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2018 00:12 Mohdoo wrote:On April 14 2018 00:05 Introvert wrote:On April 13 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote:On April 13 2018 23:55 Introvert wrote:On April 13 2018 23:47 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
the left is a big group, with many people who did different things. is it the SAME people saying those things, or simpyl different people on the left, that you decided to group together as a single entity to cast unsound aspersions upon?
also, who are you implying is a scumbag? It was and is pretty universal. Find me someone on the left who thinks Comey did a good job handling the email investigation. Can you please be more specific about “the left”? There is nothing universal about a group that large. And which part of the investigation? Uh, the entire left? Except maybe a few Bernie people who hate Hillary? Why am I getting push back on this contention? Every Democrat or other leftwing person thinks Comey shouldn't have released his October letter for instance. Some are still upset he was so harsh on Hillary even in July. Democrat leadership said he should lose his job, if I recall. Certainly enough people to make that statement generally true. I know there is a bugaboo about using " the left" but it seems pretty justified here. At the time, it felt like an overly rigid interpretation/execution of the law. It was like telling your wife she was fat, because she is objectively fat, but is also 34 weeks pregnant. Sure, she's fat, but have a fucking brain. In retrospect, I am very glad Comey did what he did. Comey's handling of Clinton ended up providing a lot of necessary credibility for when the FBI went after the Trump goons. After Comey body slamming Clinton's presumed victory, political parties are going to think twice about who they let grab the nomination. Clinton was a very mixed bag. Democrats got burned really, really hard. They won't put their hand on that stove again. I am happy about the PTSD Comey gave every Democrat in the country. It will burn for a long time and we won't let it happen again. We all turned a blind eye to the shady, arrogant nature of Clinton. I say this as no insult but I don't get your reasoning sometimes. At any rate this is one form of exactly what I described. Albeit "I liked the result in the end" is not the most common expression of it. I should elaborate. Society nowadays is hyper partisan and there are a lot of competing ideas and theories and philosophies. I like the idea of the FBI treating law the same way my autistic friend treats Warcraft lore. The FBI caring about nothing but making sure anyone who does illegal shit gets taken down for exactly what they have done sounds great to me. I realize this is far from the truth, currently, but I saw Comey's decision to Burn Clinton's campaign to the ground as Comey thinking "consequences be damned, this is the correct thing to do". The FBI has not always been so rigid or principled. I choose to see Comey's Clinton letter as an attempt to bring the FBI back to a more rigid, unfeeling entity. I want the FBI to be that, an unfeeling yet ferociously persistent animal that wants nothing more than to make people answer for their crimes. What are you saying you don't get? What I mean by liking the end result is that (more) people had confidence the FBI was not just being partisan by going after Manafort and Flynn. People thinking "damn, apparently the FBI just rips apart anyone who has done bad shit, party be damned" is a good thing. The next high profile democrat taken down by the FBI will have less reasons to cry about partisan bullshit after all this. There have been some very, very partisan investigations throughout history. I would like to think the Clinton and Trump investigations were not partisan in nature. That is the "end result" I am happy about. And I am happy about the fact that it will make political parties think twice before trying to get away with someone shady. why would you think that was comey's reasoning? I mean, you can as you say, choose to see it that way, but that doesn't mean it is that way. you also seem to be glossing over the point wherein comey's actions may have themselves violated the law and fbi policy. and the current results don' tdiscourage people from using someone shady; as the shadier (by far) candidate won. oh and @introvert, i'm gonna assume based on your non-response that you're not even aware of the previous argument you made, the one to which I objected. so you're just being very sloppy in posting and arguing. I don't have a lot of reason to see it any other way. I think he had no "good" way out. And while yes, I do believe Trump to be the shadier one, he had not yet entered politics and didn't have nearly the presence/history for investigating. After Mueller is done with his investigation, I think trying to elect another Trump will feel like a bad idea. he maynot have had a "good" way out, in that it's safe for him, but it's quite possible that he did the morally (and legally) wrong thing; but some methods are more about covering his ass than others. why would you ascribe such a positive motivation to it, rathe rthan the simple one: there may be no good way out, but some bads are less bad than others; and a bureacrat chose the path that he believed most protected himself/covered his own ass. you've also done little to establish/argue that what he did was actually the right thing to do. why was it the right thing to do in the circumstance? (and do you recall the specifics of the situation well enough?) i'm not sure what your point about him not having entered politics before has to do with the matter, as it was well proven that trump was shadier for some time prior to the voting. we knew trump was a bad idea before the election, some people did it anyways.
