|
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 08 2019 02:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2019 23:41 Taelshin wrote:So under that criteria Obama met and had a photo op with Louis Farrakhan, Does that mean Obama was an anti semite,or thinks jews are termites? or was he just courting Farrakhan's followers? https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-appearances/the-politics-of-race-and-the-photo-that-might-have-derailed-obamaThis type of thinking is insane, the MAGA hat is a hat, supporting trump, not neo-nazis, not racists. Its a hat. I've never seen ANY proof trump is a racist so i'm not gonna bother "making the argument" against it when it seems to just not exist. Maybe you can call up Omarosa and ask her to give you the fabled N-word tape, that'd prob change my mind. It seem's like the left is far more concerned with the MAGA hat then anyone on the right. But hey with out the hat we wouldn't have Jussie, or gems like this https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/04/04/maga-hat-confrontation-trump-supporter-palo-alto-starbucks/This is a story about a woman who went into a starbucks and saw an elderly jewish man wearing a MAGA hat and decided to berate him and attempt to rally other patron's to her side. Luckily in this case, she got fired from her job for her lunacy. The bringing up the the MS-13 animals clip out of context and edited down a year later is laughable and frankly I cant believe anyone here would fall for that. Trump was right in what he said at the time, and now. EDIT: I also wanted to add I believe the daily stormer croud ( a neo-nazi esq white supremacist website ) supported rep Ilhan Omar after her anti-semitic comments, I don't even want to go to that website or link it here, but you can google it if inclined. Does that mean she's courting these people's votes? that's a weird marriage It sounds like you know the basics of the left's antisemitism. They know black community leaders are valuable on the identity politics scene even if they call Jews termites, blame Jews for the Jim Crow laws and the slave trade in general, and shadow manipulate Congress. So people like Obama visit and photograph with them. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib repeat portions of the rhetoric, like hypnotizing the world and possessing dual loyalties in their countries of residence. There will be no uproar like you see with far-right antisemitic figures. You might get some hand wringing in the NYT about microagressions at worst ( NYT) + Show Spoiler +The identity politics fiasco surrounding Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has been excruciating. Half of me is angry at her. The other half is furious for her.
Among the most basic anti-Semitic tropes are these: Jews employ semi-occult powers to control world events; they manipulate hapless gentiles with their money; and Jews in the diaspora are disloyal to the countries in which they live. Omar, in the course of making perfectly valid criticisms of Israel and its most powerful American lobby, has invoked each of these tropes.
Twice now, she has publicly expressed regret for saying things that many Jews — including some who are quite far to the left on Israel — see as freighted with anti-Semitism, only to reignite public controversy with new insensitive comments. Most recently, while speaking on a panel last week, she said, “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is O.K. for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” The first appropriate response is to recognize the racist/bigoted standard they apply to Donald Trump will not be correspondingly applied to their own side. It can't be used as an excuse by Trump fans simply because as bad as the Democrats are on the subject, it doesn't legitimize some Trump's positions or statements in the least. The last bit about the hat has been played to death. The logic moves in circles. Because Trump is racist, people wearing the hat supporting him are somewhat racist or excuse racism. Because they excuse racism, or worse, the hat they wear is a racist, anti-immigrant symbol. The same applies with derogatory interpretations of the phrase flowing into the phrase is nativist and racist. I think Democrats will already reap negative political headwinds from going too far on their interpretation of symbolism. It's just a campaign slogan and people know it can mean restoring America's economic prosperity through better foreign policy, or trade policy, or tax & regulation policy. Everything from "America doesn't win anymore" to "Obama mismanaged the economy and financial crisis" applies. I don't really expect any change in the tides with interpretation and cultural analysis until the Democrats are delivered a major electoral defeat with their current campaign focus. If Trump loses in 2020, it may be several more years before the debate is reconciled between mutual, righteous vilification.
This is why Democrats don't take Republicans seriously.
Amid news of a Trump supporter threatening the life of a Muslim member of congress, and Trump — when speaking to a audience of US Jews said "your prime minister" in reference to Netanyahu and bragging about his support of ethnic cleansing you're talking about how they won't recognize the "antisemitism" of critiquing Israel (despite them immediately throwing Rep. Omar under the bus, whether her comments were problematic or not) or Republicans have taken the growth of white supremacist terrorists, militias, elected representatives, etc... seriously.
