|
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 |
|
|
Northern Ireland27016 Posts
On April 19 2019 01:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 01:41 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 19 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 01:33 IgnE wrote:
Didn’t we already know all this? What’s new here? Presumably xdaunt doesn’t disagree with any of the factual claims in the report. I’m not sure that in the dozens of pages of discussion on this issue that two people, one from each side, have directly disputed a coherent factual narrative. There just seems to be a lot of arguing about which events are actually important I indefinably didn't know that the president said he was fucked and the investigation was the end of his presidency in the oval office upon receiving news the special counsel was appointed. Or the number of times he asked McGahn to fire Mueller. Or that Corey Lewandowski delivered a message to Sessions to curtail the investigation. But the report is public, you can just read it like the rest of us. It’s pretty bloody damning in places, probably worse than I’d thought it would end up being, as you say some of the stuff I’d thought were hearsay or hyperbole apparently actually occurred. The sheer volume is also pretty shocking. It was a non-stop effort to gain control of the investigation through whatever means he could. And he attempted to fire Sessions and others to reach that goal. The only reason those failed due to Trump's inability to fire someone in person.
Which alone is just absolutely bizarre from a guy who had a show where his catchphrase was ‘you’re fired.’ It’s like something out of a satirical comedy show
|
On April 19 2019 01:48 Wombat_NI wrote:
If anything today has further frustrated me over the media have covered this. The actual report should be a bomb dropping, I feel it has been disarmed somewhat by over-saturation.
Why do you think it was so important that Barr take the reigns of the narrative before the public could read this? He gave conservatives their talking points weeks ago, and again this morning, so that they could ignore whatever bad shit is in the report.
|
On April 19 2019 01:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 00:55 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 00:27 PoulsenB wrote:On April 19 2019 00:20 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 00:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 18 2019 23:44 Danglars wrote:On April 18 2019 23:14 Nouar wrote:On April 18 2019 23:12 Danglars wrote:On April 18 2019 22:56 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On April 18 2019 22:51 Jockmcplop wrote:
Excellent. Now on to the real investigations, like why Trump gave high level security passes to people who were a massive risk to national security. Ever read that story 'The boy who cried Wolf' ? That is literally the dems and majority of the mainstream media the past two years. At least they've moved on from Stormy Daniels now her lawyer is facing 330 years in jail.It'd be hilarious all this if it wasn't so goddamn pathetic. It's about time to recognize that there will always be a next crime once the previous crime peters out. The last one was a fake investigation, this next one is a real investigation ... until I say it isn't a real investigation a few months from now, because then this other thing is the real investigation. It's just the character of the opposition, and one way they never have to reckon with their past conduct. Maybe if this president started to behave like a president, instead of giving the appearance of corruption and unfitness for office at ANY occasion he has (this includes recruiting non-idiots to official positions), things would not go that far. For reference, I believed Bush Jr to be an idiot (manipulated behind the scenes), but at least he tried to show some dignity and didn't look that obviously corrupt in every decision he took. Naturally, one direction for you to take is to assert unique circumstances. Because you're fearful of his "appearance" of corruption and unfitness, you can carry on ignoring the past allegation forgotten, and the current allegation enjoying its one day to several months (2 years if Mueller) of fame. Poppycock. I don't care how grating you find his behavior, don't make yourselves out to be absolute fools in your passionate reactionary vigor. I think this is the heart of ignoring everything xDaunt was posting informing people: your critical faculties are never reached because you can't get over how unfit you feel he is and how much you dislike playboy billionaires. Does one even need particularly developed critical faculties to accurately figure out Trump though? In hypothetical land where Trump says ‘I think this is politically motivated and I shall be shown exonerated, but we have to trust in our rule of law and institutions.’ and largely left it at that, vs how he behaves in actuality, there’s a world of difference there. You can’t divorce how he generally behaves from an investigation into him when he himself drags them together. To consider if what he's saying is wholly or partially right, you must first get past the hurdles of how he says things, who he's insulted recently, the breaking of norms, all the imputed racism and sexism, and your own opinion. I think that's what's shortcutting people that would otherwise actually be interested in whether or not Trump has fully legitimate ire at enemies within the government that used their positions of power against him out of animus. Your theory goes, you can't neglect that the person you're dealing with sold weed to kids when you go to see if he murdered someone, or was robbed and beaten. I say you're letting your dislike permeate your consideration and won't therefore reach accurate conclusions. Only Trump isn't some "Dr House" type that is "an asshole, but a brilliant asshole who does great work", he repeatedly lies and says outright stupid stuff, courts dictators like Putin and Kim, handwaved the Saudis chopping a journalist to pieces in an embassy, and has a history of shady business practices, among other things. Hence when it comes to questions like domestic surveillance, abuse of FISA warrants, illegal leaks, you're really not thinking about that stuff and the facts. You're going through how much you hated the Putin summit, or when he called the media "Enemies of the People." It's almost a karmic calculation. I am curious what your thoughts are on Flynn once you finish reading the parts about him.
