|
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 18 2019 05:01 Simberto wrote:
If something is going against republicans, a lot of caution is necessary to never wrongly accuse someone, and to investigate the investigators very thoroughly. If something is going against democrats, those problems never seem to come up.
Well, if you were to believe in the Obama controlled deep state that would be the natural conclusion, that Trump is being politically repressed while investigations into democrats have been stopped from digging below surface level. His takes are logically consistent if you look at them through that lens.
This stance removes your ability of being hypocritical or having double standards, it's like a dyson sphere that captures them before they reach introspection and turns them into MAGA energy.
|
On April 18 2019 05:01 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On April 18 2019 04:52 JimmiC wrote:
I think that if you are going to pardon some, which I hope doesn't happen because they are completely dirty, you would have to Pardon them all, including the ones that turned on Trump. This my side or your side BS has to stop, it has to be whats right and wrong. If you think that my posts are strictly about "my side or your side," then you have completely missed the boat. Dunno, i get exactly the same impression. You always have a lot of reasons why anything against republicans is bad, anything for republicans is good, anything against democrats is good and anything for democrats is bad. I don't think i have seen a single issue of you ever taking a position that can not be summed up like that. Sure, you always find a way to rationalize it, but deep down your decision making process is simply Republicans good, democrats bad. If something is going against republicans, a lot of caution is necessary to never wrongly accuse someone, and to investigate the investigators very thoroughly. If something is going against democrats, those problems never seem to come up.
I don't know what to say other than you should read my posts rather than other posters' characterizations of my posts. This idea that my posts boil down to "republicans good, democrats bad" is the kind of nonsense that only comes from some of the other posters around here. I have had no shortage of criticism for republicans. And my most scathing criticism has generally been reserved for them. Regardless, this Trump investigation stuff isn't even about the political parties. Anyone who thinks so understands neither who Trump's opponents are nor the true constitutional issues that are at stake. Sure, most democrats are eager to crap all over Trump for the obvious political reasons, but the democrat party is not the driving force behind what has happened.
|
On April 18 2019 05:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 05:01 Simberto wrote:On April 18 2019 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On April 18 2019 04:52 JimmiC wrote:
I think that if you are going to pardon some, which I hope doesn't happen because they are completely dirty, you would have to Pardon them all, including the ones that turned on Trump. This my side or your side BS has to stop, it has to be whats right and wrong. If you think that my posts are strictly about "my side or your side," then you have completely missed the boat. Dunno, i get exactly the same impression. You always have a lot of reasons why anything against republicans is bad, anything for republicans is good, anything against democrats is good and anything for democrats is bad. I don't think i have seen a single issue of you ever taking a position that can not be summed up like that. Sure, you always find a way to rationalize it, but deep down your decision making process is simply Republicans good, democrats bad. If something is going against republicans, a lot of caution is necessary to never wrongly accuse someone, and to investigate the investigators very thoroughly. If something is going against democrats, those problems never seem to come up. I don't know what to say other than you should read my posts rather than other posters' characterizations of my posts. This idea that my posts boil down to "republicans good, democrats bad" is the kind of nonsense that only comes from some of the other posters around here. I have had no shortage of criticism for republicans. And my most scathing criticism has generally been reserved for them. Regardless, this Trump investigation stuff isn't even about the political parties. Anyone who thinks so understands neither who Trump's opponents are nor the true constitutional issues that are at stake. Sure, most democrats are eager to crap all over Trump for the obvious political reasons, but the democrat party is not the driving force behind what has happened.
What % of people would you say understand your posts vs how many do not understand your posts?
|
On April 18 2019 05:50 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 04:52 JimmiC wrote:
I think we know what xDaunt thinks. He is very clear and direct about it. He is protrump and pro in every way. He think the ends justify the means and while Trump is "no angel" he is sticking it to the deep state. While I disagree with much of it, I don't think their is any question of his position.
