|
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 24 2019 02:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 02:06 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 23 2019 06:37 NewSunshine wrote:On May 23 2019 06:36 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2019 05:57 NewSunshine wrote:On May 23 2019 05:41 Danglars wrote:
I said they’re making a mistake in impeachment talk and going after Barr. The rest is just commentary on the investigation into FISA warrants and the counterintelligence investigation. You really should spend more time reading my posts than the time you spend (mis)typing my name. I mean, xDaunt literally said "Democrats are making a big mistake doubling down on this investigation nonsense." Your posts are going hand in hand. Not every claim people make needs to be contentious, or a debate to be had. Sometimes people just call something what it is and it doesn't need to be argued. Apparently, you can quote another’s posts to prove the claim. Good to know. I think it’s wise to find a quote of mine if you’re actually wanting to ask me some question in light of former posts. This is just laziness on your part. So I take it from your insistence on how wrong I am that you don't think Democrats are making a mistake when they bring up the investigations into Trump? Or maybe you don't have a strong opinion. That's allowed. But you should also understand that people get irritated with you when you don't just say it, and instead use it as an opportunity to dunk on someone. I assume this bottom post is the most closest your position is on the most recent convo. Then NewSunshine question above that you didn't answer because I guess the bottom is your position? I just find it funny that you asked NewSunshine to look through your posts, called him lazy for not doing so, fair enough if it was recent, not fair if it was a year ago. Btw it took my almost an hour to find the post below. I seriously doubt people have time for that. I just personally think it's kinda ridiculous to ask some one to go back and read what could have been written 100 pages ago... This thread is literally almost 1500 pages. To find a specific conversation is almost pointless unless you have them bookmarked. It's just easier to state your position right then an there if some one is asking, and you're already engaged. So, I don't think its bad if some one calls you out for it, especially if you don't want to provide your own post or expand on your thought process. If you say you said it, it's easier if you provide it because you know where it's at, just as Green had me trying to provide posts because I "accused" you. Hypocritical on his part. Hypocritical on my part for calling Green lazy. The very post before, he used "xDaunt literally said" and "your posts are going hand in hand" to defend someone who put words in my mouth. I'm not some assembly of other conservative posters. I told him "I think it's wise to find a quote of mine if you're actually wanting to ask me some question in light of former posts." He didn't comment on whether he now finds the "hand in hand" argument sufficient, or whether he's changed his mind on that. Just ignore my posts and move on with questions.
I think it's worth going back to this:
On May 23 2019 08:54 NewSunshine wrote:
while I can describe differences in how they argue/converse, I can think of precious little things they actually disagree on.
This is not entirely because you and xDaunt agree on everything. I wouldn't even assume to think that. That's because if you do disagree with him, or if you're just trying to get one over on somebody, you just flat out refuse to state your position, instead leading people around in circles and telling them to re-read something you posted 20 pages ago. And then, because you were clearly so offended, you became a victim who is now no longer obligated to answer any further questions. Like the one DMCD repeatedly asked.
Pro-tip. (Not for Danglars, he already knows this, but doesn't care.) If you genuinely want honest conversation with someone, who has perhaps misconstrued your position, the way to get there is not to stamp your feet and demand an apology every time it happens. You clarify and move forward. That's it. Maybe the apology comes afterward. But we haven't really moved forward yet.
edit: also whee? I'm UHD now.
|
On May 24 2019 02:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I hardly think sunshine was fishing, and trying to get an honest answer out of Danglars. I agree. If someone is going to make an extraordinary allegation about the actions of a group of doctors, I would hope they would be able to back up what they are claiming. Instead, we've just seen stonewalling.
The main issue I've been seeing in this thread is this: someone will make a claim that sounds fishy/exaggerated, people will point out said fishiness and ask for justification/proof, but then instead of answering, the person who made the fishy claim will either dodge said requests for justification/proof, or will give a non-answer and attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the people calling them out, usually by asking tangentially related questions. If I make a claim about something in a public forum, I should know that the onus is on me to be able to back it up if asked, and if I can't back the claim up, then maybe I should think twice about posting it.
Anywho, back on topic. Justin Amash seems to not be backing down at all. This recent Twitter thread of his is quite interesting:
Click this for the full thread
He is definitely not sugarcoating what he thinks of Trump's actions. In particular, I find him outlining 6 examples of obstruction pretty neat. I can't imagine the second half of the Mueller Report was reported on with any degree of detail by Fox News and the like, so seeing a Republican reference the content of the second volume in frank and honest terms is rather refreshing. Hopefully this will begin to pop the whole "No Obstruction" balloon Trump, Fox News, and all have been blowing up. The second volume of the Mueller Report makes it quite clear that at the very least, Trump tried to obstruct justice on multiple occasions, even if he was sometimes blocked by either his own ineptitude or the people around him doing the right/least wrong thing. Whether he committed a crime or not, the corrupt intent is definitely there.