I think the last three things I was interested in hearing your response to were left to hang, so maybe we both get disappointed on that score.
|
What are the odds Barr is summoned before Congress again to explain his public statements on the report in light of the language of the actual report?
|
|
|
On April 19 2019 01:49 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 00:55 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 00:27 PoulsenB wrote:On April 19 2019 00:20 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 00:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 18 2019 23:44 Danglars wrote:On April 18 2019 23:14 Nouar wrote:On April 18 2019 23:12 Danglars wrote:On April 18 2019 22:56 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On April 18 2019 22:51 Jockmcplop wrote:
Excellent. Now on to the real investigations, like why Trump gave high level security passes to people who were a massive risk to national security. Ever read that story 'The boy who cried Wolf' ? That is literally the dems and majority of the mainstream media the past two years. At least they've moved on from Stormy Daniels now her lawyer is facing 330 years in jail.It'd be hilarious all this if it wasn't so goddamn pathetic. It's about time to recognize that there will always be a next crime once the previous crime peters out. The last one was a fake investigation, this next one is a real investigation ... until I say it isn't a real investigation a few months from now, because then this other thing is the real investigation. It's just the character of the opposition, and one way they never have to reckon with their past conduct. Maybe if this president started to behave like a president, instead of giving the appearance of corruption and unfitness for office at ANY occasion he has (this includes recruiting non-idiots to official positions), things would not go that far. For reference, I believed Bush Jr to be an idiot (manipulated behind the scenes), but at least he tried to show some dignity and didn't look that obviously corrupt in every decision he took. Naturally, one direction for you to take is to assert unique circumstances. Because you're fearful of his "appearance" of corruption and unfitness, you can carry on ignoring the past allegation forgotten, and the current allegation enjoying its one day to several months (2 years if Mueller) of fame. Poppycock. I don't care how grating you find his behavior, don't make yourselves out to be absolute fools in your passionate reactionary vigor. I think this is the heart of ignoring everything xDaunt was posting informing people: your critical faculties are never reached because you can't get over how unfit you feel he is and how much you dislike playboy billionaires. Does one even need particularly developed critical faculties to accurately figure out Trump though? In hypothetical land where Trump says ‘I think this is politically motivated and I shall be shown exonerated, but we have to trust in our rule of law and institutions.’ and largely left it at that, vs how he behaves in actuality, there’s a world of difference there. You can’t divorce how he generally behaves from an investigation into him when he himself drags them together. To consider if what he's saying is wholly or partially right, you must first get past the hurdles of how he says things, who he's insulted recently, the breaking of norms, all the imputed racism and sexism, and your own opinion. I think that's what's shortcutting people that would otherwise actually be interested in whether or not Trump has fully legitimate ire at enemies within the government that used their positions of power against him out of animus. Your theory goes, you can't neglect that the person you're dealing with sold weed to kids when you go to see if he murdered someone, or was robbed and beaten. I say you're letting your dislike permeate your consideration and won't therefore reach accurate conclusions. Only Trump isn't some "Dr House" type that is "an asshole, but a brilliant asshole who does great work", he repeatedly lies and says outright stupid stuff, courts dictators like Putin and Kim, handwaved the Saudis chopping a journalist to pieces in an embassy, and has a history of shady business practices, among other things. Hence when it comes to questions like domestic surveillance, abuse of FISA warrants, illegal leaks, you're really not thinking about that stuff and the facts. You're going through how much you hated the Putin summit, or when he called the media "Enemies of the People." It's almost a karmic calculation. You've already barked up the "abuse of FISA warrants" tree and failed, you know as well as everyone else the FISA warrant was quite warranted and there was no abuse. Furthermore the "illegal leaks" all came from trump and his own people and you know it, or at least should. But hey, don't let pesky things like facts get in the way of your conjecture.
I don't really know your purpose in stating that I'm wrong and know I'm wrong, but you'll have to bring more persuasive arguments than just the trolling you indulge in now.
|
On April 19 2019 01:55 Gorsameth wrote:
What are the odds Barr is summoned before Congress again to explain his public statements on the report in light of the language of the actual report?
