|
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 |
you might argue that the media already filters for bland normies, to which id say, “well why are we bringing the fbi in then?” or “maybe so”
or “maybe we should investigate rich people’s finances”
|
On April 12 2019 07:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 07:16 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2019 07:11 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 06:55 crms wrote:On April 12 2019 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 06:34 crms wrote:On April 11 2019 11:36 Mohdoo wrote:On April 11 2019 11:20 Doodsmack wrote:
If it comes out that there was improper spying on the Trump campaign, and the investigation was a weapon intended to derail Trump's presidency, I'll bet a lot on the left would be okay with that, because it's comeuppance for Trump. So long as crimes were uncovered that would not have been otherwise found, it is a net positive. I'm about as left as you can get and totally disagree. I want the investigations to be legitimate because allowing the government to just decide without proper predication to violate citizens constitutional rights is a mess I'm not comfortable with whatsoever. From your statement it sounds like you'd be a proponent of other constitutional murky policies like 'stop and frisk'. Hey lets just search these black guys, I mean who cares if the search is likely a violation of their rights, we found some xyz so I guess it was a net positive! Hellllllll no. No, because I am saying a Mueller-type of investigation is only valid for people who are being given insane amounts of power, doing jobs we have seen corrupt many people. And I am not saying it should be stop and frisk. I am saying anyone who wants to have that much power needs to also consent to allowing citizens to KNOW they are clean. They work for us. I also imagine there are people on this board who would gladly consent to every detail of their lives being investigated if it meant being able to contribute to a functional, honest government. And lots of other good people feel the same way. It is an *honor* to serve government. If someone doesn't feel it is an honor, they aren't someone you want running the government. It is no different than saying cops should wear body camera. Lots of cops are shit bags. We need to be recording them. I am not saying all citizens need cameras. Just the ones who are given the right to kill people based on their intuition. People who we say can decide to exterminate life? Yeah, lets keep a closer eye on them. People who are military advisers? Yeah, lets make sure they don't have undisclosed contracts with other nations. I agree that people of immense power should be held to a higher standard and should likely (and are supposed to in many cases) offer full disclosure on a variety of dealings. I think something like the OIG, Government Ethics boards etc., could be leveraged in a way to have real teeth to go after and monitor people in these powerful positions to ensure they aren't engaged in illegal activity while holding these positions. We're in full agreement here (I think). However, I disagree with anything like that relating to the Mueller investigation because these steps are not already established. I'm all for supporting legislation like what you are proposing but I can't in good faith honor that retroactively. If the catalyst for the spying on Trumps campaign is in fact illegal (I haven't seen compelling evidence that's the case yet) that is absolutely not a net positive but a chilling realization of the politicization of our justice system. Moving forward, yes, let's get something with teeth to hold our elected and appointed officials accountable but I'm not willing to look the other way retroactively because I don't like the other team. In the end, the goal is for shady people to decide it is not worth it to dabble in government. I'm not necessarily saying it needs to be exactly Mueller. But look at what happened to Manafort. I want a system where that is the result of anyone like Manafort trying to work in government. Doesn't need to be FBI, CIA, whatever. What happened to Manafort should happen to every single politician doing anything remotely similar to Manafort. Too much damage is done to society by corruption. The costs are absolutely enormous. And plenty of people will still do the work. We don't need all the sociopaths. my objection to this idea is that you only get bland normies as leaders, because anybody with any deviance from the norms had a lot to lose, especially given how leak-prone the deep-state has been against its political enemies. this is how you get all pete buttigiegs, a bland former consultant (although the fact of his being gay should heighten the constricting threat of norms if we want fully transparent candidates) No, that's not true. The people following federal laws are not all boring. Plenty of good, accomplished, ethical people exist. This isn't some shitty HBO show where there are the cool cat entrepreneurs and then the nerdy accountants. We have nothing to gain from the people you are describing.