You're at least partially right (as I pointed out) about the lack of recognizing their own problematic behavior, but your attribution and framing is way off imo, both for the reasons I've already mentioned and because this is a split in the party, though most of those on the left side of the split aren't really affiliated with the party beyond access to voting/office.
|
It would be pretty insulting to Danglars' intelligence to assume that he can't tell that his position of being concerned with the antisemitism of the left when Trump just did the same thing he's accusing the left of doing, but a thousand times louder and more clearly, is hypocritical. We can and probably should deduce that therefore the principle at play here isn't "antisemitism is bad and harmful", but instead, as is often the case with him: "any line of attack against my political opponent is okay".
|
On April 08 2019 03:57 Nebuchad wrote:
It would be pretty insulting to Danglars' intelligence to assume that he can't tell that his position of being concerned with the antisemitism of the left when Trump just did the same thing he's accusing the left of doing, but a thousand times louder and more clearly, is hypocritical. We can and probably should deduce that therefore the principle at play here isn't "antisemitism is bad and harmful", but instead, as is often the case with him: "any line of attack against my political opponent is okay".
Notice that there is no statement or treatment of the antisemitism of the left anywhere in the post. Just the repeated assumption that without equal criticism of Trump, you don't have to mentally engage with the left. You don't even include a citation of Trump in this. This is entirely keeping with the genre: Say "but Trump" and include "he's worse" to both avoid any investigation of your own side, or any citation and comparison of the other side. It's how Democrats can court Farrakhan, it's how Omar & Tlaib survives, it's how Northam and Fairfax survive, etc. "But the Republicans are worse."
Getting back to Taeshin's point, do not expect even an ounce of reflexive self examination if you criticize Trump for his behavior. The left protects its own.
|
Northern Ireland25353 Posts
What do you mean the Dems won’t change tack without a major defeat? Trump being in the office was a pretty major defeat and that kind of rhetoric and whatnot was a staple of that campaign as well, and the Dems and dem-leaning media have kept that constant if not doubled down on it.
I don’t think overplaying the racism angle is an effective way to go, felt it with that election, felt it with the Brexit referendum over here. If folk are racist they’re not going to flip because they were asked to, if they’re not they’ll end up resenting being associated with it and are prime fodder for anti-establishment rhetoric.
|
Trump's loss was more taken as a vindication that the right is just racists and sexists, rather then any fault of the left. Anything that isn't surface level is then blamed on hillary and the electoral college.
|
On April 08 2019 04:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 03:57 Nebuchad wrote:
It would be pretty insulting to Danglars' intelligence to assume that he can't tell that his position of being concerned with the antisemitism of the left when Trump just did the same thing he's accusing the left of doing, but a thousand times louder and more clearly, is hypocritical. We can and probably should deduce that therefore the principle at play here isn't "antisemitism is bad and harmful", but instead, as is often the case with him: "any line of attack against my political opponent is okay". Notice that there is no statement or treatment of the antisemitism of the left anywhere in the post. Just the repeated assumption that without equal criticism of Trump, you don't have to mentally engage with the left. You don't even include a citation of Trump in this. This is entirely keeping with the genre: Say "but Trump" and include "he's worse" to both avoid any investigation of your own side, or any citation and comparison of the other side. It's how Democrats can court Farrakhan, it's how Omar & Tlaib survives, it's how Northam and Fairfax survive, etc. "But the Republicans are worse." Getting back to Taeshin's point, do not expect even an ounce of reflexive self examination if you criticize Trump for his behavior. The left protects its own.
I've already shared my position on Omar's comments before in this thread (tldr: mostly fine and she has apologized convincingly for the minor things that weren't). The post right above mine contains the quotes from Trump, it would be redundant to bring them up again.
Absent from your post: any form of refutation for my criticism of your position. "If I was ideologically consistent the left wouldn't care" isn't actually a sufficient excuse to not be ideologically consistent.
|
|
|
On April 08 2019 04:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 03:57 Nebuchad wrote:
It would be pretty insulting to Danglars' intelligence to assume that he can't tell that his position of being concerned with the antisemitism of the left when Trump just did the same thing he's accusing the left of doing, but a thousand times louder and more clearly, is hypocritical. We can and probably should deduce that therefore the principle at play here isn't "antisemitism is bad and harmful", but instead, as is often the case with him: "any line of attack against my political opponent is okay". Notice that there is no statement or treatment of the antisemitism of the left anywhere in the post. Just the repeated assumption that without equal criticism of Trump, you don't have to mentally engage with the left. You don't even include a citation of Trump in this. This is entirely keeping with the genre: Say "but Trump" and include "he's worse" to both avoid any investigation of your own side, or any citation and comparison of the other side. It's how Democrats can court Farrakhan, it's how Omar & Tlaib survives, it's how Northam and Fairfax survive, etc. "But the Republicans are worse." Getting back to Taeshin's point, do not expect even an ounce of reflexive self examination if you criticize Trump for his behavior. The left protects its own.