Iirc they already had these set up before the report dropped. Regardless, they will def happen. I imagine the hearings will be much more confrontational than one might have initially thought in light of the reports findings.
|
On April 19 2019 01:49 semantics wrote:
Don't know why they released the report as a scanned copy in a PDF, i mean they should have been able to make a clean copy with the info redacted in a text format. It's really frustrating me when trying to cross reference with-in the report itself don't know if i want to run it through an OCR with all the black boxes likely to confuse it.
Law does not like digital formats of documents that can be altered or changed. Or ever had the ability to be altered or changed. Do not underestimate the wizardry that would be used to try to find out what was under those redactions. It is hard for me to express how current technology, including word processors, is not built for law and the concerns of the legal world. And how people who build software openly mock those concerns when they are brought up.
My firm is working with a new system and I spent so long arguing with the people who made it that we need to mail things personally sometimes. Like put them in an envelope ourselves. I explained to them why and that our attorney would need to assure the court that the letter was mailed and it was better to say her paralegal mailed it personally. They still think I'm the weird trouble maker at the office who just doesn't like new things.
On April 19 2019 01:51 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 01:46 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 01:41 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 19 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 01:33 IgnE wrote:
Didn’t we already know all this? What’s new here? Presumably xdaunt doesn’t disagree with any of the factual claims in the report. I’m not sure that in the dozens of pages of discussion on this issue that two people, one from each side, have directly disputed a coherent factual narrative. There just seems to be a lot of arguing about which events are actually important I indefinably didn't know that the president said he was fucked and the investigation was the end of his presidency in the oval office upon receiving news the special counsel was appointed. Or the number of times he asked McGahn to fire Mueller. Or that Corey Lewandowski delivered a message to Sessions to curtail the investigation. But the report is public, you can just read it like the rest of us. It’s pretty bloody damning in places, probably worse than I’d thought it would end up being, as you say some of the stuff I’d thought were hearsay or hyperbole apparently actually occurred. The sheer volume is also pretty shocking. It was a non-stop effort to gain control of the investigation through whatever means he could. And he attempted to fire Sessions and others to reach that goal. The only reason those failed due to Trump's inability to fire someone in person. Which alone is just absolutely bizarre from a guy who had a show where his catchphrase was ‘you’re fired.’ It’s like something out of a satirical comedy show
Trump always has been a coward. He knows(or fears) that a lot of people are smarter/more confident than him and they can't allow that to be proven to him in person. So he avoids conflict. Trump likes to pick one sided fights. He doesn't like to fight with people in person. Especially when there is no audience.
|
Northern Ireland27016 Posts
On April 19 2019 01:51 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 01:48 Wombat_NI wrote:
If anything today has further frustrated me over the media have covered this. The actual report should be a bomb dropping, I feel it has been disarmed somewhat by over-saturation. Why do you think it was so important that Barr take the reigns of the narrative before the public could read this? He gave conservatives their talking points weeks ago, and again this morning, so that they could ignore whatever bad shit is in the report.
The only people who can’t see through that move would likely have just ignored the Mueller report findings even if Barr didn’t do that presser to mitigate it.
As a general rule I find if one piles on too hard on someone/an issue and frames them as the devil incarnate, over time said person can claw back ground simply by showing they’re not actually the devil.
Hence how Trump can continually shift the goalposts over and emerge unscathed, all the time.
I think we’ve seen a similar thing in Britain with the Labour Party/anti-semitism charge
|
Trump really is just a clown of a leader. His own people routinely ignore his directions. Pretty sure the only reason we haven't fallen off a cliff as a country is because the people around trump have saved us from him. That NYT OP ed starts to make more sense.
|
Northern Ireland27016 Posts
Pretty much, he’s got too much of an ego to delegate properly, he is too impulsive/ignorant of some areas to go full autocrat.
So you end up with the worst of both worlds,
|
On April 19 2019 01:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 01:55 Gorsameth wrote:
What are the odds Barr is summoned before Congress again to explain his public statements on the report in light of the language of the actual report?
I sure hope so the difference is so striking.
Barr quoted:
[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities.
The full sentence is
The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities.
