|
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 March 27 2019 23:46 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 23:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 23:17 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2019 23:11 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 23:01 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2019 22:54 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 22:29 Nebuchad wrote:
There are only two interesting questions regarding xDaunt's conspiracy theory:
1. What was the aim of the conspiracy?
2. Why are they so bad at it? There are two obvious answers to the first question (not that they are exclusive or correct): 1) the ability to spy on a political opponent, and 2) destruction of a political opponent. Just look at how much damage has been inflicted on Trump over the past two years. The second question is the more interesting one. I think the answer to it could be that no one expected Trump to win the election, thus no one expected any of the Crossfire Hurricane stuff or any of the foreign intelligence-related stuff to come to light. Why are we creating a conspiracy to defeat a political opponent when we don't expect him to have a chance of winning the election? Well, the initial goal was to spy on him. Just think of how much opposition research you can do with the tools that law enforcement had available. Defeating him became the new, primary objective after he won. My hunch is that the people involved really thought that they would find something dirty on Trump which would allow them to somewhat ex post facto justify what they did if need be, but they failed to do so. So they created this epic conspiracy to go after your guy, and one of the main principles that they relied on for making it work was: "I hope xDaunt's guy is really guilty of the thing that I'm creating this conspiracy around, so that I don't look bad for having accused him of it"? Like I said, I don’t know. But the value of spying on a political opponent is self-evident, regardless of the additional contingencies that are planned. Sure spying is cool but you did mention yourself that after they lost the election they turned to trying to destroy him. So when they made that decision, your theory is that they relied heavily on him being guilty of something that they created a conspiracy about, or, and I quote: "I don't know". And please consider that we are pretending that there weren't signs of the "destruction" part before the election, not just the "spying", in order to have this conversation.
What do you want? You are asking me to speculate. Yes, they wanted to spy on Trump. And yes, I believe that they thought that they probably would find something with their spying that they could use against Trump later. It’s obvious enough from the materials that are out there that they had tremendous anti-Trump animus and were pre-disposed to believing that he was a crook. And we can also see from the Strzok/Page messages that there was some worry that they might come up empty in their investigation (“what if there’s no there there”).
And no, I don’t think that there was a lack of intent to destroy Trump if possible prior to his election. The priorities and methods simply shifted after he got elected.
|
On March 28 2019 10:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2019 23:46 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2019 23:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 23:17 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2019 23:11 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 23:01 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2019 22:54 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 22:29 Nebuchad wrote:
There are only two interesting questions regarding xDaunt's conspiracy theory:
1. What was the aim of the conspiracy?
2. Why are they so bad at it? There are two obvious answers to the first question (not that they are exclusive or correct): 1) the ability to spy on a political opponent, and 2) destruction of a political opponent. Just look at how much damage has been inflicted on Trump over the past two years. The second question is the more interesting one. I think the answer to it could be that no one expected Trump to win the election, thus no one expected any of the Crossfire Hurricane stuff or any of the foreign intelligence-related stuff to come to light. Why are we creating a conspiracy to defeat a political opponent when we don't expect him to have a chance of winning the election? Well, the initial goal was to spy on him. Just think of how much opposition research you can do with the tools that law enforcement had available. Defeating him became the new, primary objective after he won. My hunch is that the people involved really thought that they would find something dirty on Trump which would allow them to somewhat ex post facto justify what they did if need be, but they failed to do so. So they created this epic conspiracy to go after your guy, and one of the main principles that they relied on for making it work was: "I hope xDaunt's guy is really guilty of the thing that I'm creating this conspiracy around, so that I don't look bad for having accused him of it"? Like I said, I don’t know. But the value of spying on a political opponent is self-evident, regardless of the additional contingencies that are planned. Sure spying is cool but you did mention yourself that after they lost the election they turned to trying to destroy him. So when they made that decision, your theory is that they relied heavily on him being guilty of something that they created a conspiracy about, or, and I quote: "I don't know". And please consider that we are pretending that there weren't signs of the "destruction" part before the election, not just the "spying", in order to have this conversation. What do you want? You are asking me to speculate. Yes, they wanted to spy on Trump. And yes, I believe that they thought that they probably would find something with their spying that they could use against Trump later. It’s obvious enough from the materials that are out there that they had tremendous anti-Trump animus and were pre-disposed to believing that he was a crook. And we can also see from the Strzok/Page messages that there was some worry that they might come up empty in their investigation (“what if there’s no there there”). And no, I don’t think that there was a lack of intent to destroy Trump if possible prior to his election. The priorities and methods simply shifted after he got elected.