marijuana usage in the home? even today, although consider 30 years ago. cross-dressing? extra-marital affairs? fetishes? come on be imaginative
or maybe you think we SHOULD rule out any candidates who use marijuana
you cant restrict surveillance to only the illegal stuff. total surveillance catches everything. and there’s plenty of embarrassing stuff that doesn’t count as crime
|
On April 12 2019 07:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 07:19 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 07:16 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2019 07:11 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 06:55 crms wrote:On April 12 2019 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 06:34 crms wrote:On April 11 2019 11:36 Mohdoo wrote:On April 11 2019 11:20 Doodsmack wrote:
If it comes out that there was improper spying on the Trump campaign, and the investigation was a weapon intended to derail Trump's presidency, I'll bet a lot on the left would be okay with that, because it's comeuppance for Trump. So long as crimes were uncovered that would not have been otherwise found, it is a net positive. I'm about as left as you can get and totally disagree. I want the investigations to be legitimate because allowing the government to just decide without proper predication to violate citizens constitutional rights is a mess I'm not comfortable with whatsoever. From your statement it sounds like you'd be a proponent of other constitutional murky policies like 'stop and frisk'. Hey lets just search these black guys, I mean who cares if the search is likely a violation of their rights, we found some xyz so I guess it was a net positive! Hellllllll no. No, because I am saying a Mueller-type of investigation is only valid for people who are being given insane amounts of power, doing jobs we have seen corrupt many people. And I am not saying it should be stop and frisk. I am saying anyone who wants to have that much power needs to also consent to allowing citizens to KNOW they are clean. They work for us. I also imagine there are people on this board who would gladly consent to every detail of their lives being investigated if it meant being able to contribute to a functional, honest government. And lots of other good people feel the same way. It is an *honor* to serve government. If someone doesn't feel it is an honor, they aren't someone you want running the government. It is no different than saying cops should wear body camera. Lots of cops are shit bags. We need to be recording them. I am not saying all citizens need cameras. Just the ones who are given the right to kill people based on their intuition. People who we say can decide to exterminate life? Yeah, lets keep a closer eye on them. People who are military advisers? Yeah, lets make sure they don't have undisclosed contracts with other nations. I agree that people of immense power should be held to a higher standard and should likely (and are supposed to in many cases) offer full disclosure on a variety of dealings. I think something like the OIG, Government Ethics boards etc., could be leveraged in a way to have real teeth to go after and monitor people in these powerful positions to ensure they aren't engaged in illegal activity while holding these positions. We're in full agreement here (I think). However, I disagree with anything like that relating to the Mueller investigation because these steps are not already established. I'm all for supporting legislation like what you are proposing but I can't in good faith honor that retroactively. If the catalyst for the spying on Trumps campaign is in fact illegal (I haven't seen compelling evidence that's the case yet) that is absolutely not a net positive but a chilling realization of the politicization of our justice system. Moving forward, yes, let's get something with teeth to hold our elected and appointed officials accountable but I'm not willing to look the other way retroactively because I don't like the other team. In the end, the goal is for shady people to decide it is not worth it to dabble in government. I'm not necessarily saying it needs to be exactly Mueller. But look at what happened to Manafort. I want a system where that is the result of anyone like Manafort trying to work in government. Doesn't need to be FBI, CIA, whatever. What happened to Manafort should happen to every single politician doing anything remotely similar to Manafort. Too much damage is done to society by corruption. The costs are absolutely enormous. And plenty of people will still do the work. We don't need all the sociopaths. my objection to this idea is that you only get bland normies as leaders, because anybody with any deviance from the norms had a lot to lose, especially given how leak-prone the deep-state has been against its political enemies. this is how you get all pete buttigiegs, a bland former consultant (although the fact of his being gay should heighten the constricting threat of norms if we want fully transparent candidates) No, that's not true. The people following federal laws are not all boring. Plenty of good, accomplished, ethical people exist. This isn't some shitty HBO show where there are the cool cat entrepreneurs and then the nerdy accountants. We have nothing to gain from the people you are describing. marijuana usage in the home? even today, although consider 30 years ago. cross-dressing? extra-marital affairs? fetishes? come on be imaginative
You need to be more clear what is you making yourself giggle and what is you actually trying to have a conversation with people. You spend so much time trying to entertain yourself that your actual ideas suffer. Please try again.
|
On April 12 2019 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 06:34 crms wrote:On April 11 2019 11:36 Mohdoo wrote:On April 11 2019 11:20 Doodsmack wrote:
If it comes out that there was improper spying on the Trump campaign, and the investigation was a weapon intended to derail Trump's presidency, I'll bet a lot on the left would be okay with that, because it's comeuppance for Trump. So long as crimes were uncovered that would not have been otherwise found, it is a net positive. I'm about as left as you can get and totally disagree. I want the investigations to be legitimate because allowing the government to just decide without proper predication to violate citizens constitutional rights is a mess I'm not comfortable with whatsoever. From your statement it sounds like you'd be a proponent of other constitutional murky policies like 'stop and frisk'. Hey lets just search these black guys, I mean who cares if the search is likely a violation of their rights, we found some xyz so I guess it was a net positive! Hellllllll no. No, because I am saying a Mueller-type of investigation is only valid for people who are being given insane amounts of power, doing jobs we have seen corrupt many people. And I am not saying it should be stop and frisk. I am saying anyone who wants to have that much power needs to also consent to allowing citizens to KNOW they are clean. They work for us. I also imagine there are people on this board who would gladly consent to every detail of their lives being investigated if it meant being able to contribute to a functional, honest government. And lots of other good people feel the same way. It is an *honor* to serve government. If someone doesn't feel it is an honor, they aren't someone you want running the government. It is no different than saying cops should wear body camera. Lots of cops are shit bags. We need to be recording them. I am not saying all citizens need cameras. Just the ones who are given the right to kill people based on their intuition. People who we say can decide to exterminate life? Yeah, lets keep a closer eye on them. People who are military advisers? Yeah, lets make sure they don't have undisclosed contracts with other nations.
that seems... highly suspect. like "Xi Jinping's wet dream of China" kind of suspect...
everything about my daily life should be transparent? wait what? why in god's name would I ever allow that to happen?
or any sane man for that matter?
to help the government do their job? no thank you.