How does being clear and direct about something qualify as a good thing? Attacking the opposing political side wherever possible? Check. Disregarding any flaws his Leader has because he suits him? Check. Putting his country above all other no matter the morality? Check. Disregarding any BS his "own" party does and even advocating for pardoning people that comitted and were proven guilty of crimes? Check. This is not simple partisanship or some run of the mill right wing talk, this is Facism. And I don't see the least bit of hyperbole in this statement.
It is less of a chore to deal with someone who is direct in discussions. The disingenuous concern trolling that some folks adopt when discussion Trump and his malfeasance is far more irritating.
I agree with you on the last part. The entire attitude that abuse of executive power is acceptable because it targets perceived enemies is the path to authoritarianism. It is a rejection of due process to obtain a political outcome without regards to the consequences.
|
On April 18 2019 05:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On April 18 2019 05:01 Simberto wrote:On April 18 2019 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On April 18 2019 04:52 JimmiC wrote:
I think that if you are going to pardon some, which I hope doesn't happen because they are completely dirty, you would have to Pardon them all, including the ones that turned on Trump. This my side or your side BS has to stop, it has to be whats right and wrong. If you think that my posts are strictly about "my side or your side," then you have completely missed the boat. Dunno, i get exactly the same impression. You always have a lot of reasons why anything against republicans is bad, anything for republicans is good, anything against democrats is good and anything for democrats is bad. I don't think i have seen a single issue of you ever taking a position that can not be summed up like that. Sure, you always find a way to rationalize it, but deep down your decision making process is simply Republicans good, democrats bad. If something is going against republicans, a lot of caution is necessary to never wrongly accuse someone, and to investigate the investigators very thoroughly. If something is going against democrats, those problems never seem to come up. I don't know what to say other than you should read my posts rather than other posters' characterizations of my posts. This idea that my posts boil down to "republicans good, democrats bad" is the kind of nonsense that only comes from some of the other posters around here. I have had no shortage of criticism for republicans. And my most scathing criticism has generally been reserved for them. Regardless, this Trump investigation stuff isn't even about the political parties. Anyone who thinks so understands neither who Trump's opponents are nor the true constitutional issues that are at stake. Sure, most democrats are eager to crap all over Trump for the obvious political reasons, but the democrat party is not the driving force behind what has happened. What % of people would you say understand your posts vs how many do not understand your posts?
Maybe 1 in 5? It's certainly not good. And of those other 4, I'd say that one of them might understand a given post but misrepresents it anyway. There are certain clear litmus tests that make my criticisms pretty obvious. For example, saying that my posting is all about "republican vs democrat" is patently retarded.
|
So, your posts just so happen to allways support republicans and attack democrats?
And if you haven't realized, if 4 out of 5 people don't understand your postings or assume the worst of you because of them, then the issue is clearly with you.
|
On April 18 2019 06:04 Velr wrote:
So, your posts just so happen to allways support republicans and attack democrats?
And if you haven't realized, if 4 out of 5 people don't understand your postings or assume the worst of you because of them, then the issue is clearly with you.
Nah, it's not me. I watch the same posters similarly "struggle" with others as well.
|
Posts about evidence of DOJ/FBI abuse/spying: Don’t read and understand claims. Focus on why only partisans would defend Trump. Dismiss evidence. Make frequent comparisons with Benghazi. Allege double standards, again, without noting dissimilarities or any underlying issues. Allege bad faith and bad actors and construct hypotheticals if pressed on the details. Only comment on optics, and repeat how much you distrust the presenter without looking at the presentation. There’s nothing here, so why look at what’s presented critically?
2 years of posts about Trump-Russia collusion: Read claims. Post excitedly about what is alleged. Predict downfall of Trump and top officials. Examine possible consequences if true. Repeat anonymously sourced information as fact. Make suppositions about Mueller’s integrity and Trump’s perfidy. Assume Trump will fire investigators to avoid damaging leaked information.