Trump is definitely a crook and they have clearly found things that they can use against him, but let's stay focused; it's pretty obvious what I want. When we get lost in the details of the theory, you may sound to some people as if you're making sense, because you get to dictate what details we are taking into account and what details we aren't. It's much better to question your theory in its entirety by displaying that it doesn't present a coherent picture of why the conspiracy is taking place, or how it was ever supposed to work.
The villain of your story is at the same time incredibly powerful, from the deep state to the FBI with - I'm sure coincidentally - the two people you dislike the most in politics, Clinton and Obama, at the middle of it, and at the same time incredibly inept, to the point that it managed to improve Trump's image right in the middle of his term when the conspiracy was about trying to smear him. And their whole masterplan at the end turned out to be: "Let's create the circumstances where we can look at whether this Trump guy is dirty, and we're going to cross our fingers and hope really hard that he is!!!"
Nothing adds up here. That's not how conspiracies function.
|
Trump is definitely a crook and they have clearly found things that they can use against him
Oh awesome neb, when will you be bringing your findings to the house? I didn't know you as well conducted a 10+million dollar investigation. Its also coincidental that the youtuber's or alt media you disagree with happen to be "grifters" or "facists" or supporting "the most facist candidates".
In other news, the Jussie Smollet case is just INSANE pals I mean honestly its some of the best entertainment ever good god. The CPD is super pissed off,the mayor is outraged, will the fed's throw the book at him for the mail powder stuff? God only knows but it is just so interesting/entertaining/bewildering, never seen anything like it.
|
Reading through the comments on t_d about the FBI looking int the Smollet situation displays a hilarious lack of self awareness. So much so that I feel like I'm getting reverse Poe's Law.
|
On March 28 2019 10:48 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2019 10:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 23:46 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2019 23:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 23:17 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2019 23:11 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 23:01 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2019 22:54 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2019 22:29 Nebuchad wrote:
There are only two interesting questions regarding xDaunt's conspiracy theory:
1. What was the aim of the conspiracy?
2. Why are they so bad at it? There are two obvious answers to the first question (not that they are exclusive or correct): 1) the ability to spy on a political opponent, and 2) destruction of a political opponent. Just look at how much damage has been inflicted on Trump over the past two years. The second question is the more interesting one. I think the answer to it could be that no one expected Trump to win the election, thus no one expected any of the Crossfire Hurricane stuff or any of the foreign intelligence-related stuff to come to light. Why are we creating a conspiracy to defeat a political opponent when we don't expect him to have a chance of winning the election? Well, the initial goal was to spy on him. Just think of how much opposition research you can do with the tools that law enforcement had available. Defeating him became the new, primary objective after he won. My hunch is that the people involved really thought that they would find something dirty on Trump which would allow them to somewhat ex post facto justify what they did if need be, but they failed to do so. So they created this epic conspiracy to go after your guy, and one of the main principles that they relied on for making it work was: "I hope xDaunt's guy is really guilty of the thing that I'm creating this conspiracy around, so that I don't look bad for having accused him of it"? Like I said, I don’t know. But the value of spying on a political opponent is self-evident, regardless of the additional contingencies that are planned. Sure spying is cool but you did mention yourself that after they lost the election they turned to trying to destroy him. So when they made that decision, your theory is that they relied heavily on him being guilty of something that they created a conspiracy about, or, and I quote: "I don't know". And please consider that we are pretending that there weren't signs of the "destruction" part before the election, not just the "spying", in order to have this conversation. What do you want? You are asking me to speculate. Yes, they wanted to spy on Trump. And yes, I believe that they thought that they probably would find something with their spying that they could use against Trump later. It’s obvious enough from the materials that are out there that they had tremendous anti-Trump animus and were pre-disposed to believing that he was a crook. And we can also see from the Strzok/Page messages that there was some worry that they might come up empty in their investigation (“what if there’s no there there”). And no, I don’t think that there was a lack of intent to destroy Trump if possible prior to his election. The priorities and methods simply shifted after he got elected. Trump is definitely a crook and they have clearly found things that they can use against him, but let's stay focused; it's pretty obvious what I want. When we get lost in the details of the theory, you may sound to some people as if you're making sense, because you get to dictate what details we are taking into account and what details we aren't. It's much better to question your theory in its entirety by displaying that it doesn't present a coherent picture of why the conspiracy is taking place, or how it was ever supposed to work. The villain of your story is at the same time incredibly powerful, from the deep state to the FBI with - I'm sure coincidentally - the two people you dislike the most in politics, Clinton and Obama, at the middle of it, and at the same time incredibly inept, to the point that it managed to improve Trump's image right in the middle of his term when the conspiracy was about trying to smear him. And their whole masterplan at the end turned out to be: "Let's create the circumstances where we can look at whether this Trump guy is dirty, and we're going to cross our fingers and hope really hard that he is!!!" Nothing adds up here. That's not how conspiracies function.
