|
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 May 06 2019 06:05 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2019 06:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 06 2019 05:57 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 06 2019 05:45 xDaunt wrote:
As for Velr, Excludos, and Ayaz, I'll make it easy for you guys. Given that y'all don't seem to see much value in engaging me, and given that I see zero point in engaging any of you, I'll just ignore you from here on out, and y'all can ignore me. If you start contributing something interesting and well-reasoned to the thread, I'll certainly be willing to reconsider my position.
So stop whining about Danglars' and my participation in this thread. This not supposed to be a safe space. Don't come here and post if you can't handle well-reasoned disagreement. Interesting, it’s obviously because we’re inculcated in our safe spaces that we have our positions What ‘well-reasoned’ disagreement is here? Your entire argument hinges around the likes of Mueller being politically motivated hacks, that despite wrongdoing uncovered it wasn’t the scope of the investigation so it doesn’t count, and invoking standards of decorum and precedent that the President himself doesn’t seem too keen on. Well, yeah. You're citing my bottom-line conclusions without any of the reasoning that I have given. Of course that's not going to look well-reasoned. What you're doing to me is worse than what Barr did to Mueller. No that’s not a fair characterisation at all, you act like your some independent interlocutor and your positions continually just defend Trump when he’s ‘unfairly attacked’, while invoking years old angles on Clinton and Obama, whose ‘corruption’ you continually invoke is at worst no worse than Trumps. It’s a preposterous position to hold
Really? I've written at length explaining detailed issues of fact and law as it pertains to the Mueller investigation and many other points. For you to just ignore all of that and state that there's no basis to any of what I have said is absurd on its face. Don't waste my time.
|
On May 06 2019 05:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2019 05:50 Introvert wrote:On May 06 2019 05:39 xDaunt wrote:On May 06 2019 00:35 KwarK wrote:
Trump’s campaign manager meets with a known Russian intelligence officer to share internal campaign strategy info and discuss getting Trump elected.
xDaunt: Everyone does this, it just shows he’s good at cooperating with foreigners No, that's not my point. My point is where is the crime justifying that investigation? For starters, that incident did not start the investigation. But even so, isn't it funny how Mueller discussed that episode and did not conclude that it was criminal? I wonder how that happened.... You guys keep throwing around groundless accusations of criminal conduct without either the slightest explanation of what the crime is or even any awareness that Mueller's own report undermines the point that you're trying to make. The plausible explanation for that event in the report is also the one given in the indictments, and the one that makes the most sense. Manafort owed these people cash and shared this information essentially to prove that he was on the inside and could plausibly make it up to them if they won (that's my recollection anyway, it's something like that). I don't know why this is never even mentioned. I know that it's tempting to believe that if Hillary Clinton's campaign was too dumb to look at Wisconsin then no one could have figured it out, but it's just not true. And somehow I don't think sharing polling data is quite the collusion we were supposed to find, anyways. Going back to this event as evidence really is quite damning in the context of what we heard about for 2 years. I was just speaking rhetorically. I know the legal explanation for why it isn't a crime. I'm just curious if any of the posters who disagree with me are finally going to take the time and effort to figure it out for themselves. There has been plenty of shouting that Trump is a criminal around here without anything resembling a reasonable explanation for why that is given that he hasn't been charged or convicted of anything. And people accuse me of making bombastic points with no support....
Sorry, yes, I was backing you up. This story about polling data appears to be the event we are all going to hang our hats on, so that we can say "well, maybe there was collusion!" For all the criticism no one on that side even tries to deal with what's actually in the report, beyond a factual recitation of the thing that we already knew happened, which no one disputes. It's apparently supposed to stand on its own on as obviously criminal or treasonous.
|
Northern Ireland25446 Posts
On May 06 2019 06:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2019 06:05 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 06 2019 06:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 06 2019 05:57 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 06 2019 05:45 xDaunt wrote:
As for Velr, Excludos, and Ayaz, I'll make it easy for you guys. Given that y'all don't seem to see much value in engaging me, and given that I see zero point in engaging any of you, I'll just ignore you from here on out, and y'all can ignore me. If you start contributing something interesting and well-reasoned to the thread, I'll certainly be willing to reconsider my position.
