EPT"Mueller report reveals Sarah Sanders lied for Trump. It's time for her to resign."
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/mueller-report-reveals-sarah-sanders-lied-trump-it-s-time-ncna996181
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1361
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
"Mueller report reveals Sarah Sanders lied for Trump. It's time for her to resign." https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/mueller-report-reveals-sarah-sanders-lied-trump-it-s-time-ncna996181 | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
"Over the weekend, Republicans for the Rule of Law will air an advertisement on Fox News urging GOP lawmakers to hold Trump accountable for “lying” and “obstructing justice,” like Republicans had done with former Democratic President Bill Clinton more than 20 years ago, when a GOP-led House successfully impeached Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Clinton was subsequently acquitted on all charges after a trial in the Senate. “The Mueller Report revealed multiple instances of President Trump lying and obstructing justice. Twenty years ago, Republicans denounced a Democratic president for lying and obstructing justice,” the 34-second advertisement’s opening reads, before cutting to old clips of GOP lawmakers condemning Clinton on Capitol Hill. “Republicans stood for the rule of law then. We should stand for the rule of law now,” it concludes. The advertisement’s goal, according to Longwell, is to “encourage speaking up from Republicans." "REPUBLICAN GROUP WILL RUN AD ON FOX NEWS URGING GOP TO HOLD TRUMP ACCOUNTABLE: ‘NO EXONERATION, DEFINITELY OBSTRUCTION’" https://www.newsweek.com/republican-group-will-run-ad-fox-news-urging-gop-hold-trump-accountable-no-1400970 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
"The revelation is a blow to the perception that Burr has been relatively free from bias while conducting his committee’s own investigation into Russia’s support for Donald Trump. That image has become especially important since the Republican who led a similar inquiry in the House shattered its credibility by scheming with the Trump administration and pushing a conspiracy theory about President Barack Obama. Democrats ultimately saw that lawmaker, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), as “deliberately dishonest. Now Burr may face similar rebukes. ” Can he face any consequences for this? I guess anything that could happen would have to be approved by the Republican majority on the committee or in the Senate as a whole right? So basically he will get away embarrassed but unscathed. Unless there's some avenue I'm not aware of. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22991 Posts
On April 19 2019 22:41 JimmiC wrote: Even by your definition you are wrong Inge. Z2C used it reference to Mueller, who just laid out all the evidence and did not make judgement one way or the other, he left that to congress. Had Z2C said Barr you might have had a point since he (inappropriately) did pass judgement. OJ had a trial and jury pass judgement, so your example is very different from what actually happened. I suggest you actually read the report or at least some summaries especially if you are going to bust out the Latin to try to make yourself look smart. Because it is pretty embarrassing when a guy does that and than doesn't even have the basic facts down to make his whole "lesson" make sense. I don't think IgnE is confused or hasn't read enough on the report to support his conclusion. What he's trying to do is sort out why people insist on spending pages on a semantic argument when we all know what each other mean. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
In other words, they both held the belief that the only way they could withstand scrutiny was to lie. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24412 Posts
On April 19 2019 22:36 GreenHorizons wrote: They most definitely tried that, didn't work, but they tried. ANTIFA out here doing the tough work the FBI refuses to is a mild comfort though. Yeah I was being mildly facetious, and by mildly I mean extremely, more towards the ‘Antifa are the real fascists’ crows. Another mild comfort is seeing Antifa types restrict their activities to folks who clearly are ones to be concerned about. I’ve has misgivings myself in the past on too broad a brush being used, although my bigger concern would be alienating further people as well in an optics sense. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22991 Posts
On April 19 2019 22:54 Wombat_NI wrote: Yeah I was being mildly facetious, and by mildly I mean extremely, more towards the ‘Antifa are the real fascists’ crows. Another mild comfort is seeing Antifa types restrict their activities to folks who clearly are ones to be concerned about. I’ve has misgivings myself in the past on too broad a brush being used, although my bigger concern would be alienating further people as well in an optics sense. Considering MLK jr was declared by the FBI to be "the most dangerous negro in the country" and his polling (he had higher unfavorables in 1966 than Trump does now) the idea that there's a way to court those people without alienating them is largely a myth imo. It's sorta like addiction in that it doesn't really matter how many people confront them, or in what ways, only the addict can choose to get clean. Which only happens when they hit rock bottom. White supremacy and fascism is too far from rock bottom for it's addicts to get clean imo. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24412 Posts