You might be right about him covering his own ass. His bullshit parade going on talk shows and shit like that certainly makes it seem that way. Comey is actively stomping on his own credibility every day by talking about private conversations with Obama and going on these awful talk shows.
My first thought was that Comey was trying to humanize and increase sympathy and approval for the FBI by being their mascot. I am beginning to question that.
I think it was the wrong thing to do at the time but may have had a positive net impact. From a purely "good of the whole" perspective, I think Comey's decision was bad for the country. But if the combination of Comey's letter and Mueller's investigation end up setting precedent for deeply powerful people getting spanked, I think it could have significant long term benefits. That is all assuming *if* the precedent set means a lot less shady people in politics. It all gets back to my desire for politicians to be afraid of the law, rather than brazenly side stepping it. Much less progress can be made so long as politicians are corrupt or shady.
Edit: After more thought, I am realizing a lot of actions that could be interpreted to be Comey covering his own ass could also be seen as actions intended to cover the FBI's ass. Which I will see is a noble, necessary goal. I think a lot of messed up societal shit would happen if the general public lost faith in the FBI.
|
On April 13 2018 23:20 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2018 21:10 Grumbels wrote:On April 13 2018 02:27 Plansix wrote:This story on CNN about the GOP’s plan to discredit Comey that includes buying ad time to do it is something else. Just wild that a political party would go through so much effort to discredit him and be so overt about it. I'm not wild about Comey's book tour, but the man can do whatever he wants and this is what happens when people get fired from goverment. They write books about their experience. https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/12/politics/trump-comey-publicity-tour/index.html The conservative understanding of politics implies a willingness to play dirty. If you have a renegade figure such as Comey, who used to be a reliable bureaucrat presiding over a right wing law enforcement policy, but who was misfortunate enough to become a political liability, then the answer is clear. You immediately turn on that person, distance yourself from them, and covertly try to destroy them. It's a mercenary sort of mindset, which I think is particularly common to right-wing movements, but which is especially noticeable for being entirely absent within the liberal establishment. This otherwise pleasant characteristic has a downside, as liberals tend to tolerate and rehabilitate conservatives at an alarming rate, constantly insisting on compromise and understanding with the same figures that earlier plotted to lead the country into right-wing misery and eternal war. Personally I can hardly stand it for David Frum or Bill Kristol to be part of the #resistance, or for Paul Ryan to be rehabilitated as a responsible politician who tried, but failed, to have Trump follow proper procedure. But some people so hate Trump that apparently Trump asking for something to be proven to not exist is evidence of its existence while Comey comes out and says "I don't know," code for "I have no evidence it does but that's not a headline."
Of course asking for something to be proven to not exist is evidence of it existing when it is your own actions being questioned. If it didn't happen, then Trump would already know there is no tape because it literally never happened. Asking to see if there is evidence is a very strong indicator it is real since it would be pointless to ask if it didn't happen.
Add on top of that the confirmed fact that he was at least offered prostitutes while in Russia, and this new revelation makes it almost a certainty that this event happened. Hopefully the Russians leak it in response to us shooting them with missiles in Syria. That would end fighting fast I'd think.