|
On April 12 2019 07:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 07:21 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2019 07:19 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 07:16 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2019 07:11 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 06:55 crms wrote:On April 12 2019 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 06:34 crms wrote:On April 11 2019 11:36 Mohdoo wrote:On April 11 2019 11:20 Doodsmack wrote:
If it comes out that there was improper spying on the Trump campaign, and the investigation was a weapon intended to derail Trump's presidency, I'll bet a lot on the left would be okay with that, because it's comeuppance for Trump. So long as crimes were uncovered that would not have been otherwise found, it is a net positive. I'm about as left as you can get and totally disagree. I want the investigations to be legitimate because allowing the government to just decide without proper predication to violate citizens constitutional rights is a mess I'm not comfortable with whatsoever. From your statement it sounds like you'd be a proponent of other constitutional murky policies like 'stop and frisk'. Hey lets just search these black guys, I mean who cares if the search is likely a violation of their rights, we found some xyz so I guess it was a net positive! Hellllllll no. No, because I am saying a Mueller-type of investigation is only valid for people who are being given insane amounts of power, doing jobs we have seen corrupt many people. And I am not saying it should be stop and frisk. I am saying anyone who wants to have that much power needs to also consent to allowing citizens to KNOW they are clean. They work for us. I also imagine there are people on this board who would gladly consent to every detail of their lives being investigated if it meant being able to contribute to a functional, honest government. And lots of other good people feel the same way. It is an *honor* to serve government. If someone doesn't feel it is an honor, they aren't someone you want running the government. It is no different than saying cops should wear body camera. Lots of cops are shit bags. We need to be recording them. I am not saying all citizens need cameras. Just the ones who are given the right to kill people based on their intuition. People who we say can decide to exterminate life? Yeah, lets keep a closer eye on them. People who are military advisers? Yeah, lets make sure they don't have undisclosed contracts with other nations. I agree that people of immense power should be held to a higher standard and should likely (and are supposed to in many cases) offer full disclosure on a variety of dealings. I think something like the OIG, Government Ethics boards etc., could be leveraged in a way to have real teeth to go after and monitor people in these powerful positions to ensure they aren't engaged in illegal activity while holding these positions. We're in full agreement here (I think). However, I disagree with anything like that relating to the Mueller investigation because these steps are not already established. I'm all for supporting legislation like what you are proposing but I can't in good faith honor that retroactively. If the catalyst for the spying on Trumps campaign is in fact illegal (I haven't seen compelling evidence that's the case yet) that is absolutely not a net positive but a chilling realization of the politicization of our justice system. Moving forward, yes, let's get something with teeth to hold our elected and appointed officials accountable but I'm not willing to look the other way retroactively because I don't like the other team. In the end, the goal is for shady people to decide it is not worth it to dabble in government. I'm not necessarily saying it needs to be exactly Mueller. But look at what happened to Manafort. I want a system where that is the result of anyone like Manafort trying to work in government. Doesn't need to be FBI, CIA, whatever. What happened to Manafort should happen to every single politician doing anything remotely similar to Manafort. Too much damage is done to society by corruption. The costs are absolutely enormous. And plenty of people will still do the work. We don't need all the sociopaths. my objection to this idea is that you only get bland normies as leaders, because anybody with any deviance from the norms had a lot to lose, especially given how leak-prone the deep-state has been against its political enemies. this is how you get all pete buttigiegs, a bland former consultant (although the fact of his being gay should heighten the constricting threat of norms if we want fully transparent candidates) No, that's not true. The people following federal laws are not all boring. Plenty of good, accomplished, ethical people exist. This isn't some shitty HBO show where there are the cool cat entrepreneurs and then the nerdy accountants. We have nothing to gain from the people you are describing. marijuana usage in the home? even today, although consider 30 years ago. cross-dressing? extra-marital affairs? fetishes? come on be imaginative You need to be more clear what is you making yourself giggle and what is you actually trying to have a conversation with people. You spend so much time trying to entertain yourself that your actual ideas suffer. Please try again.
to be crystal clear: i reject your assertion that only people who break federal laws have anything to fear from total surveillance and i object to your corollary that mandating total surveillance won’t select for bland normies
|
On April 12 2019 07:23 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 06:34 crms wrote:On April 11 2019 11:36 Mohdoo wrote:On April 11 2019 11:20 Doodsmack wrote:
If it comes out that there was improper spying on the Trump campaign, and the investigation was a weapon intended to derail Trump's presidency, I'll bet a lot on the left would be okay with that, because it's comeuppance for Trump. So long as crimes were uncovered that would not have been otherwise found, it is a net positive. I'm about as left as you can get and totally disagree. I want the investigations to be legitimate because allowing the government to just decide without proper predication to violate citizens constitutional rights is a mess I'm not comfortable with whatsoever. From your statement it sounds like you'd be a proponent of other constitutional murky policies like 'stop and frisk'. Hey lets just search these black guys, I mean who cares if the search is likely a violation of their rights, we found some xyz so I guess it was a net positive! Hellllllll no. No, because I am saying a Mueller-type of investigation is only valid for people who are being given insane amounts of power, doing jobs we have seen corrupt many people. And I am not saying it should be stop and frisk. I am saying anyone who wants to have that much power needs to also consent to allowing citizens to KNOW they are clean. They work for us. I also imagine there are people on this board who would gladly consent to every detail of their lives being investigated if it meant being able to contribute to a functional, honest government. And lots of other good people feel the same way. It is an *honor* to serve government. If someone doesn't feel it is an honor, they aren't someone you want running the government. It is no different than saying cops should wear body camera. Lots of cops are shit bags. We need to be recording them. I am not saying all citizens need cameras. Just the ones who are given the right to kill people based on their intuition. People who we say can decide to exterminate life? Yeah, lets keep a closer eye on them. People who are military advisers? Yeah, lets make sure they don't have undisclosed contracts with other nations. that seems... highly suspect. like "Xi Jinping's wet dream of China" kind of suspect... everything about my daily life should be transparent? wait what? why in god's name would I ever allow that to happen? or any sane man for that matter? to help the government do their job? no thank you.