On April 19 2019 22:41 Ayaz2810 wrote: I think we are seeing some cracks, and it's no coincidence that it's immediately after the report's release. I would be heartened to hear some Republican lawmakers call out Trump and even endorse Bill Weld. The fact that this will air on Fox obviously makes this even more amazing. "Over the weekend, Republicans for the Rule of Law will air an advertisement on Fox News urging GOP lawmakers to hold Trump accountable for “lying” and “obstructing justice,” like Republicans had done with former Democratic President Bill Clinton more than 20 years ago, when a GOP-led House successfully impeached Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Clinton was subsequently acquitted on all charges after a trial in the Senate. “The Mueller Report revealed multiple instances of President Trump lying and obstructing justice. Twenty years ago, Republicans denounced a Democratic president for lying and obstructing justice,” the 34-second advertisement’s opening reads, before cutting to old clips of GOP lawmakers condemning Clinton on Capitol Hill. “Republicans stood for the rule of law then. We should stand for the rule of law now,” it concludes. The advertisement’s goal, according to Longwell, is to “encourage speaking up from Republicans." "REPUBLICAN GROUP WILL RUN AD ON FOX NEWS URGING GOP TO HOLD TRUMP ACCOUNTABLE: ‘NO EXONERATION, DEFINITELY OBSTRUCTION’" https://www.newsweek.com/republican-group-will-run-ad-fox-news-urging-gop-hold-trump-accountable-no-1400970 That fight would be an entertaining one at least. Wonder if it’ll be run. I don’t think it’ll shift the ground all that much, I still like to see it on principle. I wonder how much the ground needs to shift though, probably quite a bit. Trump isn’t super ideologically aligned with some in the GOP, and I can’t imagine he’s the type to engender much loyalty, or be easy to work with. He’s insulated a ton by the current political climate, whereupon I’d see it as political suicide fora significant cohort of the house GOP to come out against him in any sustained way. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22991 Posts
On April 19 2019 23:10 JimmiC wrote: Perhaps, but then he should just say that. Clarity in discussion is important especially online where tone is non-existent. He also shouldn't miss use words or his point is lost. As it was, if that was even his point to begin with. From a legal standpoint it's an appropriate use of the term as even the "leaving it to congress" argument turns it from a legal matter into a political one. That's one intended use of the word, that the legal process has concluded, unless or until new information comes to light, and it didn't conclude in conviction or mistrial. His point (which was supplemented with a different post) was the same as mine in that people reading xDaunt's "exonerated" in the colloquial sense, as opposed to the legal seems to be the root of the issue. Despite all of us knowing xDaunt doesn't think Trump has been exonerated in the colloquial sense or at least didn't take that position. There's plenty wrong with his argument and I think people are expressing frustration at what seems to be a fixation on one of the least substantive parts imo. On April 19 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote: I'm not trying to be rude so don't read that tone, but what does the sheriff's son doing something have to add? Do we know much about him? If he was doing this to please his father, I think it furthers your point. If he hated his father and was doing this to spite him, I think it is irrelevant. To your main article I hope more supremacists are forced from their jobs, while it may just push the groups underground, their should be consequences for joining hate groups. And when a police officer is "supposed" to be fair to all and is a group a that has the message to hate one group they are wholly unqualified for that position. I would hope to see more of this, it would be nice if it didn't take an anti fascist group to do so and rather the HR of the police department took care of it themselves. But at least it happened. As was noted here at the time and in the article the sheriffs tried to play it off on black metal but the prosecuting attorney is charging it as a hate crime. If your requesting me to explicitly link the two, police departments around the country are inundated with white supremacists and trying to cover for them when they can. ANTIFA didn't bring those officers connections to white supremacists to the attention of the department, they brought the departments inaction about it to the attention of the locals. Like the prosecutor didn't bring the racial animus for the church burnings to the police's attention, they brought the police's inaction to the public's attention. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On April 19 2019 11:01 xDaunt wrote: No criminal charge = fully exonerated. There is no middle ground here, despite Mueller’s best attempts to create the appearance of impropriety out of whole cloth. Jesus christ. Will you start being consistent? Please? How is - by this logic - Hilary Clinton not 'fully exonerated' of the nonsense you keep peddling about her e-mails? No criminal charges were filed ergo fully exonerated. You just said it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
To be clear, I don’t think IgnE style of discussion is rooted in some form of malice or trolling. It is just the way he prefers to discuss things. But it does make some posters wonder if they are entering a good faith discussion, which is a tension that can lead to some irritation or misunderstanding. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22991 Posts
