|
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 |
I’ve definitely done better work dumping on your conspiracy theory posting, tbh. The fact of the matter is you cheered on the investigation into Clinton, which was caused by other investigations into Benghazi attacks. You continue to cheer for investigations into the Clinton foundation. And now you are cheering on investigations into your perceived political enemies in the Justice department, FBI and CIA.
You have a hard on for investigations into your political opposition. You don’t care about the outcome because all the investigations into Clinton didn’t lead to policy changes or charges. You just bemoaned that Clinton wasn’t changed. Now I’m not going to defend the Clintons or say they are great. They kinda suck. But enough is enough.
And here is the thing, when Barr finds nothing or only minor errors that don’t invalidate the investigation, you will bemoan it and claim the real evidence was hidden. The FBI protected Obama or something. Because it will never be enough for you unless they thrown Clinton and Obama into prison.
And this is why so few people take your rants about the investigation. Because we have seen an over zealous investigation across 5 house committees and you thought it was great stuff.
|
On April 11 2019 12:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote:More good news for Buttigieg and even worse news for Harris.. Pretty bad for Biden and better for Bernie Another new poll out of California shows Harris and Biden losing ground and Buttigieg making a significant jump up from their previous poll. Sanders and O'Rourke enjoy a modest bump. The story here imo is everyone polling under Warren is 100% not going to win the nomination, but Sanders remains the heavy favorite, especially without Biden as he was able to maintain a 1 point lead over Harris in her home state without Biden in the poll. Sanders (22%) shows a one-point lead over Biden (21%), and a three-point lead over Harris (19%) among likely Democratic primary voters. Beto O’Rourke finishes a distant fourth with 10%, followed by Pete Buttigieg (9%), Elizabeth Warren (8%), and Cory Booker (3%). All other candidates poll at 2% or less: medium.com Of the candidates polling below Warren, Hickenlooper is the one who might rise into contention. He's definitely one of the best candidates on the merits. Unfortunately, I think identity politics is going to doom him given that he doesn't have the socialist bonafides that Bernie has.
Ironically I think Booker has a lot of potential to surge, not because he's a good candidate with policy or anything just because he's looking to be the only chance for Dems to beat Bernie in SC otherwise it's he's likely to sweep the first 3-4 contests looking at the candidates already in the race.
In order to get the establishment support it takes to rise above the Trump noise a candidate has to have a real shot at beating Bernie in the first 4 contests and Booker (Or as Gravel calls him "The Senator from Pfizer") is pretty much it.
|
On April 11 2019 13:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote:More good news for Buttigieg and even worse news for Harris.. Pretty bad for Biden and better for Bernie Another new poll out of California shows Harris and Biden losing ground and Buttigieg making a significant jump up from their previous poll. Sanders and O'Rourke enjoy a modest bump. The story here imo is everyone polling under Warren is 100% not going to win the nomination, but Sanders remains the heavy favorite, especially without Biden as he was able to maintain a 1 point lead over Harris in her home state without Biden in the poll. Sanders (22%) shows a one-point lead over Biden (21%), and a three-point lead over Harris (19%) among likely Democratic primary voters. Beto O’Rourke finishes a distant fourth with 10%, followed by Pete Buttigieg (9%), Elizabeth Warren (8%), and Cory Booker (3%). All other candidates poll at 2% or less: medium.com Of the candidates polling below Warren, Hickenlooper is the one who might rise into contention. He's definitely one of the best candidates on the merits. Unfortunately, I think identity politics is going to doom him given that he doesn't have the socialist bonafides that Bernie has. Ironically I think Booker has a lot of potential to surge, not because he's a good candidate with policy or anything just because he's looking to be the only chance for Dems to beat Bernie in SC otherwise it's he's likely to sweep the first 3-4 contests looking at the candidates already in the race. In order to get the establishment support it takes to rise above the Trump noise a candidate has to have a real shot at beating Bernie in the first 4 contests and Booker (Or as Gravel calls him "The Senator from Pfizer") is pretty much it.