|
On April 14 2018 00:33 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2018 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:On April 14 2018 00:05 Introvert wrote:On April 13 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote:On April 13 2018 23:55 Introvert wrote:On April 13 2018 23:47 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2018 23:20 Introvert wrote:On April 13 2018 21:10 Grumbels wrote:On April 13 2018 02:27 Plansix wrote:This story on CNN about the GOP’s plan to discredit Comey that includes buying ad time to do it is something else. Just wild that a political party would go through so much effort to discredit him and be so overt about it. I'm not wild about Comey's book tour, but the man can do whatever he wants and this is what happens when people get fired from goverment. They write books about their experience. https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/12/politics/trump-comey-publicity-tour/index.html The conservative understanding of politics implies a willingness to play dirty. If you have a renegade figure such as Comey, who used to be a reliable bureaucrat presiding over a right wing law enforcement policy, but who was misfortunate enough to become a political liability, then the answer is clear. You immediately turn on that person, distance yourself from them, and covertly try to destroy them. It's a mercenary sort of mindset, which I think is particularly common to right-wing movements, but which is especially noticeable for being entirely absent within the liberal establishment. This otherwise pleasant characteristic has a downside, as liberals tend to tolerate and rehabilitate conservatives at an alarming rate, constantly insisting on compromise and understanding with the same figures that earlier plotted to lead the country into right-wing misery and eternal war. Personally I can hardly stand it for David Frum or Bill Kristol to be part of the #resistance, or for Paul Ryan to be rehabilitated as a responsible politician who tried, but failed, to have Trump follow proper procedure. The left spent hours trashing Comey for sinking Hillary until the moment he was fired. Now he's a hero. Meanwhile he's busy beclowning himself and showing his massive ego. But some people so hate Trump that apparently Trump asking for something to be proven to not exist is evidence of its existence while Comey comes out and says "I don't know," code for "I have no evidence it does but that's not a headline." Someone said, I don't remember who (not on TL) that while Trump is a scumbag he also has a way of revealing who else is too. Doesn't seem half wrong. the left is a big group, with many people who did different things. is it the SAME people saying those things, or simpyl different people on the left, that you decided to group together as a single entity to cast unsound aspersions upon? also, who are you implying is a scumbag? It was and is pretty universal. Find me someone on the left who thinks Comey did a good job handling the email investigation. Can you please be more specific about “the left”? There is nothing universal about a group that large. And which part of the investigation? Uh, the entire left? Except maybe a few Bernie people who hate Hillary? Why am I getting push back on this contention? Every Democrat or other leftwing person thinks Comey shouldn't have released his October letter for instance. Some are still upset he was so harsh on Hillary even in July. Democrat leadership said he should lose his job, if I recall. Certainly enough people to make that statement generally true. I know there is a bugaboo about using " the left" but it seems pretty justified here. I assume I qualify as a left person. I said at the time that it was horrible timing but that Comey had to send to letter to cover his ass. If he doesn't he gets bombed for 'hiding an investigation into Clinton during the election". I'm going to have to stop posting after this for now but part of Comey criticism is how his previous actions left him in that position in October. And an excerpt from his book says he thought the polls showed Hillary would win anyways so he did it (?). He might have been able to handle the hearing differently. + Show Spoiler +I think that was what caused the letter, he had stated the investigation into Hillary's email server was closed. And when more info later surfaced it was briefly re-opened to see if the new info changed anything (it didn't). Comey felt compelled to inform Congress of this to prevent himself from coming under fire later if he didn't and something was actually found. (its been a while since it happened and I cba to go back and re-read up on it, so some facts may be off).
Seeing how the GOP is reacting now. Can you imagine how mad they would have gotten if he says nothing, Clinton wins and then later it is revealed that she came under renewed investigation in the closing weeks of the election and the FBI hid it?
Bloody murder wouldn't begin to describe it.
|
On April 14 2018 01:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2018 00:48 zlefin wrote:On April 14 2018 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On April 14 2018 00:37 zlefin wrote:On April 14 2018 00:28 Mohdoo wrote:On April 14 2018 00:17 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2018 00:12 Mohdoo wrote:On April 14 2018 00:05 Introvert wrote:On April 13 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote:On April 13 2018 23:55 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
It was and is pretty universal. Find me someone on the left who thinks Comey did a good job handling the email investigation.