You can’t expect me to offer you the details of the motives of the conspiracy when I already said I don’t have them. Hell, I highly doubt that there is even one conspiracy. It’s more probable that there are multiple. Just off the top of my head there are three discrete buckets of wrongful conduct: FISA abuse, leaks to the media, and whatever Western intelligence was up to. Some players might be involved in all three. Most players are only involved in one or two. As Doodsmack relayed in his last post, this stuff is incredibly complicated factually.
All that I have offered are discrete, known data points wrongful conduct with explanations for how various players may be tied to them. I have no doubt that Trump and his team knows the full story and that they are the ones who are selectively leaking portions of it to various reporters and media outlets to prepare the way for whatever is coming. He has made it very clear for months that he has zero intention of letting this stuff go now that Mueller is done. So I suspect that we are all going to find out sooner rather than later — and definitely before the election — what really happened.
|
I love the Smollett case because you can tell who is completely uninformed because they take anything the Chicago Police say at face value. And believe the shit heel that is Chicago’s mayor, who licks the boots of that police union. The DA punting that case is the biggest favor the CPD ever received and they are still mad about it.
|
On March 28 2019 11:46 Taelshin wrote:Show nested quote +Trump is definitely a crook and they have clearly found things that they can use against him Oh awesome neb, when will you be bringing your findings to the house? I didn't know you as well conducted a 10+million dollar investigation. Its also coincidental that the youtuber's or alt media you disagree with happen to be "grifters" or "facists" or supporting "the most facist candidates".
No, it's not coincidental. It's the reason why I dislike them.
|
On March 28 2019 11:46 Taelshin wrote:Show nested quote +Trump is definitely a crook and they have clearly found things that they can use against him Oh awesome neb, when will you be bringing your findings to the house? I didn't know you as well conducted a 10+million dollar investigation. Its also coincidental that the youtuber's or alt media you disagree with happen to be "grifters" or "facists" or supporting "the most facist candidates". In other news, the Jussie Smollet case is just INSANE pals I mean honestly its some of the best entertainment ever good god. The CPD is super pissed off,the mayor is outraged, will the fed's throw the book at him for the mail powder stuff? God only knows but it is just so interesting/entertaining/bewildering, never seen anything like it.
If the man is so evil, yet so stupid, you should know every investigation in search of a crime is justified and every past unsuccessful one just more proof that we must start the next. If Mueller couldn't find all these obvious things with $25 million, but uncovered some pesky almost-obstruction, just imagine what $50 million would do!
It's important to keep a sense of humor through these national trials. You can't puzzle your way through how two years of conspiracy theories are old news not worth worrying about. It's just depressing.
Jussie Smollett should be just a sideshow bit in another era. Successful actor seeks to bolster his career with a manufactured victimhood badge.
Democratic presidential candidates do not hesitate to believe MAGA Trumpers stalking the streets of Chicago beat up, bleach, and fasten a noose around a gay actor and tweet support.
Corruption and/or police negligence make it all go away.
What can you do but laugh at celebrity privilege? It's just another scene in the culture war, happening after Kavanaugh and Covington, and before events yet to occur.
|
On March 28 2019 12:11 Plansix wrote:
I love the Smollett case because you can tell who is completely uninformed because they take anything the Chicago Police say at face value. And believe the shit heel that is Chicago’s mayor, who licks the boots of that police union. The DA punting that case is the biggest favor the CPD ever received and they are still mad about it.