Like seriously?
|
On April 19 2019 01:49 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 01:45 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 01:33 IgnE wrote:
Didn’t we already know all this? What’s new here? Presumably xdaunt doesn’t disagree with any of the factual claims in the report. I’m not sure that in the dozens of pages of discussion on this issue that two people, one from each side, have directly disputed a coherent factual narrative. There just seems to be a lot of arguing about which events are actually important I didn't know that the president said he was fucked and the investigation was the end of his presidency in the oval office upon receiving news the special counsel was appointed. Or the number of times he asked McGahn to fire Mueller. Or that Corey Lewandowski delivered a message to Sessions to curtail the investigation. But the report is public, you can just read it like the rest of us. honestly none of that surprises me. maybe I didnt “know it” in all of the particulars, but again, simply grafting some details onto an irrelevant tree doesn’t make it relevant without argument. didnt everyone already suspect that trump wiuld act like that? even xdaunt and danglars probably thought so By "act like that" do you mean a multi year operation, which he tried to cover up, to try and kill an investigation into himself? That some people might argue that doesnt rise to an indictable offense doesnt change what is clear for everyone to see. And thankfully, for the first time it really is clear for all to see.
frankly, yes, i do mean that. it’s strange how you guys take a couple of trump’s tweets so seriously when you know that he’s a liar.
nobody here was on the fence. we already know that more “data” is not persuasive to people ideologically divided. the only relevant question for me is how to convince people to contextualize the data differently. this is largely a matter for rhetoric, that ancient discipline recently much maligned. the report may help with constructing the argument but it doesn’t suffice on its own and petty back and forths miss the target. what i want is a cogent, targeted response. the only person i’ve seen do that consistently on this topic is kwark, to whom danglars and xdaunt do not respond, perhaps because they do not significantly disagree with the underlying propositions
On April 19 2019 01:59 Doodsmack wrote:Trump really is just a clown of a leader. His own people routinely ignore his directions. Pretty sure the only reason we haven't fallen off a cliff as a country is because the people around trump have saved us from him. That NYT OP ed starts to make more sense. https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1118918109363167233
see, we already knew this
edit regarding barr: go back a week or two in this thread and look at the skepticism surrounding barr, everyone anti-trump knew he was a dissembler because what he/trumpists think is important is different from what anti-trumpists think is important. it’s not like barr lied. misrepresentation is usually misrepresentation of the relative importance of things. hence why i say that that is precisely what is at issue
|
On April 19 2019 01:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 01:12 Mohdoo wrote:On April 19 2019 00:55 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 00:27 PoulsenB wrote:On April 19 2019 00:20 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 00:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 18 2019 23:44 Danglars wrote:On April 18 2019 23:14 Nouar wrote:On April 18 2019 23:12 Danglars wrote:On April 18 2019 22:56 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
Ever read that story 'The boy who cried Wolf' ?
That is literally the dems and majority of the mainstream media the past two years.
At least they've moved on from Stormy Daniels now her lawyer is facing 330 years in jail.It'd be hilarious all this if it wasn't so goddamn pathetic. It's about time to recognize that there will always be a next crime once the previous crime peters out. The last one was a fake investigation, this next one is a real investigation ... until I say it isn't a real investigation a few months from now, because then this other thing is the real investigation. It's just the character of the opposition, and one way they never have to reckon with their past conduct. Maybe if this president started to behave like a president, instead of giving the appearance of corruption and unfitness for office at ANY occasion he has (this includes recruiting non-idiots to official positions), things would not go that far. For reference, I believed Bush Jr to be an idiot (manipulated behind the scenes), but at least he tried to show some dignity and didn't look that obviously corrupt in every decision he took. Naturally, one direction for you to take is to assert unique circumstances. Because you're fearful of his "appearance" of corruption and unfitness, you can carry on ignoring the past allegation forgotten, and the current allegation enjoying its one day to several months (2 years if Mueller) of fame. Poppycock. I don't care how grating you find his behavior, don't make yourselves out to be absolute fools in your passionate reactionary vigor. I think this is the heart of ignoring everything xDaunt was posting informing people: your critical faculties are never reached because you can't get over how unfit you feel he is and how much you dislike playboy billionaires. Does one even need particularly developed critical faculties to accurately figure out Trump though? In hypothetical land where Trump says ‘I think this is politically motivated and I shall be shown exonerated, but we have to trust in our rule of law and institutions.’ and largely left it at that, vs how he behaves in actuality, there’s a world of difference there. You can’t divorce how he generally behaves from an investigation into him when he himself drags them together. To consider if what he's saying is wholly or partially right, you must first get past the hurdles of how he says things, who he's insulted recently, the breaking of norms, all the imputed racism and sexism, and your own opinion. I think that's what's shortcutting people that would otherwise actually be interested in whether or not Trump has fully legitimate ire at enemies within the government that used their positions of power against him out of animus. Your theory goes, you can't neglect that the person you're dealing with sold weed to kids when you go to see if he murdered someone, or was robbed and beaten. I say you're letting your dislike permeate your consideration and won't therefore reach accurate conclusions. Only Trump isn't some "Dr House" type that is "an asshole, but a brilliant asshole who does great work", he repeatedly lies and says outright stupid stuff, courts dictators like Putin and Kim, handwaved the Saudis chopping a journalist to pieces in an embassy, and has a history of shady business practices, among other things. Hence when it comes to questions like domestic surveillance, abuse of FISA warrants, illegal leaks, you're really not thinking about that stuff and the facts. You're going through how much you hated the Putin summit, or when he called the media "Enemies of the People." It's almost a karmic calculation. I am curious what your thoughts are on Flynn once you finish reading the parts about him. I think the last three things I was interested in hearing your response to were left to hang, so maybe we both get disappointed on that score.