To each their own, but I can say with total confidence that I would consent to Mueller being hired to investigate me prior to my being hired to work in the white house. So long as I got to keep my existing salary.
|
On April 12 2019 07:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
No-one has written that they are willing to look the other way retroactively because I don't like the other team. In fact the opposite.
I mean.. I read this statement as being just that.
"So long as crimes were uncovered that would not have been otherwise found, it is a net positive."
It's not worth rehashing though because I think me and Mohdoo had a good dialogue and fully understand where we stand.
|
On April 12 2019 07:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 07:23 Doublemint wrote:On April 12 2019 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 06:34 crms wrote:On April 11 2019 11:36 Mohdoo wrote:On April 11 2019 11:20 Doodsmack wrote:
If it comes out that there was improper spying on the Trump campaign, and the investigation was a weapon intended to derail Trump's presidency, I'll bet a lot on the left would be okay with that, because it's comeuppance for Trump. So long as crimes were uncovered that would not have been otherwise found, it is a net positive. I'm about as left as you can get and totally disagree. I want the investigations to be legitimate because allowing the government to just decide without proper predication to violate citizens constitutional rights is a mess I'm not comfortable with whatsoever. From your statement it sounds like you'd be a proponent of other constitutional murky policies like 'stop and frisk'. Hey lets just search these black guys, I mean who cares if the search is likely a violation of their rights, we found some xyz so I guess it was a net positive! Hellllllll no. No, because I am saying a Mueller-type of investigation is only valid for people who are being given insane amounts of power, doing jobs we have seen corrupt many people. And I am not saying it should be stop and frisk. I am saying anyone who wants to have that much power needs to also consent to allowing citizens to KNOW they are clean. They work for us. I also imagine there are people on this board who would gladly consent to every detail of their lives being investigated if it meant being able to contribute to a functional, honest government. And lots of other good people feel the same way. It is an *honor* to serve government. If someone doesn't feel it is an honor, they aren't someone you want running the government. It is no different than saying cops should wear body camera. Lots of cops are shit bags. We need to be recording them. I am not saying all citizens need cameras. Just the ones who are given the right to kill people based on their intuition. People who we say can decide to exterminate life? Yeah, lets keep a closer eye on them. People who are military advisers? Yeah, lets make sure they don't have undisclosed contracts with other nations. that seems... highly suspect. like "Xi Jinping's wet dream of China" kind of suspect... everything about my daily life should be transparent? wait what? why in god's name would I ever allow that to happen? or any sane man for that matter? to help the government do their job? no thank you. To each their own, but I can say with total confidence that I would consent to Mueller being hired to investigate me prior to my being hired to work in the white house. So long as I got to keep my existing salary.
so you don’t mind people listening to your phone calls and going through all your texts and google searches?
|
On April 11 2019 23:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 18:37 iamthedave wrote:On April 11 2019 12:22 xDaunt wrote: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. 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. Yes, I'm well aware that criminal investigations often come up empty. You are the one who is missing the point. Here is the key sentence from my post: Show nested quote +Particularly when investigative agents go on the record and swear to a court that they already have probable cause of such Russian collusion/conspiracy. FBI/DOJ swore to a FISA court that they had probable cause (the standard for indictment) that Russian collusion/conspiracy with Trump campaign team members was occurring. In fact, they did it at least four times. It should raise major alarm bells that the allegations forming the basis of those FISA applications never showed up in any criminal indictments and that the underlying source for those applications -- the Steele dossier -- has proven to be false time and again. So yeah, don't insult my intelligence. You simply need to get up to speed on what the real issues are.
Ah yes, thank you. I'd not noticed you raise this issue the last 30,000 times you mentioned it.
I kind of have to 'insult your intelligence' when you consistently don't seem to be able to understand that there's more than one narrative in play here.
You seem incapable of conceptualising the idea that there's more than your perspective on this matter, that it's all clear if 'only everyone looks at the same facts I have'. The problem being that there are dozens of articles stating that a fair chunk of the dossier has been confirmed to be true. Not all of it, but plenty of it.
Your attempting to brush it under the carpet by saying 'the underlying source for those applications has proven to be false time and again' is counteracted by the counter-truth 'the underlying source for those applications has proven to be accurate time and again'.