What is so defective about the case that merits dropping a grand jury indictment?
|
who know's the CPD is pretty inept they may have done something really stupid, and the mayor is also a hack, It could also be rules for thee but not for me celeb committing crime, could be friends in high places. The whole thing is an absolute gongshow lol.
|
On March 28 2019 00:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2019 00:23 Doodsmack wrote:On March 27 2019 20:48 Gorsameth wrote:
Ah yes, the Steele dossier. The one that McCain handed to the FBI, not Hillary, and who did that AFTER the elections, not before.
When the investigation into Trump was started months before after an Australian diplomat in Britain heard Papadopoulos, who worked for Trump, brag about knowing that Russia had Hillary's emails.
Repeat a lie often enough and hope that no one remembers the truth.
Remember, we have always been at war with Eurasia. There's a very complicated set of facts involved in this whole story and you're demonstrating somewhat of a lack of knowledge of them. The only reason Papadapolous "knew" Russia had emails was because a Western intelligence asset, Mifsud, who for some time beforehand had been attempting to get P to think that he was a Russian agent (in suspicious and not entirely convincing ways), told him that. Around this time, various agents from the "five eyes" countries were approaching P and not even being subtle about it. The encounter with the Australian diplomat (Downer) was not a chance one - it was part of the five eyes' approach and it was arranged by a Western intelligence agent. Downer then likely recorded his conversation with P. The possibility that this raises is that Mifsud was a plant, and they wanted P to then go and tell some other agent what Mifsud had told him. That in turn raises the possibility that they were attempting to manufacture a predicate for a wider investigation. I'm not saying any of the above is proven, but it seems quite possible that the real "collusion" suspicion was in fact just a sting. Of course, Trump being Trump, he was surrounded by goons who didn't react well to there being an investigation, and generally lived lives of criminality that couldn't stand up to scrutiny. But the question here is the validity of the original collusion suspicion. Sure, that, Roger Stone and the Trump tower meeting were all just happy coincidences during a grand conspiracy by multiple foreign nations to spy on Trumps campaign for 'reasons'.
Don't confuse the results of the investigation with the predicate. In US law, law enforcement investigations require a predicate. If the police knock down someone's door for no reason whatsoever and find a stash of heroine inside, they cannot prosecute that person (Fourth Amendment). In order to be lawful, the collusion investigation required a valid predicate. What you're referring to (Stone, Trump Tower meeting) came after the initiation of the investigation, but the results can't justify the initiation.
As of now I would say there is valid suspicion as to whether spycraft was engaged in overseas for the purpose of engineering a predicate for a law enforcement investigation of people in Trump's campaign. Namely, Carter Page and George Papadapolous. Unfortunately for the people who conducted this investigation, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were texting in a very candid way and their texts became public. The totality of the evidence makes it plausible that the investigation was initiated out of a deep antipathy to Trump (and it wasn't just the US - even Israeli agents approached Papadapolous, expressing skepticism of Trump's favorability to Russia and by extension his views on the Iran deal), and eventually became an "insurance policy" (in the words of Strzok) to throw a wrench in the wheels of a Trump presidency.
You could call this a conspiracy, but there's evidence. Granted I'm not entirely sure the evidence supports the theory, but it's out there.
|
All that being said, I believe that Trump is an evil demon and that from the standpoint of justice and utilitarianism in the universe, Trump deserved every whipping he got as a result of the Russia investigation. His birtherism was designed to suggest that Obama was an illegitimate president. It was the most offensive and racist thing Obama could possibly have been subjected to. And Obama was pissed. Funny thing - if Trump colluded with Russia, he would be an illegitimate president  .
|
On March 28 2019 14:21 Doodsmack wrote:
You could call this a conspiracy, but there's evidence. Granted I'm not entirely sure the evidence supports the theory, but it's out there.
That is an amazing sentence
|
On March 28 2019 14:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2019 14:21 Doodsmack wrote:
You could call this a conspiracy, but there's evidence. Granted I'm not entirely sure the evidence supports the theory, but it's out there.