This says plenty and gave me all the satisfaction I needed  thank you!
I stopped checking this thread as often until the report dropped, so I'm sorry if I missed posts. If you happen to still have links I'd be happy to respond!
|
The campaign talked with a lot of Russians and thought the Russian interference would help them. They were overtly open to conspiring with the Russians. However, the investigation was unable to find the smoking gun that proves there was a conspiracy.
|
On April 19 2019 01:49 semantics wrote:
Don't know why they released the report as a scanned copy in a PDF, i mean they should have been able to make a clean copy with the info redacted in a text format. It's really frustrating me when trying to cross reference with-in the report itself don't know if i want to run it through an OCR with all the black boxes likely to confuse it.
Here ya go.
|
On April 19 2019 02:06 Plansix wrote:
The campaign talked with a lot of Russians and thought the Russian interference would help them. They were overtly open to conspiring with the Russians. However, the investigation was unable to find the smoking gun that proves there was a conspiracy. I'll be reading the report myself tonight but my biggest question since Mueller finished has been how to square what your saying here about the lack of a smoking gun with the existence of the Trump Tower meeting and what we know about it.
|
On April 19 2019 02:05 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 01:49 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 01:45 IgnE wrote:On April 19 2019 01:36 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 01:33 IgnE wrote:
Didn’t we already know all this? What’s new here? Presumably xdaunt doesn’t disagree with any of the factual claims in the report. I’m not sure that in the dozens of pages of discussion on this issue that two people, one from each side, have directly disputed a coherent factual narrative. There just seems to be a lot of arguing about which events are actually important I didn't know that the president said he was fucked and the investigation was the end of his presidency in the oval office upon receiving news the special counsel was appointed. Or the number of times he asked McGahn to fire Mueller. Or that Corey Lewandowski delivered a message to Sessions to curtail the investigation. But the report is public, you can just read it like the rest of us. honestly none of that surprises me. maybe I didnt “know it” in all of the particulars, but again, simply grafting some details onto an irrelevant tree doesn’t make it relevant without argument. didnt everyone already suspect that trump wiuld act like that? even xdaunt and danglars probably thought so By "act like that" do you mean a multi year operation, which he tried to cover up, to try and kill an investigation into himself? That some people might argue that doesnt rise to an indictable offense doesnt change what is clear for everyone to see. And thankfully, for the first time it really is clear for all to see. frankly, yes, i do mean that. it’s strange how you guys take a couple of trump’s tweets so seriously when you know that he’s a liar. nobody here was on the fence. we already know that more “data” is not persuasive to people ideologically divided. the only relevant question for me is how to convince people to contextualize the data differently. this is largely a matter for rhetoric, that ancient discipline recently much-maligned. the report may help with constructing the argument but it doesn’t suffice on its own and petty back and forths miss the target. what i want is a cogent, targeted response. the only person i’ve seen do that consistently on this topic is kwark, tonwhom danglars and xdaunt do not respond, perhaps because they do not significantly disagree with the underlying propositions
I'm not so sure both sides agreed on the facts to the point where a debate about whether the facts meet the elements of the crime was appropriate. There were too many unknowns. That's why this report being public is so important; it lets everyone see what happened in chronological order and with great detail.
Now if we could get xDaunt and co. to come out and state that what Mueller lays out in the report is the final and complete fact set, then, and only then, can we move on to contextualizing with regards to the elements of the law.
|
On April 19 2019 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 02:06 Plansix wrote:
The campaign talked with a lot of Russians and thought the Russian interference would help them. They were overtly open to conspiring with the Russians. However, the investigation was unable to find the smoking gun that proves there was a conspiracy. I'll be reading the report myself tonight but my biggest question since Mueller finished has been how to square what your saying here about the lack of a smoking gun with the existence of the Trump Tower meeting and what we know about it.
No witness that is willing to testify to what was said during that meeting. Without a witness, it is all hearsay and speculation.
The gulf between we know to be true and what can be proven to a court is quite wide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