I don't know if you're doing it for effect or if you're unfamiliar with the Democratic party/left dynamics but conflating Northam and Omar is indicative that you're still doing the same thing as before.
Allow me to explain. The people defending Omar (almost none in the party, none in leadership, they want to primary her, AOC, and others) want Northam and the people defending Biden gone.
It would be helpful and more accurate imo if when talking about those factions you distinguish the reasonings (they are distinct) and which you are referencing.
Because I agree on Northam and Fairfax to a degree but as a matter of record the immediate reaction to Omar was condemnation and support for a primary challenger by many of the same people that are the reason Northam wasn't immediately condemned.
You know I take Dems to task when they screw up but when you fail to even want to move on to the next phase of the discussion with those not making the error you're somewhat accurately pointing out, you lose a great deal of credibility and as Neb points out betrays an ulterior motive and inconsistency (like the one you and Democrats are pointing out to each other in a loop) imo.
|
If these members of Mueller's team really thought that Barr was misrepresenting the contents of the report, why are their complaints only reaching the media anonymously and through intermediate sources? Why isn't Andrew Weissman or Jeanie Rhee out there publicly declaring that Barr is perpetrating a fraud on the American people? Haven't you been burned enough by all of the anti-Trump "anonymous sources" in this Russia conspiracy and Mueller investigation nonsense?
I have a very simple answer for you. Barr isn't misrepresenting the report, and it's going to be very obvious that he hasn't once he makes the report largely public in the next week or two.
|
Barr could have avoided all of this by letting the congressional leadership see the report. They all have the clearance.
|
On April 08 2019 04:07 Wombat_NI wrote:
What do you mean the Dems won’t change tack without a major defeat? Trump being in the office was a pretty major defeat and that kind of rhetoric and whatnot was a staple of that campaign as well, and the Dems and dem-leaning media have kept that constant if not doubled down on it.
I don’t think overplaying the racism angle is an effective way to go, felt it with that election, felt it with the Brexit referendum over here. If folk are racist they’re not going to flip because they were asked to, if they’re not they’ll end up resenting being associated with it and are prime fodder for anti-establishment rhetoric.
On April 08 2019 04:09 Sermokala wrote:
Trump's loss was more taken as a vindication that the right is just racists and sexists, rather then any fault of the left. Anything that isn't surface level is then blamed on hillary and the electoral college.
Sermo already beat me to the major point. He’s way more moderate on the spectrum of right-of-center issues, so may be more valuable to you in points of agreements.
|
On April 08 2019 05:00 Plansix wrote:
Barr could have avoided all of this by letting the congressional leadership see the report. They all have the clearance.
The security clearances that senators and congressmen have are immaterial to grand jury secrecy and do not constitute grounds for disclosure.
Edit: This idea that Barr actually has discretion to disclose grand jury materials is simply a farce and patently untrue. Look up the grand jury rules. Y’all are falling for yet another lie being peddled to you for political purposes.
|
Northern Ireland25353 Posts
On April 08 2019 05:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 04:07 Wombat_NI wrote:
What do you mean the Dems won’t change tack without a major defeat? Trump being in the office was a pretty major defeat and that kind of rhetoric and whatnot was a staple of that campaign as well, and the Dems and dem-leaning media have kept that constant if not doubled down on it.
I don’t think overplaying the racism angle is an effective way to go, felt it with that election, felt it with the Brexit referendum over here. If folk are racist they’re not going to flip because they were asked to, if they’re not they’ll end up resenting being associated with it and are prime fodder for anti-establishment rhetoric. Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 04:09 Sermokala wrote:
Trump's loss was more taken as a vindication that the right is just racists and sexists, rather then any fault of the left. Anything that isn't surface level is then blamed on hillary and the electoral college. Sermo already beat me to the major point. He’s way more moderate on the spectrum of right-of-center issues, so may be more valuable to you in points of agreements.
On April 08 2019 05:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 04:07 Wombat_NI wrote:
What do you mean the Dems won’t change tack without a major defeat? Trump being in the office was a pretty major defeat and that kind of rhetoric and whatnot was a staple of that campaign as well, and the Dems and dem-leaning media have kept that constant if not doubled down on it.