Can you please be more specific about “the left”? There is nothing universal about a group that large. And which part of the investigation? Uh, the entire left? Except maybe a few Bernie people who hate Hillary? Why am I getting push back on this contention? Every Democrat or other leftwing person thinks Comey shouldn't have released his October letter for instance. Some are still upset he was so harsh on Hillary even in July. Democrat leadership said he should lose his job, if I recall. Certainly enough people to make that statement generally true. I know there is a bugaboo about using " the left" but it seems pretty justified here. At the time, it felt like an overly rigid interpretation/execution of the law. It was like telling your wife she was fat, because she is objectively fat, but is also 34 weeks pregnant. Sure, she's fat, but have a fucking brain. In retrospect, I am very glad Comey did what he did. Comey's handling of Clinton ended up providing a lot of necessary credibility for when the FBI went after the Trump goons. After Comey body slamming Clinton's presumed victory, political parties are going to think twice about who they let grab the nomination. Clinton was a very mixed bag. Democrats got burned really, really hard. They won't put their hand on that stove again. I am happy about the PTSD Comey gave every Democrat in the country. It will burn for a long time and we won't let it happen again. We all turned a blind eye to the shady, arrogant nature of Clinton. I say this as no insult but I don't get your reasoning sometimes. At any rate this is one form of exactly what I described. Albeit "I liked the result in the end" is not the most common expression of it. I should elaborate. Society nowadays is hyper partisan and there are a lot of competing ideas and theories and philosophies. I like the idea of the FBI treating law the same way my autistic friend treats Warcraft lore. The FBI caring about nothing but making sure anyone who does illegal shit gets taken down for exactly what they have done sounds great to me. I realize this is far from the truth, currently, but I saw Comey's decision to Burn Clinton's campaign to the ground as Comey thinking "consequences be damned, this is the correct thing to do". The FBI has not always been so rigid or principled. I choose to see Comey's Clinton letter as an attempt to bring the FBI back to a more rigid, unfeeling entity. I want the FBI to be that, an unfeeling yet ferociously persistent animal that wants nothing more than to make people answer for their crimes. What are you saying you don't get? What I mean by liking the end result is that (more) people had confidence the FBI was not just being partisan by going after Manafort and Flynn. People thinking "damn, apparently the FBI just rips apart anyone who has done bad shit, party be damned" is a good thing. The next high profile democrat taken down by the FBI will have less reasons to cry about partisan bullshit after all this. There have been some very, very partisan investigations throughout history. I would like to think the Clinton and Trump investigations were not partisan in nature. That is the "end result" I am happy about. And I am happy about the fact that it will make political parties think twice before trying to get away with someone shady. why would you think that was comey's reasoning? I mean, you can as you say, choose to see it that way, but that doesn't mean it is that way. you also seem to be glossing over the point wherein comey's actions may have themselves violated the law and fbi policy. and the current results don' tdiscourage people from using someone shady; as the shadier (by far) candidate won. oh and @introvert, i'm gonna assume based on your non-response that you're not even aware of the previous argument you made, the one to which I objected. so you're just being very sloppy in posting and arguing. I don't have a lot of reason to see it any other way. I think he had no "good" way out. And while yes, I do believe Trump to be the shadier one, he had not yet entered politics and didn't have nearly the presence/history for investigating. After Mueller is done with his investigation, I think trying to elect another Trump will feel like a bad idea. he maynot have had a "good" way out, in that it's safe for him, but it's quite possible that he did the morally (and legally) wrong thing; but some methods are more about covering his ass than others. why would you ascribe such a positive motivation to it, rathe rthan the simple one: there may be no good way out, but some bads are less bad than others; and a bureacrat chose the path that he believed most protected himself/covered his own ass. you've also done little to establish/argue that what he did was actually the right thing to do. why was it the right thing to do in the circumstance? (and do you recall the specifics of the situation well enough?) i'm not sure what your point about him not having entered politics before has to do with the matter, as it was well proven that trump was shadier for some time prior to the voting. we knew trump was a bad idea before the election, some people did it anyways. You might be right about him covering his own ass. His bullshit parade going on talk shows and shit like that certainly makes it seem that way. Comey is actively stomping on his own credibility every day by talking about private conversations with Obama and going on these awful talk shows. My first thought was that Comey was trying to humanize and increase sympathy and approval for the FBI by being their mascot. I am beginning to question that. I think it was the wrong thing to do at the time but may have had a positive net impact. From a purely "good of the whole" perspective, I think Comey's decision was bad for the country. But if the combination of Comey's letter and Mueller's investigation end up setting precedent for deeply powerful people getting spanked, I think it could have significant long term benefits. That is all assuming *if* the precedent set means a lot less shady people in politics. It all gets back to my desire for politicians to be afraid of the law, rather than brazenly side stepping it. Much less progress can be made so long as politicians are corrupt or shady. Edit: After more thought, I am realizing a lot of actions that could be interpreted to be Comey covering his own ass could also be seen as actions intended to cover the FBI's ass. Which I will see is a noble, necessary goal. I think a lot of messed up societal shit would happen if the general public lost faith in the FBI.