For xDaunts post:
I don’t know how he’s going to handle the dossier. I do expect to see a lot of lobbed smoke bombs within the report. Barr already has the juice on conclusions. Probably a lot of redacted secretive grand jury testimony, sources and methods, 6e.
|
|
|
On April 18 2019 06:16 Danglars wrote:
Posts about evidence of DOJ/FBI abuse/spying
He did not post any evidence whatsoever, only speculation. Repeating 3 times that there was no valid predicate to investigate Trump is not evidence or an argument. Repeating 3 times that Mifsud will turn out to be a western agent is not evidence or an argument. You don't have to be a genius to understand his posts as he seems to think. Let's cut the crap, all he does is make baseless predictions then scoff at anyone that doesn't take them at face value.
|
On April 18 2019 06:22 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 06:16 Danglars wrote:
Posts about evidence of DOJ/FBI abuse/spying He did not post any evidence whatsoever, only speculation. Repeating 3 times that there was no valid predicate to investigate Trump is not evidence or an argument. Repeating 3 times that Mifsud will turn out to be a western agent is not evidence or an argument. You don't have to be a genius to understand his posts as he seems to think. Let's cut the crap, all he does is make baseless predictions then scoff at anyone that doesn't take them at face value.
I have posted a ton of evidence on these points, including news articles, transcripts of testimony, and source documents. I daresay that I have posted far more evidence of investigative malfeasance than anyone else posted of Trump/Russia collusion. That you either ignore it or don't understand its significance isn't my problem.
|
Third option: He and others don't think the evidence provided is that compelling.
|
Nono, just xdaunt did not post any evidence whatsoever, only speculation is enough to be honest. We don't need to act as if xdaunt's "evidence" is legitimate evidence.
|
On April 18 2019 06:27 Plansix wrote:
Third option: He and others don't think the evidence provided is that compelling.
I have yet to see a good argument from anyone as to why the evidence that I have presented is not compelling. Of the people who rotely dismiss my posts on this, not one has demonstrated an even passable understanding of the facts or applicable law. So I'll file this under option 2 as previously provided.
|
On April 18 2019 06:22 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 06:16 Danglars wrote:
Posts about evidence of DOJ/FBI abuse/spying He did not post any evidence whatsoever, only speculation. Repeating 3 times that there was no valid predicate to investigate Trump is not evidence or an argument. Repeating 3 times that Mifsud will turn out to be a western agent is not evidence or an argument. You don't have to be a genius to understand his posts as he seems to think. Let's cut the crap, all he does is make baseless predictions then scoff at anyone that doesn't take them at face value.
He’s not going to repeat it every 20 pages for the cheap seats. People showed no desire to interact on a factual basis. Like you do here, it’s just choosing to scoff at Mifsud and leave it at that. Facts only matter when they’re damaging to Trump. Thank goodness Barr takes it seriously about domestic surveillance and what it means, while this thread either embraces spying by the government or ignore that it’s even an issue.
|
On April 18 2019 06:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 06:22 Dan HH wrote:On April 18 2019 06:16 Danglars wrote:
Posts about evidence of DOJ/FBI abuse/spying He did not post any evidence whatsoever, only speculation. Repeating 3 times that there was no valid predicate to investigate Trump is not evidence or an argument. Repeating 3 times that Mifsud will turn out to be a western agent is not evidence or an argument. You don't have to be a genius to understand his posts as he seems to think. Let's cut the crap, all he does is make baseless predictions then scoff at anyone that doesn't take them at face value. He’s not going to repeat it every 20 pages for the cheap seats. People showed no desire to interact on a factual basis. Like you do here, it’s just choosing to scoff at Mifsud and leave it at that. Facts only matter when they’re damaging to Trump. Thank goodness Barr takes it seriously about domestic surveillance and what it means, while this thread either embraces spying by the government or ignore that it’s even an issue.
I'm looking forward to Barr's and Rosenstein's press conference tomorrow morning. I fully expect them to drop all sorts of bombs that will catch people by surprise more than Barr's "spying" comments did last week. When I say that most people aren't prepared for what's likely coming, I mean it.
|
Rather than parse the semantics of the word evidence, I would rather an articulation on why the evidence compels him to believe what he believes. To go beyond, "Re-read what I posted" and that we did not understand because we lack functioning thought cavities.