On April 19 2019 23:36 Plansix wrote: The discussion around the meaning of “exonerated” in the legal vs political vs colloquial sense is a good one to have. The problem with IgnE’s efforts is his fondles for the Socratic style of discussion where he always asks questions. Although Socrates was an amazing mind of his time, most people who study him agree the man would have been very irritating to have a conversation with if you were not on board with his style of discussion. One side of that discussion has to put in a lot more effort than the other, which works in a mentor to student relationship. Less so in a discussion among peers on the internet. And recent trends of trolls using bad faith rhetorical questions has only increased the tension around that discussion style. To be clear, I don’t think IgnE style of discussion is rooted in some form of malice or trolling. It is just the way he prefers to discuss things. But it does make some posters wonder if they are entering a good faith discussion, which is a tension that can lead to some irritation or misunderstanding. I think he prefers it for good reason, because people's preferred style leads to people expressing their opinions at each other somewhat endlessly without ever arriving at a better understanding of each others' positions or the situation at hand. I think, as has been pointed out by others before, the main reason people don't like it isn't the workload (though your point about trolls is legit), it's that it forces people to actually examine their views rather than simply assert their reliability. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On April 19 2019 22:56 Plansix wrote: I am sad that Erik Prince didn't get nailed during all of this. Of all the shitbag robber barons in the US right now, Prince is the king of shit mountain. There's a pretty decent assumption to be made that he's in some of the 'harms ongoing matter' stuff. But yeah for now it's a bit sad he seems to get away. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 19 2019 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote: I think he prefers it for good reason, because people's preferred style leads to people expressing their opinions at each other somewhat endlessly without ever arriving at a better understanding of each others' positions or the situation at hand. I think, as has been pointed out by others before, the main reason people don't like it isn't the workload (though your point about trolls is legit), it's that it forces people to actually examine their views rather than simply assert their reliability. Honestly, I don’t like it because it requires me to write and express more than the other person and I get very little out of it. I’m happy to examine my views and do so regularly, but it is going to be on my time and when I am ready to put in the effort to do so. I understand that he and others may prefer this style, but that doesn’t mean anyone is required to indulge that preference in a discussion. Especially since we are all peers here. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On April 19 2019 22:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: When even "The failing New York Times" is running articles titled "Barr Is Right About Everything. Admit You Were Wrong." I've got an idea of where public opinion is heading. Personally i think it's time for the Dems to forget about impeachment.It's only 18 months to the election, maybe put up a decent candidate and push out some positive policies that people like.Thats a better way to win swing voters because serious fatigue is hitting in.Too negative right now. I've got a feeling by doing that they're also diverting attention away from how divided their own party is as well though so not sure if they even can stop anymore. not an article, but an opinion piece. Disregard those from all networks. There was never going to be impeachment in only 4 years barring a huge smoking gun. It's too short to conduct a full investigation, and then the elections end up too close (not even counting the political risk, and the GOP disregarding threats to national security for their survival). | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24412 Posts
On April 19 2019 22:58 GreenHorizons wrote: Considering MLK jr was declared by the FBI to be "the most dangerous negro in the country" and his polling (he had higher unfavorables in 1966 than Trump does now) the idea that there's a way to court those people without alienating them is largely a myth imo. It's sorta like addiction in that it doesn't really matter how many people confront them, or in what ways, only the addict can choose to get clean. Which only happens when they hit rock bottom. White supremacy and fascism is too far from rock bottom for it's addicts to get clean imo. I don't think that lacks truth, certainly the realities of the time go against the generally held perception that MLK and the Civil Rights movement just asked nicely as they're supposed to and things change, so yeah I'm in agreement there. My position is somewhat biased by having encountered a lot of people sucked into a vortex whereupon they actually emerge with worse views, specifically on women and race primarily, and their initial entry is usually via the excesses, perceived or real of the groups who are acting on behalf of redressing problems that pertain to said groups. Thus 'it's political correctness' morphs into 'I'm just asking questions' into eventual full-blown bigotry as I conceive it. I mean it's a crude framing of a phenomenon, just one I've observed rather a lot, my personal take on that. For Antifa I don't think they should drop what they do at all, especially when other relevant bodies aren't doing their jobs, just stick to some kind of reasonable remit as per what kind of target falls within it. Trump only says 'there were good people on both sides' or whatever the quote was if there are a sufficient amount of people with those kind of views for him to be able to get away with saying it. As per your addict example I think it's apt, equally that requires a self-reflection which is difficult to get people to do, and way, way more difficult if the walls are up and people retrench into a defensive shell where their views can become even stronger. | ||
| ||