in what way would comey's letter itself set a precedent of less shady people in politics? i.e. what did comey's letter do to further that goal specifically.
Do you understand the primary objections people have to comey's letter? (and we're talking about the late october 2016 one, right?)
are you aware of the problematic history of the fbi itself?
|
On April 14 2018 01:28 zlefin wrote:
in what way would comey's letter itself set a precedent of less shady people in politics? i.e. what did comey's letter do to further that goal specifically.
Do you understand the primary objections people have to comey's letter? (and we're talking about the late october 2016 one, right?)
are you aware of the problematic history of the fbi itself?
1. Comey's letter showed the FBI would not hesitate to do their job for political reasons. They won't say "well shit, they are the presumed president, there are bigger things at play here than some email bullshit". They will spank everyone that needs to be spanked.
2. How about you clarify what your objections were. I understand why I objected. It felt wildly irresponsible and close-minded to me at the time.
3. Yes, which is why I think it is good that Comey (presumably) tried to help the FBI's credibility by using very 1-dimensional thinking.
|
On April 14 2018 01:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2018 01:28 zlefin wrote:
in what way would comey's letter itself set a precedent of less shady people in politics? i.e. what did comey's letter do to further that goal specifically.
Do you understand the primary objections people have to comey's letter? (and we're talking about the late october 2016 one, right?)
are you aware of the problematic history of the fbi itself? 1. Comey's letter showed the FBI would not hesitate to do their job for political reasons. They won't say "well shit, they are the presumed president, there are bigger things at play here than some email bullshit". They will spank everyone that needs to be spanked. 2. How about you clarify what your objections were. I understand why I objected. It felt wildly irresponsible and close-minded to me at the time. 3. Yes, which is why I think it is good that Comey (presumably) tried to help the FBI's credibility by using very 1-dimensional thinking.
how does it show 1?
they could've simply investigated it, and once they ofund it was nothing, reported that, or reported nothing at all, because there was nothing noteworthy to report.
the investigation into the matter would've occurred regardless of the letter; so the letter doesn't show that. which still leaves the matter of what does the letter show?
also, in this case they were spanking someone that didn' tneed to be spanked.
I object for 2 basic reasons: a) because it's a violation of a well-justified policy. b) because they didn't have anything. thus they raised a bunch of smoke/alarms over nothing, when they could've just waited. the reason I'm askin questions like that is because i'm getting a "vibe" of you missing some of the basic facts of the situation. and the easiest way to check out such a vibe is by asking the person to explain their understanding of it/ask them to go voer the basic facts of the situation.
if you're aware of the fbi's history, then why would you endorse an action whcih has the fbi doing the problematic thing from its history: interfering in elections? the whole point of the rules is for the fbi to stay OUT of trying to tilt elections.