Both of those statements are true, and anyone who actually looked at all of the details should easily be able to acknowledge that. You don't. You refuse to. You consistently claim the entire thing is falsified and thus the entire investigation is predicated on a lie... which is manifestly untrue.
That doesn't mean there wasn't impropriety at the FBI or DOJ. But you finger wagging and saying 'if you'd only dig and look at the facts' just makes you look bad because you clearly haven't done your own digging, else you'd be well aware that there's been plenty of corroboration of the Steele dossier. I'd have thought a lawyer wouldn't miss that detail. Yet strangely your selective vision successfully does so.
If you'd only acknowledge that large parts of the dossier are... truthified? ... then you could actually move forward instead of getting bogged down arguing over fundamentals that stopped being interesting at least a year ago.
The Steele Dossier can be partly true, partly false, wholly true or wholly false, none of that prevents or rules out impropriety at the FBI/DOJ. Your fixation on trying to cast the entire investigation as bogus ruins every other point you try and make because it's been proven beyond doubt that there was plenty of reason to investigate Trump.
|
On April 12 2019 07:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 07:23 Doublemint wrote:On April 12 2019 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 06:34 crms wrote:On April 11 2019 11:36 Mohdoo wrote:On April 11 2019 11:20 Doodsmack wrote:
If it comes out that there was improper spying on the Trump campaign, and the investigation was a weapon intended to derail Trump's presidency, I'll bet a lot on the left would be okay with that, because it's comeuppance for Trump. So long as crimes were uncovered that would not have been otherwise found, it is a net positive. I'm about as left as you can get and totally disagree. I want the investigations to be legitimate because allowing the government to just decide without proper predication to violate citizens constitutional rights is a mess I'm not comfortable with whatsoever. From your statement it sounds like you'd be a proponent of other constitutional murky policies like 'stop and frisk'. Hey lets just search these black guys, I mean who cares if the search is likely a violation of their rights, we found some xyz so I guess it was a net positive! Hellllllll no. No, because I am saying a Mueller-type of investigation is only valid for people who are being given insane amounts of power, doing jobs we have seen corrupt many people. And I am not saying it should be stop and frisk. I am saying anyone who wants to have that much power needs to also consent to allowing citizens to KNOW they are clean. They work for us. I also imagine there are people on this board who would gladly consent to every detail of their lives being investigated if it meant being able to contribute to a functional, honest government. And lots of other good people feel the same way. It is an *honor* to serve government. If someone doesn't feel it is an honor, they aren't someone you want running the government. It is no different than saying cops should wear body camera. Lots of cops are shit bags. We need to be recording them. I am not saying all citizens need cameras. Just the ones who are given the right to kill people based on their intuition. People who we say can decide to exterminate life? Yeah, lets keep a closer eye on them. People who are military advisers? Yeah, lets make sure they don't have undisclosed contracts with other nations. that seems... highly suspect. like "Xi Jinping's wet dream of China" kind of suspect... everything about my daily life should be transparent? wait what? why in god's name would I ever allow that to happen? or any sane man for that matter? to help the government do their job? no thank you. To each their own, but I can say with total confidence that I would consent to Mueller being hired to investigate me prior to my being hired to work in the white house. So long as I got to keep my existing salary.
but aren't those two different things? you being vetted for a job in the upper echelons of governance by someone like Mueller, or you going full nudist with your (social) life for said occupation.
what if Mueller's daughter, or his wife's nephew would liketo have that/your job in the example? and you somehow get prior knowledge of that, do you think that will affect his judgement?
//typo... and tired. time for bed I guess 
|
On April 12 2019 07:32 iamthedave wrote:
The Steele Dossier can be partly true, partly false, wholly true or wholly false, none of that prevents or rules out impropriety at the FBI/DOJ. Your fixation on trying to cast the entire investigation as bogus ruins every other point you try and make because it's been proven beyond doubt that there was plenty of reason to investigate Trump.
I am pretty sure that you can find enough reason to investigate Trump simply by quoting stuff that he has said in front of a television camera.
|
On April 12 2019 07:27 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 07:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
No-one has written that they are willing to look the other way retroactively because I don't like the other team. In fact the opposite. I mean.. I read this statement as being just that. Show nested quote +"So long as crimes were uncovered that would not have been otherwise found, it is a net positive." It's not worth rehashing though because I think me and Mohdoo had a good dialogue and fully understand where we stand.
The opposite being, they aren't willing to look the other way for either teams. It's called integrity. A sincere belief in anti-corruption.