I would think there has to be a point where Trump becomes too harmful to the Republicans' electoral prospects. I do wonder if more Stormy Daniels-like stories or Access Hollywood-style tapes exist. As someone pointed out, he is already polling horribly among women, and more of those stories could further ruin any chance he has of getting votes from women. It's been negative news article after negative news article about Trump the last few weeks, and the more people keep digging, the worse it seems to get for him. He no longer can claim his business prowess after it has been shown that he is not even close to a self-made millionaire, and has lost piles of money during periods of time in which his dad was making money. He also has several rather large policy decisions that his opponents can and will use against him next year (child separation, Puerto Rico, the Muslim Ban, the tariff non-sense, his tax plan disproportionately benefitting the wealthy and harming people with lower incomes, etc. etc.)
|
On May 24 2019 04:57 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 02:42 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2019 02:06 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 23 2019 06:37 NewSunshine wrote:On May 23 2019 06:36 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2019 05:57 NewSunshine wrote:On May 23 2019 05:41 Danglars wrote:
I said they’re making a mistake in impeachment talk and going after Barr. The rest is just commentary on the investigation into FISA warrants and the counterintelligence investigation. You really should spend more time reading my posts than the time you spend (mis)typing my name. I mean, xDaunt literally said "Democrats are making a big mistake doubling down on this investigation nonsense." Your posts are going hand in hand. Not every claim people make needs to be contentious, or a debate to be had. Sometimes people just call something what it is and it doesn't need to be argued. Apparently, you can quote another’s posts to prove the claim. Good to know. I think it’s wise to find a quote of mine if you’re actually wanting to ask me some question in light of former posts. This is just laziness on your part. So I take it from your insistence on how wrong I am that you don't think Democrats are making a mistake when they bring up the investigations into Trump? Or maybe you don't have a strong opinion. That's allowed. But you should also understand that people get irritated with you when you don't just say it, and instead use it as an opportunity to dunk on someone. I assume this bottom post is the most closest your position is on the most recent convo. Then NewSunshine question above that you didn't answer because I guess the bottom is your position? I just find it funny that you asked NewSunshine to look through your posts, called him lazy for not doing so, fair enough if it was recent, not fair if it was a year ago. Btw it took my almost an hour to find the post below. I seriously doubt people have time for that. I just personally think it's kinda ridiculous to ask some one to go back and read what could have been written 100 pages ago... This thread is literally almost 1500 pages. To find a specific conversation is almost pointless unless you have them bookmarked. It's just easier to state your position right then an there if some one is asking, and you're already engaged. So, I don't think its bad if some one calls you out for it, especially if you don't want to provide your own post or expand on your thought process. If you say you said it, it's easier if you provide it because you know where it's at, just as Green had me trying to provide posts because I "accused" you. Hypocritical on his part. Hypocritical on my part for calling Green lazy. The very post before, he used "xDaunt literally said" and "your posts are going hand in hand" to defend someone who put words in my mouth. I'm not some assembly of other conservative posters. I told him "I think it's wise to find a quote of mine if you're actually wanting to ask me some question in light of former posts." He didn't comment on whether he now finds the "hand in hand" argument sufficient, or whether he's changed his mind on that. Just ignore my posts and move on with questions. I think it's worth going back to this: Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 08:54 NewSunshine wrote:
while I can describe differences in how they argue/converse, I can think of precious little things they actually disagree on. This is not entirely because you and xDaunt agree on everything. I wouldn't even assume to think that. That's because if you do disagree with him, or if you're just trying to get one over on somebody, you just flat out refuse to state your position, instead leading people around in circles and telling them to re-read something you posted 20 pages ago. And then, because you were clearly so offended, you became a victim who is now no longer obligated to answer any further questions. Like the one DMCD repeatedly asked. Pro-tip. (Not for Danglars, he already knows this, but doesn't care.) If you genuinely want honest conversation with someone, who has perhaps misconstrued your position, the way to get there is not to stamp your feet and demand an apology every time it happens. You clarify and move forward. That's it. Maybe the apology comes afterward. But we haven't really moved forward yet. edit: also whee? I'm UHD now.