So stop whining about Danglars' and my participation in this thread. This not supposed to be a safe space. Don't come here and post if you can't handle well-reasoned disagreement. Interesting, it’s obviously because we’re inculcated in our safe spaces that we have our positions What ‘well-reasoned’ disagreement is here? Your entire argument hinges around the likes of Mueller being politically motivated hacks, that despite wrongdoing uncovered it wasn’t the scope of the investigation so it doesn’t count, and invoking standards of decorum and precedent that the President himself doesn’t seem too keen on. Well, yeah. You're citing my bottom-line conclusions without any of the reasoning that I have given. Of course that's not going to look well-reasoned. What you're doing to me is worse than what Barr did to Mueller. No that’s not a fair characterisation at all, you act like your some independent interlocutor and your positions continually just defend Trump when he’s ‘unfairly attacked’, while invoking years old angles on Clinton and Obama, whose ‘corruption’ you continually invoke is at worst no worse than Trumps. It’s a preposterous position to hold Really? I've written at length explaining detailed issues of fact and law as it pertains to the Mueller investigation and many other points. For you to just ignore all of that and state that there's no basis to any of what I have said is absurd on its face. Don't waste my time.
Who cares about the law? It’s just a shield for the rich anyway, as Donald Trump’s life in business attests to,
Morality has no importance, convention has no importance, as long as it isn’t technically illegal it’s fine?
|
On May 06 2019 06:12 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2019 06:08 xDaunt wrote:On May 06 2019 06:05 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 06 2019 06:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 06 2019 05:57 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 06 2019 05:45 xDaunt wrote:
As for Velr, Excludos, and Ayaz, I'll make it easy for you guys. Given that y'all don't seem to see much value in engaging me, and given that I see zero point in engaging any of you, I'll just ignore you from here on out, and y'all can ignore me. If you start contributing something interesting and well-reasoned to the thread, I'll certainly be willing to reconsider my position.
So stop whining about Danglars' and my participation in this thread. This not supposed to be a safe space. Don't come here and post if you can't handle well-reasoned disagreement. Interesting, it’s obviously because we’re inculcated in our safe spaces that we have our positions What ‘well-reasoned’ disagreement is here? Your entire argument hinges around the likes of Mueller being politically motivated hacks, that despite wrongdoing uncovered it wasn’t the scope of the investigation so it doesn’t count, and invoking standards of decorum and precedent that the President himself doesn’t seem too keen on. Well, yeah. You're citing my bottom-line conclusions without any of the reasoning that I have given. Of course that's not going to look well-reasoned. What you're doing to me is worse than what Barr did to Mueller. No that’s not a fair characterisation at all, you act like your some independent interlocutor and your positions continually just defend Trump when he’s ‘unfairly attacked’, while invoking years old angles on Clinton and Obama, whose ‘corruption’ you continually invoke is at worst no worse than Trumps. It’s a preposterous position to hold Really? I've written at length explaining detailed issues of fact and law as it pertains to the Mueller investigation and many other points. For you to just ignore all of that and state that there's no basis to any of what I have said is absurd on its face. Don't waste my time. Who cares about the law? It’s just a shield for the rich anyway, as Donald Trump’s life in business attests to, Morality has no importance, convention has no importance, as long as it isn’t technically illegal it’s fine?