I guess my point is that I expect the polling to change dramatically over the next 8 months. I doubt that the current top 3 will be the top 3 when the primaries actually begin. The debates are going to play a large roll in shaking things up. Also, the DNC establishment has yet to line up behind a candidate. It's not going to be Biden. It might be Buttigieg or Harris. Hickenlooper is another natural fit, but he needs to get more support first.
|
On April 11 2019 13:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 13:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote:More good news for Buttigieg and even worse news for Harris.. Pretty bad for Biden and better for Bernie Another new poll out of California shows Harris and Biden losing ground and Buttigieg making a significant jump up from their previous poll. Sanders and O'Rourke enjoy a modest bump. The story here imo is everyone polling under Warren is 100% not going to win the nomination, but Sanders remains the heavy favorite, especially without Biden as he was able to maintain a 1 point lead over Harris in her home state without Biden in the poll. Sanders (22%) shows a one-point lead over Biden (21%), and a three-point lead over Harris (19%) among likely Democratic primary voters. Beto O’Rourke finishes a distant fourth with 10%, followed by Pete Buttigieg (9%), Elizabeth Warren (8%), and Cory Booker (3%). All other candidates poll at 2% or less: medium.com Of the candidates polling below Warren, Hickenlooper is the one who might rise into contention. He's definitely one of the best candidates on the merits. Unfortunately, I think identity politics is going to doom him given that he doesn't have the socialist bonafides that Bernie has. Ironically I think Booker has a lot of potential to surge, not because he's a good candidate with policy or anything just because he's looking to be the only chance for Dems to beat Bernie in SC otherwise it's he's likely to sweep the first 3-4 contests looking at the candidates already in the race. In order to get the establishment support it takes to rise above the Trump noise a candidate has to have a real shot at beating Bernie in the first 4 contests and Booker (Or as Gravel calls him "The Senator from Pfizer") is pretty much it. I guess my point is that I expect the polling to change dramatically over the next 8 months. I doubt that the current top 3 will be the top 3 when the primaries actually begin. The debates are going to play a large roll in shaking things up. Also, the DNC establishment has yet to line up behind a candidate. It's not going to be Biden. It might be Buttigieg or Harris. Hickenlooper is another natural fit, but he needs to get more support first.
I expect the numbers to change a bit but the positions to remain pretty constant. The top 5 will be the top 5 through the debates into voting, with 1 maybe 2 fighting to get into the top 5. Without an inexplicable (at the moment) upset that drops to 3 after super Tuesday with only Harris and O'Rourke (Besides Bernie and Biden if he can hold onto at least 15%) having any viable path to making past then as of now.
The debates could cost Harris her 3rd place, and hurt Biden further with younger voters. Perhaps it could help Buttigieg since he seems capable of debating and could use the name recognition but the way the primary works it should be a 3 person race after Super Tuesday with perhaps some stragglers campaigning for other reasons than winning.
Of the top 5 O'Rourke has one of the worst records/platforms (no one trusts him) but is the best campaigner to those who don't know him.
|
On April 11 2019 12:03 xDaunt wrote:
These comments about being okay with spying on Trump's campaign or any political campaign are misplaced. If you want to force more disclosure from candidates, then the proper way to accomplish that is to enact legislation that creates and fosters a transparent disclosure process. In contrast, the last thing that we want to do is give government investigators unlimited and unchecked authority and discretion to investigate political candidates. Where's the due process? How do we ensure that each candidate in a race is equally investigated? The alleged abuses of the FBI/DOJ officials as it pertains to Crossfire Hurricane and the Midyear investigations are particularly illustrative of the problems here. The current record shows not only a gross disparity in how the leaders of these investigations viewed each political candidate (ie they favored Hillary), but that these leaders acted on their political biases. Even presuming that Hillary didn't do anything wrong, no one can reasonably argue that the FBI/DOJ didn't give Hillary far more favorable treatment in the Midyear investigation than they did with Trump in Crossfire Hurricane. FFS, just look at the names of the respective investigations!
it was the nsa in the nineties with echelon(phone surveillance), and then later on - especially after 9/11 and the emergence of new technologies and usage by people( the internet and web 2.0 - FB- twitter... etc pp) that your people(USA but especially Rs) flipped the fuck out.
that gave us the patriot act, the single most destructive law in recent memory regarding the safety of privacy of people.
that includes people necessary to the existence of democracy, like lawyers, journalists...judges that CANNOT be sure that their communication and communcation devices are not tapped.
there are safeguards of course but damn where there's no prosecutor - or a prosecutor that knows about it(tech is damn complex - ask members of congress or let them ask Zuckbot... - there's no judge and no sentencing...
there are always cases even in VERY recent memory where you can see the abuse of the "new toys" those "new, tougher anti terror laws" gave whoever has access to them.
that is not a fantasy, before snowden it might have been somewhat at home in the realm of cuckoo land - but especially tech savvy people knew what was and what is up.
the ship sailed xdaunt, you gave away the keys.
you let Bush and his people work, Obama would not touch the hot stove since - as you so aptly put it - the deep state might be out to go after the President.
not that I agree with your(and Rs) interpretation(such a lazy way to play on gullible people's fear...), but it's clear that you are not making friends as POTUS when you are taking away power from a big bureaucracy and for what in return...?