Similarly, I recommend asking what interests you and why, not telling others they're all the same and putting words in their mouth. That's no way to start a conversation on a topic. My opinion
On May 23 2019 05:34 Rasalased wrote:
If people like xDaunt and Dangers are so determined to tell us that the Democrats are making a mistake in talking about Trump, money laundering, and Russia, does that then mean they think the opposite? On May 23 2019 06:06 Rasalased wrote:
I am not asking you the question, because obviously you wouldn't give a honest answer. I am asking those that still bother to read your posts.
1. Assert something that isn't true
2. Conditional question on it
(and here's the clincher)
3. Assertion of dishonesty, defense of not having read my posts, asking others that still bother to read my posts
Primary recommendation: If you want my input, don't tell me my answers will be dishonest, don't tell me you don't read my posts, don't ask others to bother to read my posts for me. I think that's simple enough advice. I am in California, so maybe there's some places in America where you ask questions regarding people you don't read on things they haven't said while maintaining you can't trust an answer from their lips.
|
I never asked you a question. There are plenty of people here that claim they did ask you a question. Go reply to their posts, not mine.
And I don't need your advice.
|
On May 24 2019 05:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 04:57 NewSunshine wrote:On May 24 2019 02:42 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2019 02:06 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 23 2019 06:37 NewSunshine wrote:On May 23 2019 06:36 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2019 05:57 NewSunshine wrote:On May 23 2019 05:41 Danglars wrote:
I said they’re making a mistake in impeachment talk and going after Barr. The rest is just commentary on the investigation into FISA warrants and the counterintelligence investigation. You really should spend more time reading my posts than the time you spend (mis)typing my name. I mean, xDaunt literally said "Democrats are making a big mistake doubling down on this investigation nonsense." Your posts are going hand in hand. Not every claim people make needs to be contentious, or a debate to be had. Sometimes people just call something what it is and it doesn't need to be argued. Apparently, you can quote another’s posts to prove the claim. Good to know. I think it’s wise to find a quote of mine if you’re actually wanting to ask me some question in light of former posts. This is just laziness on your part. So I take it from your insistence on how wrong I am that you don't think Democrats are making a mistake when they bring up the investigations into Trump? Or maybe you don't have a strong opinion. That's allowed. But you should also understand that people get irritated with you when you don't just say it, and instead use it as an opportunity to dunk on someone. I assume this bottom post is the most closest your position is on the most recent convo. Then NewSunshine question above that you didn't answer because I guess the bottom is your position? I just find it funny that you asked NewSunshine to look through your posts, called him lazy for not doing so, fair enough if it was recent, not fair if it was a year ago. Btw it took my almost an hour to find the post below. I seriously doubt people have time for that. I just personally think it's kinda ridiculous to ask some one to go back and read what could have been written 100 pages ago... This thread is literally almost 1500 pages. To find a specific conversation is almost pointless unless you have them bookmarked. It's just easier to state your position right then an there if some one is asking, and you're already engaged. So, I don't think its bad if some one calls you out for it, especially if you don't want to provide your own post or expand on your thought process. If you say you said it, it's easier if you provide it because you know where it's at, just as Green had me trying to provide posts because I "accused" you. Hypocritical on his part. Hypocritical on my part for calling Green lazy. The very post before, he used "xDaunt literally said" and "your posts are going hand in hand" to defend someone who put words in my mouth. I'm not some assembly of other conservative posters. I told him "I think it's wise to find a quote of mine if you're actually wanting to ask me some question in light of former posts." He didn't comment on whether he now finds the "hand in hand" argument sufficient, or whether he's changed his mind on that. Just ignore my posts and move on with questions. I think it's worth going back to this: On May 23 2019 08:54 NewSunshine wrote:
while I can describe differences in how they argue/converse, I can think of precious little things they actually disagree on. This is not entirely because you and xDaunt agree on everything. I wouldn't even assume to think that. That's because if you do disagree with him, or if you're just trying to get one over on somebody, you just flat out refuse to state your position, instead leading people around in circles and telling them to re-read something you posted 20 pages ago. And then, because you were clearly so offended, you became a victim who is now no longer obligated to answer any further questions. Like the one DMCD repeatedly asked. Pro-tip. (Not for Danglars, he already knows this, but doesn't care.) If you genuinely want honest conversation with someone, who has perhaps misconstrued your position, the way to get there is not to stamp your feet and demand an apology every time it happens. You clarify and move forward. That's it. Maybe the apology comes afterward. But we haven't really moved forward yet. edit: also whee? I'm UHD now. Similarly, I recommend asking what interests you and why, not telling others they're all the same and putting words in their mouth. That's no way to start a conversation on a topic. My opinion...