|
On April 12 2019 07:31 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 07:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 07:23 Doublemint wrote:On April 12 2019 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 06:34 crms wrote:On April 11 2019 11:36 Mohdoo wrote:On April 11 2019 11:20 Doodsmack wrote:
If it comes out that there was improper spying on the Trump campaign, and the investigation was a weapon intended to derail Trump's presidency, I'll bet a lot on the left would be okay with that, because it's comeuppance for Trump. So long as crimes were uncovered that would not have been otherwise found, it is a net positive. I'm about as left as you can get and totally disagree. I want the investigations to be legitimate because allowing the government to just decide without proper predication to violate citizens constitutional rights is a mess I'm not comfortable with whatsoever. From your statement it sounds like you'd be a proponent of other constitutional murky policies like 'stop and frisk'. Hey lets just search these black guys, I mean who cares if the search is likely a violation of their rights, we found some xyz so I guess it was a net positive! Hellllllll no. No, because I am saying a Mueller-type of investigation is only valid for people who are being given insane amounts of power, doing jobs we have seen corrupt many people. And I am not saying it should be stop and frisk. I am saying anyone who wants to have that much power needs to also consent to allowing citizens to KNOW they are clean. They work for us. I also imagine there are people on this board who would gladly consent to every detail of their lives being investigated if it meant being able to contribute to a functional, honest government. And lots of other good people feel the same way. It is an *honor* to serve government. If someone doesn't feel it is an honor, they aren't someone you want running the government. It is no different than saying cops should wear body camera. Lots of cops are shit bags. We need to be recording them. I am not saying all citizens need cameras. Just the ones who are given the right to kill people based on their intuition. People who we say can decide to exterminate life? Yeah, lets keep a closer eye on them. People who are military advisers? Yeah, lets make sure they don't have undisclosed contracts with other nations. that seems... highly suspect. like "Xi Jinping's wet dream of China" kind of suspect... everything about my daily life should be transparent? wait what? why in god's name would I ever allow that to happen? or any sane man for that matter? to help the government do their job? no thank you. To each their own, but I can say with total confidence that I would consent to Mueller being hired to investigate me prior to my being hired to work in the white house. So long as I got to keep my existing salary. so you don’t mind people listening to your phone calls and going through all your texts and google searches?
Truthfully I don't think this is how it would be done. I don't think that is how they caught Manafort. Rather, I would ask the people who do this for a living "What kind of information would you need to make sure this person isn't corrupt or prone to blackmail?"
If those people said "We need access to phone/internet records", then that's your answer. This is a system where we can choose what we optimize. Do we make it more invasive, but also more safe? Or less invasive and less safe? Based on data we have for the past 50 years, I would say we need to move our needle significantly closer to "more invasive and more safe". I would say we do the minimum necessary for "complete confidence" the individual is safe for government work. If that includes phone/internet records, it isn't something to form an opinion on. It is what is necessary and we either decide if we care about corruption or not.
But yes, so long as the materials are kept confidential and only the investigators hear/see my information, it is the system working as it needs to. We don't get to decide what is and isn't effective. But we DO get to decide what methods we use based on their effectiveness. I am saying I would consent to the minimum necessary as determined by experts.
|
Northern Ireland26526 Posts
On April 12 2019 07:31 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 07:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 07:23 Doublemint wrote:On April 12 2019 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 06:34 crms wrote:On April 11 2019 11:36 Mohdoo wrote:On April 11 2019 11:20 Doodsmack wrote:
If it comes out that there was improper spying on the Trump campaign, and the investigation was a weapon intended to derail Trump's presidency, I'll bet a lot on the left would be okay with that, because it's comeuppance for Trump. So long as crimes were uncovered that would not have been otherwise found, it is a net positive. I'm about as left as you can get and totally disagree. I want the investigations to be legitimate because allowing the government to just decide without proper predication to violate citizens constitutional rights is a mess I'm not comfortable with whatsoever. From your statement it sounds like you'd be a proponent of other constitutional murky policies like 'stop and frisk'. Hey lets just search these black guys, I mean who cares if the search is likely a violation of their rights, we found some xyz so I guess it was a net positive! Hellllllll no. No, because I am saying a Mueller-type of investigation is only valid for people who are being given insane amounts of power, doing jobs we have seen corrupt many people. And I am not saying it should be stop and frisk. I am saying anyone who wants to have that much power needs to also consent to allowing citizens to KNOW they are clean. They work for us. I also imagine there are people on this board who would gladly consent to every detail of their lives being investigated if it meant being able to contribute to a functional, honest government. And lots of other good people feel the same way. It is an *honor* to serve government. If someone doesn't feel it is an honor, they aren't someone you want running the government. It is no different than saying cops should wear body camera. Lots of cops are shit bags. We need to be recording them. I am not saying all citizens need cameras. Just the ones who are given the right to kill people based on their intuition. People who we say can decide to exterminate life? Yeah, lets keep a closer eye on them. People who are military advisers? Yeah, lets make sure they don't have undisclosed contracts with other nations. that seems... highly suspect. like "Xi Jinping's wet dream of China" kind of suspect... everything about my daily life should be transparent? wait what? why in god's name would I ever allow that to happen? or any sane man for that matter? to help the government do their job? no thank you. To each their own, but I can say with total confidence that I would consent to Mueller being hired to investigate me prior to my being hired to work in the white house. So long as I got to keep my existing salary. so you don’t mind people listening to your phone calls and going through all your texts and google searches?
Absolutely fine by me, my life is so boring I really would pity anyone who was listening at the other end.
|
There's a difference being openly investigated for corruption and having an unknown permanent wiretap to your phone. One is where powerful politicians are immune against, and the other is what the common citizenry gets.
|
Northern Ireland26526 Posts
In a pure hypothetical world where hypothetical God and me has a chat and he lays out the deal and we sign a contract I’d trade my personal privacy in certain ways for both transparency and also action on that information that comes out, both towards government and corporate malfeasance, both individually and where they intersect.