expecially when the economy is in free fall and your wars are costing you soft/hard power and a metric fuckTON of money.
so it's laughable at best you are NOW starting to fear for government overreach, when your guy is in the crosshair. a guy that surrounds himself with witches en masse. that got burned. and I am not even talking about the russians and their exquisite operation they pulled off. weaponizing social media and helping doofus mcduck into office.
there was ample cause to look closer at Trump associates, there's a reason Barr redacts, legitimate and otherwise.
what's in there won't be pretty.
|
|
|
On April 11 2019 12:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 12:15 Plansix wrote:
What Xdaunt is saying is once you run for President, your campaign is immune to any criminal investigation, regardless of evidence or probable cause. Even though congress members, the gang of 8, the DOJ and a series of Judges knew about and approved of these investigations taking place, the were still wrong because it investigated Trump. You know, you've had some remarkably thoughtless takes of my posts over the years, but this one takes the cake. Show nested quote +Seriously, you need to stop mischaracterizing these investigations as the acts of rogue government agencies answerable to no one. They told people, including the leadership of your party in congress what was happening. I haven't mischaracterized anything. I've laid out tons of facts, all of which you willfully ignore just as you willfully misconstrue my posts such as you did above. It doesn't take a genius to see that an investigation predicated upon Russian collusion/conspiracy is bogus when none of the primary targets of the investigation is charged with anything related to Russian collusion/conspiracy. Particularly when investigative agents go on the record and swear to a court that they already have probable cause of such Russian collusion/conspiracy. This is about as simple of a deduction as 2+2=4, and it only touches upon a small slice of the known improprieties surrounding the investigation.
This post doesn't even make sense.
Just do make sure you understand what words mean, you do understand that an investigation is performed to determine the guilt or innocence of a party (at least in a criminal sense), and so an investigation that turns back a verdict of innocence is not 'bogus'?
Indeed, you could argue that an investigation that turns back a verdict of innocence has done its job perfectly.
A bit of introspection would do you good, XDaunt. You come across as a much less intelligent poster when you dive into this partisan nonsense.
|
Julian Assange has been arrested. There were a time where he was something else than a pawn of Putin and somewhat a sympathetic figure but considering what wikileaks has done to get Trump elected and why, he can go screw himself.
Assange arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy
Meanwhile Russia has accused the UK of “strangling freedom” by doing so. Those guys have balls of steel.
And before xDaunt accuses anyone to spread conspiracy theories:
|
On April 11 2019 12:39 Plansix wrote:
And here is the thing, when Barr finds nothing or only minor errors that don’t invalidate the investigation, you will bemoan it and claim the real evidence was hidden.
There's something very familiar about all this....
|
Assange's arrest is quite the development. let's see how the pieces fall into place now that such a key domino has fallen and is as good as in US custody.
wait for the Trumpspin
"Obama could not get him folks, I got him. and he was so much harder to get than Bin Laden I tell you folks... an embassy in London is quite the obstacle folks... there's a reason Hitler could not bomb the British into submission believe me... I try it with tweetbombing..."
|
On April 11 2019 20:18 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 12:39 Plansix wrote:
And here is the thing, when Barr finds nothing or only minor errors that don’t invalidate the investigation, you will bemoan it and claim the real evidence was hidden. There's something very familiar about all this....
that’s exactly the point.
|
Add the Assange arrest to the list of things I find problematic. Partisanship leading centrist/Democrats to support disreputable agencies and practices to unsuccessfully nail Trump is again not worth it in my view.
|
On April 11 2019 20:22 Doublemint wrote:
Assange's arrest is quite the development. let's see how the pieces fall into place now that such a key domino has fallen and is as good as in US custody.
wait for the Trumpspin
"Obama could not get him folks, I got him. and he was so much harder to get than Bin Laden I tell you folks... an embassy in London is quite the obstacle folks... there's a reason Hitler could not bomb the British into submission believe me... I try it with tweetbombing..." I certainly expect something like that yes.
As for pieces falling into place, I kind of doubt it. Considering the position Assange was in it would be prudent to limit his access to compromising information.
|
On April 11 2019 20:22 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 20:18 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On April 11 2019 12:39 Plansix wrote:
And here is the thing, when Barr finds nothing or only minor errors that don’t invalidate the investigation, you will bemoan it and claim the real evidence was hidden. There's something very familiar about all this.... that’s exactly the point.