I don’t think overplaying the racism angle is an effective way to go, felt it with that election, felt it with the Brexit referendum over here. If folk are racist they’re not going to flip because they were asked to, if they’re not they’ll end up resenting being associated with it and are prime fodder for anti-establishment rhetoric. Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 04:09 Sermokala wrote:
Trump's loss was more taken as a vindication that the right is just racists and sexists, rather then any fault of the left. Anything that isn't surface level is then blamed on hillary and the electoral college. Sermo already beat me to the major point. He’s way more moderate on the spectrum of right-of-center issues, so may be more valuable to you in points of agreements.
Well I kind of agree with you both, my quibble was if the Dems lose badly in another big election, it’ll be any kind of wakeup call, the alarm has been ringing for quite some time but they just keep hitting snooze on it.
I agree with Sermo on that 100%, it was taken that way in those quarters and in their broad equivalents over in the UK over Brexit as well.
They’re wrong to have that as their takeaway IMO, not either of you on this.
|
On April 08 2019 05:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 05:00 Plansix wrote:
Barr could have avoided all of this by letting the congressional leadership see the report. They all have the clearance. The security clearances that senators and congressmen have are immaterial to grand jury secrecy and do not constitute grounds for disclosure. Edit: This idea that Barr actually has discretion to disclose grand jury materials is simply a farce and patently untrue. Look up the grand jury rules. Y’all are falling for yet another lie being peddled to you for political purposes.
Yeah, it is very important that no one gets to see the report that so much public time and money has been spent on, except for one guy that Trump hired.
Imagine this was one of the dozen or so Hillary investigations. How would you react if the only person that got to see it was some obviously loyal Obama appointee that declared before any of this happened that no matter the circumstances Hillary should never be charged? Would you totally accept that as fine, or would you stand here screaming hell about how the deep state conspiracy hides Killary's guilt from the american people?
|
On April 08 2019 05:45 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On April 08 2019 05:00 Plansix wrote:
Barr could have avoided all of this by letting the congressional leadership see the report. They all have the clearance. The security clearances that senators and congressmen have are immaterial to grand jury secrecy and do not constitute grounds for disclosure. Edit: This idea that Barr actually has discretion to disclose grand jury materials is simply a farce and patently untrue. Look up the grand jury rules. Y’all are falling for yet another lie being peddled to you for political purposes. Yeah, it is very important that no one gets to see the report that so much public time and money has been spent on, except for one guy that Trump hired. Imagine this was one of the dozen or so Hillary investigations. How would you react if the only person that got to see it was some obviously loyal Obama appointee that declared before any of this happened that no matter the circumstances Hillary should never be charged? Would you totally accept that as fine, or would you stand here screaming hell about how the deep state conspiracy hides Killary's guilt from the american people?
The law is the law. The rule of law means we follow the law. No exceptions. Period.
|
|
|
XDaunt: Obama and Loretta Lynch covered for Clinton, look at this mountain of speculative evidence and conjectures.
Also Xdaunt: Barr will follow the rules to the letter and won't abuse his power as AG to protect the Republicans, because he has never done that in the past(the Iran–Contra pardons, though Bush did the pardoning). You are all believing lie being peddled to you.
Not trusting the Justice Department or any government agency for partisan reasons is a two way street. Folks don't trust this administration not the lie just like you didn't trust that Obama administration to not cover up for Clinton. You can claim up and down to high heaven that the facts are totally different, but that is irrelevant when it comes to public trust and good faith. It doesn't' work with me, that is for sure.
I would like to trust Barr to not cover for Trump, but he is from a very party first brand of Republicans. Unlike Rosenstein, he isn't a career civil servant. His previous time in the Justice department lasted a short 5 years and he has been an active member of the Republican party since the 1980s. The reality is that Barr knows that the Republicans in the Senate have his back and he can slow roll this report. So I'm not convinced he isn't going to try and cover for the party for as long as possible.