If you don't accept that the rule of law is a foundational element for a civilized and prosperous society, then I can't help you.
|
Northern Ireland25446 Posts
Well no I don’t because it’s broken anyway, but regardless your conception of ‘rule of law’ seems to be remarkably sympathetic to a certain sitting President
|
Northern Ireland25446 Posts
It feels ridiculous to invoke the ‘rule of anything’ with a person who doesn’t give a single shit about such precedent anyway
|
Northern Ireland25446 Posts
If Trump vaguely played by some sort of standard of decorum, if he accepted any kind of criticism of himself l, if he seemed to buy into civic responsibility then sure he might be unfairly maligned, he absolutely does not do anything even vaguely in that ballpark
User was warned for this post
|
On May 06 2019 06:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2019 06:05 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 06 2019 06:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 06 2019 05:57 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 06 2019 05:45 xDaunt wrote:
As for Velr, Excludos, and Ayaz, I'll make it easy for you guys. Given that y'all don't seem to see much value in engaging me, and given that I see zero point in engaging any of you, I'll just ignore you from here on out, and y'all can ignore me. If you start contributing something interesting and well-reasoned to the thread, I'll certainly be willing to reconsider my position.
So stop whining about Danglars' and my participation in this thread. This not supposed to be a safe space. Don't come here and post if you can't handle well-reasoned disagreement. Interesting, it’s obviously because we’re inculcated in our safe spaces that we have our positions What ‘well-reasoned’ disagreement is here? Your entire argument hinges around the likes of Mueller being politically motivated hacks, that despite wrongdoing uncovered it wasn’t the scope of the investigation so it doesn’t count, and invoking standards of decorum and precedent that the President himself doesn’t seem too keen on. Well, yeah. You're citing my bottom-line conclusions without any of the reasoning that I have given. Of course that's not going to look well-reasoned. What you're doing to me is worse than what Barr did to Mueller. No that’s not a fair characterisation at all, you act like your some independent interlocutor and your positions continually just defend Trump when he’s ‘unfairly attacked’, while invoking years old angles on Clinton and Obama, whose ‘corruption’ you continually invoke is at worst no worse than Trumps. It’s a preposterous position to hold Really? I've written at length explaining detailed issues of fact and law as it pertains to the Mueller investigation and many other points. For you to just ignore all of that and state that there's no basis to any of what I have said is absurd on its face. Don't waste my time.
It's not that people ignore your justifications, it's that people think they don't hold true. There's a difference.
|
On May 06 2019 06:33 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2019 06:08 xDaunt wrote:On May 06 2019 06:05 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 06 2019 06:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 06 2019 05:57 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 06 2019 05:45 xDaunt wrote:
As for Velr, Excludos, and Ayaz, I'll make it easy for you guys. Given that y'all don't seem to see much value in engaging me, and given that I see zero point in engaging any of you, I'll just ignore you from here on out, and y'all can ignore me. If you start contributing something interesting and well-reasoned to the thread, I'll certainly be willing to reconsider my position.
So stop whining about Danglars' and my participation in this thread. This not supposed to be a safe space. Don't come here and post if you can't handle well-reasoned disagreement. Interesting, it’s obviously because we’re inculcated in our safe spaces that we have our positions What ‘well-reasoned’ disagreement is here? Your entire argument hinges around the likes of Mueller being politically motivated hacks, that despite wrongdoing uncovered it wasn’t the scope of the investigation so it doesn’t count, and invoking standards of decorum and precedent that the President himself doesn’t seem too keen on. Well, yeah. You're citing my bottom-line conclusions without any of the reasoning that I have given. Of course that's not going to look well-reasoned. What you're doing to me is worse than what Barr did to Mueller. No that’s not a fair characterisation at all, you act like your some independent interlocutor and your positions continually just defend Trump when he’s ‘unfairly attacked’, while invoking years old angles on Clinton and Obama, whose ‘corruption’ you continually invoke is at worst no worse than Trumps. It’s a preposterous position to hold Really? I've written at length explaining detailed issues of fact and law as it pertains to the Mueller investigation and many other points. For you to just ignore all of that and state that there's no basis to any of what I have said is absurd on its face. Don't waste my time. It's not that people ignore your justifications, it's that people think they don't hold true. There's a difference.