I doubt Barrs investigation will take two years if that is any consolation.
|
On April 11 2019 20:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 20:22 brian wrote:On April 11 2019 20:18 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On April 11 2019 12:39 Plansix wrote:
And here is the thing, when Barr finds nothing or only minor errors that don’t invalidate the investigation, you will bemoan it and claim the real evidence was hidden. There's something very familiar about all this.... that’s exactly the point. I doubt Barrs investigation will take two years if that is any consolation. I expect it to miraculously finish at whatever time will have maximum impact on the 2020 elections.
|
On April 11 2019 20:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Add the Assange arrest to the list of things I find problematic. Partisanship leading centrist/Democrats to support disreputable agencies and practices to unsuccessfully nail Trump is again not worth it in my view.
I totally agree, Wikileaks might have been a pretty cool and nice idea, but later on especially after Assange's somewhat nervous breakdown and mismanagement/arrest it was - if not a willing(doubtful) then maybe an unwilling(very much likely) - participant of the GRU agencies propaganda efforts.
I understand where you are coming from, but wake the hell up - get woke is the sayin, no?. it's a messy world. there are enemies and there are friends, and most people you will ever meet or read about are very much in between.
@gorsa. yeah we will see. thing is, he had access to the internet in his embassy room, and he still knows how to reach people. and a man in his position knows people.
|
On April 11 2019 20:54 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 20:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Add the Assange arrest to the list of things I find problematic. Partisanship leading centrist/Democrats to support disreputable agencies and practices to unsuccessfully nail Trump is again not worth it in my view. I totally agree, Wikileaks might have been a pretty cool and nice idea, but later on especially after Assange's somewhat nervous breakdown and mismanagement/arrest it was - if not a willing(doubtful) then maybe an unwilling(very much likely) - participant of the GRU agencies propaganda efforts. I understand where you are coming from, but wake the hell up - get woke is the sayin, no?. it's a messy world. there are enemies and there are friends, and most people you will ever meet or read about are very much in between. @gorsa. yeah we will see. thing is, he had access to the internet in his embassy room, and he still knows how to reach people. and a man in his position knows people.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say, but there's nothing I'm aware of Assange doing that's worse than the US government that wants to prosecute him.
|
On April 11 2019 21:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 20:54 Doublemint wrote:On April 11 2019 20:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Add the Assange arrest to the list of things I find problematic. Partisanship leading centrist/Democrats to support disreputable agencies and practices to unsuccessfully nail Trump is again not worth it in my view. I totally agree, Wikileaks might have been a pretty cool and nice idea, but later on especially after Assange's somewhat nervous breakdown and mismanagement/arrest it was - if not a willing(doubtful) then maybe an unwilling(very much likely) - participant of the GRU agencies propaganda efforts. I understand where you are coming from, but wake the hell up - get woke is the sayin, no?. it's a messy world. there are enemies and there are friends, and most people you will ever meet or read about are very much in between. @gorsa. yeah we will see. thing is, he had access to the internet in his embassy room, and he still knows how to reach people. and a man in his position knows people. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say, but there's nothing I'm aware of Assange doing that's worse than the US government that wants to prosecute him.
The issue of Assange himself aside, by this logic all crime should be legal because the governments are also doing lots of illegal stuff.
|
On April 11 2019 20:54 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 20:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Add the Assange arrest to the list of things I find problematic. Partisanship leading centrist/Democrats to support disreputable agencies and practices to unsuccessfully nail Trump is again not worth it in my view. I totally agree, Wikileaks might have been a pretty cool and nice idea, but later on especially after Assange's somewhat nervous breakdown and mismanagement/arrest it was - if not a willing(doubtful) then maybe an unwilling(very much likely) - participant of the GRU agencies propaganda efforts. I understand where you are coming from, but wake the hell up - get woke is the sayin, no?. it's a messy world. there are enemies and there are friends, and most people you will ever meet or read about are very much in between. @gorsa. yeah we will see. thing is, he had access to the internet in his embassy room, and he still knows how to reach people. and a man in his position knows people.
I have no idea what you're saying half the time. I understand English might not be your first language, so it would be helpful if you made shorter sentences that are more on point.
In your post above you agreed that arresting Assange is a waste of time while acknowledging that he played a part in election meddling. Then you tell someone, I can't figure out who, to wake up because people aren't always pure enemies or pure friends...
Surely you can tell why I'm having trouble following your line of thoughts here?
|
On one hand, I see no reason to cheer for someone being extradited to the US for publishing leaked emails. On the other hand, he put himself in this situation for the sole purpose of keeping up appearances. Could have easily gone to Moscow in 2012 and live a normal-ish life instead of staying holed up in a room for almost a decade worrying about when they're coming to get him. All for the sake of pretending to have a backbone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