That is an amazing sentence
That is just to say that it's worth looking into. The evidence is sufficient to warrant an investigation.
|
On March 28 2019 13:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2019 12:11 Plansix wrote:
I love the Smollett case because you can tell who is completely uninformed because they take anything the Chicago Police say at face value. And believe the shit heel that is Chicago’s mayor, who licks the boots of that police union. The DA punting that case is the biggest favor the CPD ever received and they are still mad about it. What is so defective about the case that merits dropping a grand jury indictment?
The numerous public statements by the chief of police showing a desire to make an example of Smollett coupled with the CPDs long and well documented history of misconduct and doctoring evidence. This is the police department that recently was caught running an off the books black site where they would illegal interrogate people, after all.
|
On March 28 2019 19:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2019 13:34 xDaunt wrote:On March 28 2019 12:11 Plansix wrote:
I love the Smollett case because you can tell who is completely uninformed because they take anything the Chicago Police say at face value. And believe the shit heel that is Chicago’s mayor, who licks the boots of that police union. The DA punting that case is the biggest favor the CPD ever received and they are still mad about it. What is so defective about the case that merits dropping a grand jury indictment? The numerous public statements by the chief of police showing a desire to make an example of Smollett coupled with the CPDs long and well documented history of misconduct and doctoring evidence. This is the police department that recently was caught running an off the books black site where they would illegal interrogate people, after all.
I did not hear anything wrong with CPD’s statement. Seemed like normal prosecutorial zeal. And even accounting for past bad conduct, presuming that evidence was doctored in this instance seems outlandish.
|
On March 28 2019 19:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2019 19:19 Plansix wrote:On March 28 2019 13:34 xDaunt wrote:On March 28 2019 12:11 Plansix wrote:
I love the Smollett case because you can tell who is completely uninformed because they take anything the Chicago Police say at face value. And believe the shit heel that is Chicago’s mayor, who licks the boots of that police union. The DA punting that case is the biggest favor the CPD ever received and they are still mad about it. What is so defective about the case that merits dropping a grand jury indictment? The numerous public statements by the chief of police showing a desire to make an example of Smollett coupled with the CPDs long and well documented history of misconduct and doctoring evidence. This is the police department that recently was caught running an off the books black site where they would illegal interrogate people, after all. I did not hear anything wrong with CPD’s statement. Seemed like normal prosecutorial zeal. And even accounting for past bad conduct, presuming that evidence was doctored in this instance seems outlandish.
It is outlandish to distrust a police department with a long history of misconduct that has not reformed itself? That argued Smollett faked the crime because he was unhappy with his pay and used a check to pay the criminals, who accepted the check? If they knew he was going to report this to the police, why was it so easy to arrest the people involved with the conspiracy?
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that arrived right on the police’s doorstep very quickly. Now, it could be that Smollett is, in fact, deeply stupid and wrote a check to people to fake a crime against him. But being stupid is such a manner that presents the Chicago police with this perfect, neat little case seems unlikely.
|
He said the 2 people caught on tape were the people who committed the crime. The cops arrested those people, they came clean and said he put them up to it and paid them for it. Even without the cheque theres 2 people whom he said were the culprits that are fingering him. Oh ya and he managed to hold onto his subway sandy, LOL!.
Really though the CPD has a real bad track record but they did spend a bit more then a month on this before they flipped it on Smollet himself. IMO the story is more stupid the more times you go over it, and it was so stupid that it couldn't help but fall into the lap of the police, no matter how inept they may be.
It looks like there will be an investigation into why he got off so easily and why his records were sealed instantly, and that doesn't even count the possible federal crime of him allegedly sending "white powder" to himself in the mail. I couldn't even hope to predict where this circus is going but boy is it a good show.
|
All charges dropped and records sealed just screams some sort of serious police misconduct that would get the police destroyed in court despite the entire thing being set up by Smollet.
|
On March 28 2019 21:32 Gorsameth wrote:
All charges dropped and records sealed just screams some sort of serious police misconduct that would get the police destroyed in court despite the entire thing being set up by Smollet.
This ends up looking good for nobody and doing lots of damage all around. But when the fantastically corrupt Chicago Police Department won't even bring a case against someone, you know they done fucked up big time somewhere. Chalk that up to "prosecutorial zeal".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