Really? Because Wombat just demonstrated a perfect example of someone ignoring my justifications. He said I wasn't providing any back up for my arguments, I re-directed his attention to my factual and legal arguments, and then he said that he doesn't care about my legal arguments because he doesn't care about the rule of law. I really don't care what he thinks about the rule of law. He's entitled to his opinion. But he doesn't get to come in here and trash my posting as being inadequate just because he doesn't value the principles underpinning the arguments that I have made (and while the rule of law doesn't matter to him, it definitely matters to Americans). As sad as it is, this is pretty much par for the course around here with most of the posters who disagree with me.
|
On May 06 2019 06:19 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well no I don’t because it’s broken anyway, but regardless your conception of ‘rule of law’ seems to be remarkably sympathetic to a certain sitting President
This is pretty incontrovertible after 2 years of this droning from both sides. As are Democrats accepting of a less overtly destructive and uncivil party so long as Republicans manage to come up with someone worse (save that miscalculation from them on Trump vs Hillary and which was a worse candidate). As are centrists largely content to complain and shoot down solutions while offering none of their own.
Kwark doesn't even have to make his argument for disillusioned complicity and self-centered preparation, kids are literally out in the streets begging for us not to condemn their futures and we're busy with petty pissing contests about an "investigation" that amounted to a giant distraction and slap on the wrist for career criminals.
It's looking increasingly like Cohen (who many thought would bring down Trump), might end up the most harshly punished out of the whole thing despite, or perhaps because of, his cooperation with authorities.
The system can't hold itself accountable and it's successfully generated a population that can't/won't either.
|
American's don't care about the rule of law. Rule of law only pertains to those without the means to ignore or skirt around those laws. If we did, we wouldn't be here having this discussion. Also, what you claim to be factual is anything but. Legality is a different story. But don't think all you've ever posted has been factual, because it has been debunked here, many times over.
|
On May 06 2019 06:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
American's don't care about the rule of law. Rule of law only pertains to those without the means to ignore or skirt around those laws. If we did, we wouldn't be here having this discussion. Also, what you claim to be factual is anything but. Legality is a different story. But don't think all you've ever posted has been factual, because it has been debunked here, many times over.
The American constitutional republic is built upon the rule of law. It's written right into our constitution. Anyone who values the American constitution necessarily values the rule of law, even if they don't fully understand what it means or entails. The only Americans who do not value the rule of law are those radicals who are looking to overthrow the current system and put something new in.
|
On May 06 2019 07:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2019 06:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
American's don't care about the rule of law. Rule of law only pertains to those without the means to ignore or skirt around those laws. If we did, we wouldn't be here having this discussion. Also, what you claim to be factual is anything but. Legality is a different story. But don't think all you've ever posted has been factual, because it has been debunked here, many times over. The American constitutional republic is built upon the rule of law. It's written right into our constitution. Anyone who values the American constitution necessarily values the rule of law, even if they don't fully understand what it means or entails. The only Americans who do not value the rule of law are those radicals who are looking to overthrow the current system and put something new in.
I'd say a great deal of "law enforcement" doesn't value "the rule of law" as well, else your anti-Trump conspiracy doesn't hold together either.
Same for stop and frisk, etc...Either cops, the FBI, etc... are radicals trying to overthrow the current system, or it's not just the radicals who don't care about the rule of law when it benefits them.
|
On May 06 2019 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2019 07:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 06 2019 06:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
American's don't care about the rule of law. Rule of law only pertains to those without the means to ignore or skirt around those laws. If we did, we wouldn't be here having this discussion. Also, what you claim to be factual is anything but. Legality is a different story. But don't think all you've ever posted has been factual, because it has been debunked here, many times over. The American constitutional republic is built upon the rule of law. It's written right into our constitution. Anyone who values the American constitution necessarily values the rule of law, even if they don't fully understand what it means or entails. The only Americans who do not value the rule of law are those radicals who are looking to overthrow the current system and put something new in. I'd say a great deal of "law enforcement" doesn't value "the rule of law" as well, else your anti-Trump conspiracy doesn't hold together either. Same for stop and frisk, etc...Either cops, the FBI, etc... are radicals trying to overthrow the current system, or it's not just the radicals who don't care about the rule of law when it benefits them.
