US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1355

On April 19 2019 06:34 KwarK wrote:
I’m going to start moderating NK apologists the same way Nazi apologists get moderated. Should make things simple enough.

On April 19 2019 06:34 KwarK wrote:
I’m going to start moderating NK apologists the same way Nazi apologists get moderated. Should make things simple enough.

On April 19 2019 04:35 Danglars wrote:

I'd hope you find yourself surrounded by friends that will restrain your worst impulses. Especially if you're being hounded by enemies for crimes you didn't commit, who are committing criminal offenses to get you.

From Barr:

The criminal standard is corrupt intent. The fact that the President assisted the investigation with access to whatever documents and senior staff Mueller wanted works against any claim that Trump possessed the mens rea. In point of fact, he aided the investigation.

Compare it with other criminal statutes that do not need intent, such as reckless endangerment.

Soon after he fired Corney, however, the President became aware that investigators were conducting an obstruction-of-justice inquiry into his own conduct. That awareness marked a significant change in the President s conduct and the start of a second phase of action. The President launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence adverse to the President, while in private, the President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation. For instance, the President attempted to remove the Special Counsel; he sought to have Attorney General Sessions unrecuse himself and limit the investigation; he sought to prevent public disclosure of information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between Russians and campaign officials; and he used public forums to attack potential witnesses who might offer adverse information and to praise witnesses who declined to cooperate with the government.

On April 19 2019 06:45 Wombat_NI wrote:
I mean is it?

On April 19 2019 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
If' I'm not going to be allowed to respond can we just drop it?

On April 19 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:

On the one hand, seems fair. On the other hand we’re all fine talking shit about the Third Reich without giving Nazis room to explain how they’ve just been portrayed negatively in media and that really it was the race mixers who were in the wrong.

On April 19 2019 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:


Is this an invitation to make my argument without fear of repercussion (should it remain civil) or bait?

On April 19 2019 04:20 Plansix wrote:

Just to be clear, are you claiming that the Special Counsel is out to get the President by creating the appearance of criminality?

On April 19 2019 07:06 KwarK wrote:

Neither, I think you misunderstood.

I feel the same way about people ganging up on NK as I do about them ganging up on the Third Reich. If they want to have a one sided bash on it they can.

On April 19 2019 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm going to say that equating what I've said to being a Nazi apologist is an unfair and inaccurate personal attack, but since it also came with a threat of a perm ban should I defend myself with a relevant argument on the subjects at hand I'd consider it bait.

I just hope that next time we talk about the Palestinian people, that the flippant/inevitable treatment of their suffering and ethnic cleansing at the hands of Israel (supported by the US and Trump) isn't acceptable either.

On April 19 2019 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm going to say that equating what I've said to being a Nazi apologist is an unfair and inaccurate personal attack, but since it also came with a threat of a perm ban should I defend myself with a relevant argument on the subjects at hand I'd consider it bait.

I just hope that next time we talk about the Palestinian people, that the flippant/inevitable treatment of their suffering and ethnic cleansing at the hands of Israel (supported by the US and Trump) isn't acceptable either.