|
On April 14 2018 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2018 00:33 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2018 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:On April 14 2018 00:05 Introvert wrote:On April 13 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote:On April 13 2018 23:55 Introvert wrote:On April 13 2018 23:47 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2018 23:20 Introvert wrote:On April 13 2018 21:10 Grumbels wrote:On April 13 2018 02:27 Plansix wrote:This story on CNN about the GOP’s plan to discredit Comey that includes buying ad time to do it is something else. Just wild that a political party would go through so much effort to discredit him and be so overt about it. I'm not wild about Comey's book tour, but the man can do whatever he wants and this is what happens when people get fired from goverment. They write books about their experience. https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/12/politics/trump-comey-publicity-tour/index.html The conservative understanding of politics implies a willingness to play dirty. If you have a renegade figure such as Comey, who used to be a reliable bureaucrat presiding over a right wing law enforcement policy, but who was misfortunate enough to become a political liability, then the answer is clear. You immediately turn on that person, distance yourself from them, and covertly try to destroy them. It's a mercenary sort of mindset, which I think is particularly common to right-wing movements, but which is especially noticeable for being entirely absent within the liberal establishment. This otherwise pleasant characteristic has a downside, as liberals tend to tolerate and rehabilitate conservatives at an alarming rate, constantly insisting on compromise and understanding with the same figures that earlier plotted to lead the country into right-wing misery and eternal war. Personally I can hardly stand it for David Frum or Bill Kristol to be part of the #resistance, or for Paul Ryan to be rehabilitated as a responsible politician who tried, but failed, to have Trump follow proper procedure. The left spent hours trashing Comey for sinking Hillary until the moment he was fired. Now he's a hero. Meanwhile he's busy beclowning himself and showing his massive ego. But some people so hate Trump that apparently Trump asking for something to be proven to not exist is evidence of its existence while Comey comes out and says "I don't know," code for "I have no evidence it does but that's not a headline." Someone said, I don't remember who (not on TL) that while Trump is a scumbag he also has a way of revealing who else is too. Doesn't seem half wrong. the left is a big group, with many people who did different things. is it the SAME people saying those things, or simpyl different people on the left, that you decided to group together as a single entity to cast unsound aspersions upon? also, who are you implying is a scumbag? It was and is pretty universal. Find me someone on the left who thinks Comey did a good job handling the email investigation. Can you please be more specific about “the left”? There is nothing universal about a group that large. And which part of the investigation? Uh, the entire left? Except maybe a few Bernie people who hate Hillary? Why am I getting push back on this contention? Every Democrat or other leftwing person thinks Comey shouldn't have released his October letter for instance. Some are still upset he was so harsh on Hillary even in July. Democrat leadership said he should lose his job, if I recall. Certainly enough people to make that statement generally true. I know there is a bugaboo about using " the left" but it seems pretty justified here. I assume I qualify as a left person. I said at the time that it was horrible timing but that Comey had to send to letter to cover his ass. If he doesn't he gets bombed for 'hiding an investigation into Clinton during the election". I'm going to have to stop posting after this for now but part of Comey criticism is how his previous actions left him in that position in October. And an excerpt from his book says he thought the polls showed Hillary would win anyways so he did it (?). He might have been able to handle the hearing differently. I think that was what caused the letter, he had stated the investigation into Hillary's email server was closed. And when more info later surfaced it was briefly re-opened to see if the new info changed anything (it didn't). Comey felt compelled to inform Congress of this to prevent himself from coming under fire later if he didn't and something was actually found. (its been a while since it happened and I cba to go back and re-read up on it, so some facts may be off). But imo thats a case of hindsight being 20/20. In my eyes he did what he felt he had to do to avoid seeming partisan (hiding the re-opening to protect Clinton's run) and by association the FBI. Seeing how the GOP is reacting now. Can you imagine how mad they would have gotten if he says nothing, Clinton wins and then later it is revealed that she came under renewed investigation in the closing weeks of the election and the FBI hid it? Bloody murder wouldn't begin to describe it.
That's correct. Comey informed Congress back in the summer of 2016 when the FBI closed the email investigation that he would tell Congress if the investigation was reopened. He didn't make his October letter public. He sent that letter to the heads of certain Congressional committees who immediately leaked it to the media.
I think Clinton should have been prosecuted over the email investigation. I fail to see the difference between the phrase "extreme carelessness," which Comey used to describe Clinton's handling of classified info, and the criminal "gross negligence" described in the law criminalizing mishandling classified info. Also, Comey originally described Clinton's actions with respect to classified info as "gross negligence" in the first drafts of the memo that eventually was used to exonerate her.