On April 18 2019 06:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 06:27 Plansix wrote:
Third option: He and others don't think the evidence provided is that compelling. I have yet to see a good argument from anyone as to why the evidence that I have presented is not compelling. Of the people who rotely dismiss my posts on this, not one has demonstrated an even passable understanding of the facts or applicable law. So I'll file this under option 2 as previously provided.
My guy, it took me a number of posts over several different discussions spanning a bunch of days days to get you to tell me what FISA warrant you were talking about and who it was for. I don't have time for a discussion that moves at the speed of two people writing letters in a Jane Austin novel, but with less witty insults. You basic ass is so much god damn work.
|
On April 18 2019 06:27 Plansix wrote:
Third option: He and others don't think the evidence provided is that compelling.
He did not present any evidence whatsover about those 2 claims that he keeps repeating and getting in fights with people over. Not once has he elaborated on how he even reached the conclusion that Mifsud is a western agent, let alone provide anything.
As for his new favorite phrase valid predicate, what started this was Barr saying, and i'm paraphrasing, that 'maybe there wasn't one, we should look into it, i'm not saying there wasn't one'. That was all there was about it. He did make one attempt at an argument, which was that since no charges were made specifically for coordinating with Russia it means there most likely wasn't a valid predicate for the investigation. Of course many people at the time pointed out that he should know better than anyone that an investigation not leading to charges doesn't automatically mean that an investigation wasn't warranted.
|
On April 18 2019 06:40 Plansix wrote:
My guy, it took me a number of posts over several different discussions spanning a bunch of days days to get you to tell me what FISA warrant you were talking about and who it was for. I don't have time for a discussion that moves at the speed of two people writing letters in a Jane Austin novel, but with less witty insults. You basic ass is so much god damn work.
Not quite. I told you as soon you asked. But more tellingly, the fact that you had to ask demonstrates how little you know about the facts, because there's only one known FISA warrant that was approved: the Carter Page warrant (and its renewals).
|
Northern Ireland24438 Posts
On April 18 2019 06:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 06:22 Dan HH wrote:On April 18 2019 06:16 Danglars wrote:
Posts about evidence of DOJ/FBI abuse/spying He did not post any evidence whatsoever, only speculation. Repeating 3 times that there was no valid predicate to investigate Trump is not evidence or an argument. Repeating 3 times that Mifsud will turn out to be a western agent is not evidence or an argument. You don't have to be a genius to understand his posts as he seems to think. Let's cut the crap, all he does is make baseless predictions then scoff at anyone that doesn't take them at face value. He’s not going to repeat it every 20 pages for the cheap seats. People showed no desire to interact on a factual basis. Like you do here, it’s just choosing to scoff at Mifsud and leave it at that. Facts only matter when they’re damaging to Trump. Thank goodness Barr takes it seriously about domestic surveillance and what it means, while this thread either embraces spying by the government or ignore that it’s even an issue.
I just personally don’t read the evidence, tbh I don’t really care that much. If one cares about ‘facts’ so much why does this only surface here?
Either it’s procedural minutiae that seems to miss the forest for the trees, or let’s hop in the time machine to when Clinton was relevant or when Obama was President.
Why even bother if x issue of actual concern is only a pertinent factor of concern if it affects one’s ‘guy’
So no, the message shouldn’t always be discounted by the messenger, of course not. When the message always, always in some way, via a set of seemingly changeable frameworks somehow always ends up being a defence of Trump, then maybe yeah it becomes relevant who the messenger is.
I don’t even think that’s a fair reading of the general tenor of the thread. Which seems to largely be against Trump, yes, with a smattering of me who is massively against Trump but doesn’t think he ultimately matters that much in the wider scheme of things and that the Dems are on to a loser thinking they can impeach him, iirc GreenHorizons is vaguely similar there, and we’re probably amongst if not the most left leaning here. Don’t want to speak for the guy so he can correct me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