Edit: The law is the law. But outcomes depend on the facts surrounding what the law is addressing and lawyers are very good at make it seem like their fact set is so different. And its not like Barr doesn't know he can delay something simply by forcing Congress to litigate things.
|
On April 08 2019 05:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 05:45 Simberto wrote:On April 08 2019 05:34 xDaunt wrote:On April 08 2019 05:00 Plansix wrote:
Barr could have avoided all of this by letting the congressional leadership see the report. They all have the clearance. The security clearances that senators and congressmen have are immaterial to grand jury secrecy and do not constitute grounds for disclosure. Edit: This idea that Barr actually has discretion to disclose grand jury materials is simply a farce and patently untrue. Look up the grand jury rules. Y’all are falling for yet another lie being peddled to you for political purposes. Yeah, it is very important that no one gets to see the report that so much public time and money has been spent on, except for one guy that Trump hired. Imagine this was one of the dozen or so Hillary investigations. How would you react if the only person that got to see it was some obviously loyal Obama appointee that declared before any of this happened that no matter the circumstances Hillary should never be charged? Would you totally accept that as fine, or would you stand here screaming hell about how the deep state conspiracy hides Killary's guilt from the american people? The one bonus about this report and investigation compared to the others is this one caught lots of criminals and paid for itself. So there was no way this investigation was a waste of government resources. And I believe eventually all or most of the report will come out. If daunt is any example people will not give up finding out the results for years. Even if Trump loses.
Oh don't worry. This story isn't going away, and we're going to be learning a lot more about what really happened very soon. The problem is that y'all are looking in the wrong direction. You need to start paying attention Nunes' perp walk rollout of the criminal referrals:
House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes exclusively told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" that he is preparing to send eight criminal referrals to the Department of Justice this week concerning alleged misconduct from "Watergate wannabes" during the Trump-Russia investigation, including the leaks of "highly classified material" and conspiracies to lie to Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court.
The dramatic step comes as Republicans have pushed for the release of key documents to uncover the origins of the now-discredited narrative that the Trump campaign colluded improperly with the Russian government. President Trump recently told Fox News he would release the entirety of the FISA applications used to surveil one of his top aides, and other related documents.
Nunes said he has been working on the referrals for more than two years, and wanted to wait until the confirmation of Attorney General Bill Barr.
"We're prepared this week to notify the attorney general that we're prepared to send those referrals over," Nunes said. "First of all, all of these are classified or sensitive. ... Five of them are what I would call straight up referrals -- so just referrals that name someone and name the specific crimes," Nunes told Maria Bartiromo. "Those crimes are lying to Congress, misleading Congress, leaking classified information. So five of them are those types."
...
Nunes added: "There are three [referrals] that I think are more complicated. ... So on the first one, is FISA abuse and other matters. We believe there was a conspiracy to lie to the FISA court, mislead the FISA court by numerous individuals that all need to be investigated and looked at that, and we believe the [relevant] statute is the conspiracy statute. The second conspiracy one is involving manipulation of intelligence that also could ensnarl many Americans."
Nunes asserted that "we've had a lot of concerns with the way intelligence was used" during the Trump-Russia probe.
...
"The third is what I would call a global leak referral," Nunes said. "So there are about a dozen highly sensitive classified information leaks that were given to only a few reporters over the last two-and-a-half-plus years. So you know, we don't know if there's actually been any leak investigations that have been opened, but we do believe that we've got pretty good information and a pretty good idea of who could be behind these leaks."
Nunes specifically named a series of known "horrific" leaks, including the leak of conversations between Trump and the leaders of Australia and Mexico, and the transcripts of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's calls.
Nunes noted that the eight criminal referrals could involve more than eight people, and that a conspiracy referral could involve "a dozen, two dozen people." He added that more referrals could be coming.
....
Source.
The first set of charges surrounding abuse of the FISA court is likely going to include people whose name appears on the Carter Page FISA application as well as those who are linked to supplying and verifying the Steele Dossier. The second one is certainly Brennan and company. This is the one that's going to bite Obama in the ass, even if he's not directly implicated, because he was being briefed on all of this stuff and a bunch of his people are involved one way or another. The third could be any number of people. I suspect one might be Adam Schiff based upon all of the very public, recent accusations of him leaking.
|
Nunes, also the guy suing a bunch of twitter accounts and twitter for $250 million for being mean to him. And in the complaint he, through his attorney, speculates they will discovery is a plot by key members of the Democratic party to discredit him. One of the accounts is called David Nunes's cow. The other claims to be his mother with the very convincing name "David Nunes's Mom".
Nunes, a man we should totally take seriously.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/18/18271805/devin-nunes-twitter-lawsuit-250-million-liz-mair-defamation
A highlight of this very serious litigation by a man that should be taken seriously.
+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/1107787095257444352
|
Didn't the people who spoke out against Barr not coming down hard enough on the report remain anonymous? Id have more faith if they were not anonymous sources. Also Barr seems to be legit and though trump did hire him he was okay'd by the senate, the republicans in the senate anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