What angers me far more than the mishandling of the Clinton investigation, however, is that Donald Trump was under FBI investigation during the 2016 election for his campaign's ties to the Russians and we were never informed of the existence of this investigation. In fact, the New York Times issued its infamous article Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia a week before the election. Both candidates were under FBI investigation in 2016 but the public was only informed of the existence of one investigation-- the far less serious one. It's completely ridiculous.
|
The following assertions can both be true.
(1) Comey did a poor job of handling the HRC email investigation (see DAG Rosenstein's memo)
(2) Trump fired Comey over the "russia thing" in his own words
(1) can be bad, and (2) can be bad. That Comey did bad things in the past does not legitamize Trump's efforts to obstruct the Russia probe by firing Comey.
EDIT: take note that in today's DJT twitter rants, DJT never mentions Comey's poor job of handling the HRC investigation. It never comes up as a reason Comey was fired.
|
My biggest complaint about the Clinton investigation is that it did not lead to any changes in rules or requirements for email or embassy security. Once the election was over, all five committees just packed up and moved on.
And I would be comfortable with them bringing charges against Clinton if that entire investigation wasn’t so dragged out to run the entire length of the 2016 election. It completely tainted the process. You could tell that the FBI was completely uncomfortable with such a public investigation of a candidate.
|
Not to mention that these Republican figures were revealed to be using their personal emails systems or systems like Telegram, etc.
|
And Trump pardoned Scooter Libby for no real reason. Well the real reason is that the guy lied under oath and was the ‘victim of the special counsel”. But the man’s sentence was commuted by Bush.
|
On April 14 2018 02:22 Plansix wrote:
My biggest complaint about the Clinton investigation is that it did not lead to any changes in rules or requirements for email or embassy security. Once the election was over, all five committees just packed up and moved on.
And I would be comfortable with them bringing charges against Clinton if that entire investigation wasn’t so dragged out to run the entire length of the 2016 election. It completely tainted the process. You could tell that the FBI was completely uncomfortable with such a public investigation of a candidate.
At the moment in Brazil a de facto right-wing coup has taken place by means of anti-corruption investigations that tactically prioritize popular left-wing politicians while leaving the openly corrupt president in place. I think you have to consider that every high level politician is probably guilty of some type of corruption, negligence or graft, simply by nature of the system. Singling out Hillary Clinton for the comparatively minor “crime” of mismanaging her emails is so obviously politically motivated that it has to be treated purely as a smear campaign, and if her guilt is ever acknowledged it has to be within the context of mentioning the habitual corruption engaged in by her most vitriolic attackers.
Clinton is a “normal” politician, in the literal sense of adhering to norms and procedure. She could be trusted as a reliable manager of the US government. Trump presents a breach of the idea that norms matter. I don’t think mindlessly seeking for the reestablishment of norms will be the panacea some liberals think it will be, and ultimately popular anger about marginalisation, imperialism and inequality etc. have to be taken seriously, but nevertheless, it is better to have a normal politician such as Clinton rather than someone so utterly mercenary as Trump and his cadre of freaks. And to me that is contingent on a defence of Clinton if she is singled out for breaking the letter of the law while following its spirit, while adhering to the standard procedures. That is why I cannot agree to a “both sides do it” opposition to both candidates as a principled stance.
|
it's annoying that we're gonna have to revisit the pardon power to put in better checks to stop the kind of misuses of it trump has done.
|
We would need to amend the constitution to fix the pardon power. It is such a minor issue to spend that much political capital on.
|
On April 14 2018 03:27 Plansix wrote:
We would need to amend the constitution to fix the pardon power. It is such a minor issue to spend that much political capital on.
I don't know how much capital i'd spend on it; but i'd at least build a plan to fix it, which can be done without much actual capital spending, sinc eit's just talk at that stage; much like the various commissions/committees that make reports that get ignored.
|
idk how you'd put checks on that though. Seems like something you either don't have at all (in this case, get rid off) or you have it the way you do with no checks at all and if it does get abused it's on you for getting such a guy into office.
I tend to agree with Plansix on this: while obviously an issue I just don't see it as a major one at all. Ignore it and better luck next time imo.
That attitude would probably change if this ends up the opening of pandora's box and it'll start being a thing in the future no matter who ends up president because you can get away with it but until that happens I think you're good with it just being a freak thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