As that isn’t ever actually the trade, then no, of course not. I’d be a complete moron to go down that route.
|
On April 12 2019 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 07:31 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2019 07:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 07:23 Doublemint wrote:On April 12 2019 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 06:34 crms wrote:On April 11 2019 11:36 Mohdoo wrote:On April 11 2019 11:20 Doodsmack wrote:
If it comes out that there was improper spying on the Trump campaign, and the investigation was a weapon intended to derail Trump's presidency, I'll bet a lot on the left would be okay with that, because it's comeuppance for Trump. So long as crimes were uncovered that would not have been otherwise found, it is a net positive. I'm about as left as you can get and totally disagree. I want the investigations to be legitimate because allowing the government to just decide without proper predication to violate citizens constitutional rights is a mess I'm not comfortable with whatsoever. From your statement it sounds like you'd be a proponent of other constitutional murky policies like 'stop and frisk'. Hey lets just search these black guys, I mean who cares if the search is likely a violation of their rights, we found some xyz so I guess it was a net positive! Hellllllll no. No, because I am saying a Mueller-type of investigation is only valid for people who are being given insane amounts of power, doing jobs we have seen corrupt many people. And I am not saying it should be stop and frisk. I am saying anyone who wants to have that much power needs to also consent to allowing citizens to KNOW they are clean. They work for us. I also imagine there are people on this board who would gladly consent to every detail of their lives being investigated if it meant being able to contribute to a functional, honest government. And lots of other good people feel the same way. It is an *honor* to serve government. If someone doesn't feel it is an honor, they aren't someone you want running the government. It is no different than saying cops should wear body camera. Lots of cops are shit bags. We need to be recording them. I am not saying all citizens need cameras. Just the ones who are given the right to kill people based on their intuition. People who we say can decide to exterminate life? Yeah, lets keep a closer eye on them. People who are military advisers? Yeah, lets make sure they don't have undisclosed contracts with other nations. that seems... highly suspect. like "Xi Jinping's wet dream of China" kind of suspect... everything about my daily life should be transparent? wait what? why in god's name would I ever allow that to happen? or any sane man for that matter? to help the government do their job? no thank you. To each their own, but I can say with total confidence that I would consent to Mueller being hired to investigate me prior to my being hired to work in the white house. So long as I got to keep my existing salary. so you don’t mind people listening to your phone calls and going through all your texts and google searches? Truthfully I don't think this is how it would be done. I don't think that is how they caught Manafort. Rather, I would ask the people who do this for a living "What kind of information would you need to make sure this person isn't corrupt or prone to blackmail?" If those people said "We need access to phone/internet records", then that's your answer. This is a system where we can choose what we optimize. Do we make it more invasive, but also more safe? Or less invasive and less safe? Based on data we have for the past 50 years, I would say we need to move our needle significantly closer to "more invasive and more safe". I would say we do the minimum necessary for "complete confidence" the individual is safe for government work. If that includes phone/internet records, it isn't something to form an opinion on. It is what is necessary and we either decide if we care about corruption or not. But yes, so long as the materials are kept confidential and only the investigators hear/see my information, it is the system working as it needs to. We don't get to decide what is and isn't effective. But we DO get to decide what methods we use based on their effectiveness. I am saying I would consent to the minimum necessary as determined by experts.
that’s true yes, and also probably where all the argument is. i say investigate the riches and make it public
|
On April 12 2019 08:03 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 07:31 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2019 07:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 07:23 Doublemint wrote:On April 12 2019 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2019 06:34 crms wrote:On April 11 2019 11:36 Mohdoo wrote:On April 11 2019 11:20 Doodsmack wrote:
If it comes out that there was improper spying on the Trump campaign, and the investigation was a weapon intended to derail Trump's presidency, I'll bet a lot on the left would be okay with that, because it's comeuppance for Trump. So long as crimes were uncovered that would not have been otherwise found, it is a net positive. I'm about as left as you can get and totally disagree. I want the investigations to be legitimate because allowing the government to just decide without proper predication to violate citizens constitutional rights is a mess I'm not comfortable with whatsoever. From your statement it sounds like you'd be a proponent of other constitutional murky policies like 'stop and frisk'. Hey lets just search these black guys, I mean who cares if the search is likely a violation of their rights, we found some xyz so I guess it was a net positive! Hellllllll no. No, because I am saying a Mueller-type of investigation is only valid for people who are being given insane amounts of power, doing jobs we have seen corrupt many people. And I am not saying it should be stop and frisk. I am saying anyone who wants to have that much power needs to also consent to allowing citizens to KNOW they are clean. They work for us. I also imagine there are people on this board who would gladly consent to every detail of their lives being investigated if it meant being able to contribute to a functional, honest government. And lots of other good people feel the same way. It is an *honor* to serve government. If someone doesn't feel it is an honor, they aren't someone you want running the government. It is no different than saying cops should wear body camera. Lots of cops are shit bags. We need to be recording them. I am not saying all citizens need cameras. Just the ones who are given the right to kill people based on their intuition. People who we say can decide to