A society that values the rule of law doesn't have to have a 100% rate of compliance with the law. Every society is going to have criminals or other people who break the law. What matters is that we generally look down upon those people and punish them in accordance with the law for their transgressions, regardless of their position within society. Do we catch and punish every criminal? No, but that can't be expected, either.
|
Value the rule of law, except the part where the President can’t accept money for foreign powers while in office. That rule is stupid and unlimited foreign officials should stay in the president’s hotels.
|
On May 06 2019 07:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2019 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2019 07:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 06 2019 06:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
American's don't care about the rule of law. Rule of law only pertains to those without the means to ignore or skirt around those laws. If we did, we wouldn't be here having this discussion. Also, what you claim to be factual is anything but. Legality is a different story. But don't think all you've ever posted has been factual, because it has been debunked here, many times over. The American constitutional republic is built upon the rule of law. It's written right into our constitution. Anyone who values the American constitution necessarily values the rule of law, even if they don't fully understand what it means or entails. The only Americans who do not value the rule of law are those radicals who are looking to overthrow the current system and put something new in. I'd say a great deal of "law enforcement" doesn't value "the rule of law" as well, else your anti-Trump conspiracy doesn't hold together either. Same for stop and frisk, etc...Either cops, the FBI, etc... are radicals trying to overthrow the current system, or it's not just the radicals who don't care about the rule of law when it benefits them. A society that values the rule of law doesn't have to have a 100% rate of compliance with the law. Every society is going to have criminals or other people who break the law. What matters is that we generally look down upon those people and punish them in accordance with the law for their transgressions, regardless of their position within society. Do we catch and punish every criminal? No, but that can't be expected, either.
That is a non-sequitur to my point. Nothing about my post suggests that a society that values the rule of law has 100% compliance. So then the rest of the post again is unrelated to the point I made.
To reiterate, you said
The only Americans who do not value the rule of law are those radicals who are looking to overthrow the current system and put something new in
To which I said that's demonstrably not true. Then you said:
A society that values the rule of law doesn't have to have a 100% rate of compliance with the law. Every society is going to have criminals or other people who break the law.
Which is unrelated to my point that your anti-Trump conspiracy couldn't happen if law enforcement valued the rule of law and if it did would be punished. So again, either we have to add law enforcement to people who don't value the rule of law and recognize them as radicals trying to overthrow the system or accept that there are lots of people/groups who disregard their care for the law when it benefits them. Including, but not limited to, the people paid to enforce that law.
You're arguing that law enforcement failures like stop and frisk are individual failures while I argue they are systemic and reflective of a lack of concern for people's 4th amendment rights. Which clearly not only wasn't valued at an individual level but at a systemic level.
|
GH, I think you're artificially imposing a binary construct upon this conversation. This doesn't have to be a strictly either/or, all or nothing, proposition.
|
On May 06 2019 07:15 Plansix wrote:
Value the rule of law, except the part where the President can’t accept money for foreign powers while in office. That rule is stupid and unlimited foreign officials should stay in the president’s hotels.
Let's not forget K Conway breaking the hatch act twice. Rule of law doesn't seem to apply to trumps team
|
On May 06 2019 07:21 xDaunt wrote:
GH, I think you're artificially imposing a binary construct upon this conversation. This doesn't have to be a strictly either/or, all or nothing, proposition.
I'm not artificially imposing it, it's intellectual consistency. You can't argue the FBI cares about the rule of law while simultaneously arguing they abandoned it. Or at minimum you'll be where Democrats are now trying to reconcile their belief in a system that has indisputably failed to hold what they see as obvious criminals accountable.
|
And campaign finance law. Never forget that it’s totally ok to pay of your former mistress to avoid the public finding out right before an election. That law is dumb and unlimited pay offs should be allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