exterminate life? Yeah, lets keep a closer eye on them. People who are military advisers? Yeah, lets make sure they don't have undisclosed contracts with other nations. that seems... highly suspect. like "Xi Jinping's wet dream of China" kind of suspect... everything about my daily life should be transparent? wait what? why in god's name would I ever allow that to happen? or any sane man for that matter? to help the government do their job? no thank you. To each their own, but I can say with total confidence that I would consent to Mueller being hired to investigate me prior to my being hired to work in the white house. So long as I got to keep my existing salary. so you don’t mind people listening to your phone calls and going through all your texts and google searches? Truthfully I don't think this is how it would be done. I don't think that is how they caught Manafort. Rather, I would ask the people who do this for a living "What kind of information would you need to make sure this person isn't corrupt or prone to blackmail?" If those people said "We need access to phone/internet records", then that's your answer. This is a system where we can choose what we optimize. Do we make it more invasive, but also more safe? Or less invasive and less safe? Based on data we have for the past 50 years, I would say we need to move our needle significantly closer to "more invasive and more safe". I would say we do the minimum necessary for "complete confidence" the individual is safe for government work. If that includes phone/internet records, it isn't something to form an opinion on. It is what is necessary and we either decide if we care about corruption or not. But yes, so long as the materials are kept confidential and only the investigators hear/see my information, it is the system working as it needs to. We don't get to decide what is and isn't effective. But we DO get to decide what methods we use based on their effectiveness. I am saying I would consent to the minimum necessary as determined by experts. that’s true yes, and also probably where all the argument is. i say investigate the riches and make it public
1. What are you saying is true?
2. What argument? Between us? Or other people?
3. What do you mean by "i say investigate the riches and make it public"
|
On April 12 2019 07:32 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On April 11 2019 18:37 iamthedave wrote:On April 11 2019 12:22 xDaunt wrote: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. 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. Yes, I'm well aware that criminal investigations often come up empty. You are the one who is missing the point. Here is the key sentence from my post: Particularly when investigative agents go on the record and swear to a court that they already have probable cause of such Russian collusion/conspiracy. FBI/DOJ swore to a FISA court that they had probable cause (the standard for indictment) that Russian collusion/conspiracy with Trump campaign team members was occurring. In fact, they did it at least four times. It should raise major alarm bells that the allegations forming the basis of those FISA applications never showed up in any criminal indictments and that the underlying source for those applications -- the Steele dossier -- has proven to be false time and again. So yeah, don't insult my intelligence. You simply need to get up to speed on what the real issues are. Ah yes, thank you. I'd not noticed you raise this issue the last 30,000 times you mentioned it. I kind of have to 'insult your intelligence' when you consistently don't seem to be able to understand that there's more than one narrative in play here. You seem incapable of conceptualising the idea that there's more than your perspective on this matter, that it's all clear if 'only everyone looks at the same facts I have'. The problem being that there are dozens of articles stating that a fair chunk of the dossier has been confirmed to be true. Not all of it, but plenty of it.
Oh, I perfectly get that there are multiple perspectives on this. There's mine (or versions substantially similar to it), and there's all of the ones that are patently wrong. Yours falls into the latter category.
Your attempting to brush it under the carpet by saying 'the underlying source for those applications has proven to be false time and again' is counteracted by the counter-truth 'the underlying source for those applications has proven to be accurate time and again'.
This is false. The Steele dossier has not proven to be true at all as it pertains to any of the meaningful allegations in it that gave rise to the investigation into Trump's team, which is what the dossier was unequivocally used for. Stated another way, none of what it says about Page, Manafort, or Cohen colluding with Russians has panned out, and most of it (most notoriously the Cohen Prague trip) has proven to be false.
Both of those statements are true, and anyone who actually looked at all of the details should easily be able to acknowledge that. You don't. You refuse to. You consistently claim the entire thing is falsified and thus the entire investigation is predicated on a lie... which is manifestly untrue.
So, no, both of those statements aren't true.
That doesn't mean there wasn't impropriety at the FBI or DOJ. But you finger wagging and saying 'if you'd only dig and look at the facts' just makes you look bad because you clearly haven't done your own digging, else you'd be well aware that there's been plenty of corroboration of the Steele dossier. I'd have thought a lawyer wouldn't miss that detail. Yet strangely your selective vision successfully does so.
If you'd only acknowledge that large parts of the dossier are... truthified? ... then you could actually move forward instead of getting bogged down arguing over fundamentals that stopped being interesting at least a year ago.
The Steele Dossier can be partly true, partly false, wholly true or wholly false, none of that prevents or rules out impropriety at the FBI/DOJ. Your fixation on trying to cast the entire investigation as bogus ruins every other point you try and make because it's been proven beyond doubt that there was plenty of reason to investigate Trump.
How about this. Why don't you take your best shot at showing why the Steele dossier as it was used to justify the investigation into Trump team for Russia collusion was true. I'll just tell you now that you're going to come up woefully short, but maybe you'll surprise me.
|
In today's episode of "Everything Trump Touches Dies" we have his sisters career. Interestingly the trump family's tax scheme is not outside the statute of limitations, iirc. Youd have to think the anti trump NY AG is looking into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