Did I put words in your mouth? I recall asking you what you really thought, repeatedly, as did others. You had several opportunities to make yourself clear. I was in no hurry to put words anywhere they didn't belong.
Let me make myself clear here. I'm not expecting an answer that leans either way, if you go back to the original question. I made the effort to say it's perfectly ok if you don't really have any feelings on it. I gave you an out. Instead you dug in and doubled down, and still have not simply taken a position in the discussion. Even a "I'd rather not say" would be fine. Instead you string the discussion along, refuse to make yourself clear, and leave people guessing as to what you really mean.
|
I wish people would write that I put words in their mouths. Instead I just directly quote them and they ignore the post and pretend it doesn't exist.
|
On May 24 2019 05:56 Rasalased wrote:
I never asked you a question. There are plenty of people here that claim they did ask you a question. Go reply to their posts, not mine.
And I don't need your advice.
Yes, I’m quoting your posts as responses to them because you raised the topic, and they’re defending you and and writing questions based on your post. Specifically,
On May 23 2019 05:34 Rasalased wrote:
If people like xDaunt and Dangers are so determined to tell us that the Democrats are making a mistake in talking about Trump, money laundering, and Russia, does that then mean they think the opposite? On May 23 2019 06:06 Rasalased wrote:
I am not asking you the question, because obviously you wouldn't give a honest answer. I am asking those that still bother to read your posts.
1. Assert something that isn't true
2. Conditional question on it
(and here's the clincher)
3. Assertion of dishonesty, defense of not having read my posts, asking others that still bother to read my posts
Primary recommendation: If you want my input, don't tell me my answers will be dishonest, don't tell me you don't read my posts, don't ask others to bother to read my posts for me. I think that's simple enough advice. I am in California, so maybe there's some places in America where you ask questions regarding people you don't read on things they haven't said while maintaining you can't trust an answer from their lips.
For all I know, they agree with you! Nobody had a problem with your opening pair of posts, or didn’t say so. So this is addressed to them, but quoting you since these users aren’t just asking me these questions out of the blue. The launch pad for questioning is the guy that doesn’t read my posts because he doesn’t expect truthful answers. For your part, I thank you for your honesty.
|
So...you don't give answers, but rather prefer to give deflefctions, because you think the one asking questions don't expect truthful answers. Seems like you have fulfilled your own expectations on that one.
|
Why are you guys still trying? Its the same since 3-4 years. They never answer if it's inconvienient. This topic had its best itmes when these people were restrictied to a certain blog. If you wanted bullshit you could go and read there, if not you went here... Which was sometims silent, as it should be, politics isn't wrestling.
|
On May 24 2019 07:38 Velr wrote:
Why are you guys still trying? Its the same since 3-4 years. They never answer if it's inconvienient. This topic had its best itmes when these people were restrictied to a certain blog. If you wanted bullshit you could go and read there, if not you went here... Which was sometims silent, as it should be, politics isn't wrestling.
It is one of the reasons why i mostly stopped interacting with this threat. It is just exhausting, and doesn't ever lead to anything. I, too, liked this thread most when the blog existed as a toxic dump.
|
On May 24 2019 07:38 Velr wrote:
Why are you guys still trying? Its the same since 3-4 years. They never answer if it's inconvienient. This topic had its best itmes when these people were restrictied to a certain blog. If you wanted bullshit you could go and read there, if not you went here... Which was sometims silent, as it should be, politics isn't wrestling.
Don't think it's fair to diss my blog just because I managed to be able to disagree with Danglars and xDaunt without it devolving into shit flinging every time.
fwiw I preferred it the other way too, but I have enjoyed the few times Trump/Republican bashing hasn't dominated this thread.
|
Yeah, because you like to bash everything, glory to the revolution whiteout a solution. Gogogo.
Seriously, your the worst of the lot.There is a reason most grown ups don't spout the revolution bullshit, i'm sure you will one day arrive at that point.
|
On May 24 2019 04:57 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 02:42 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2019 02:06 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 23 2019 06:37 NewSunshine wrote:On May 23 2019 06:36 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2019 05:57 NewSunshine wrote:On May 23 2019 05:41 Danglars wrote:
I said they’re making a mistake in impeachment talk and going after Barr. The rest is just commentary on the investigation into FISA warrants and the counterintelligence investigation. You really should spend more time reading my posts than the time you spend (mis)typing my name. I mean, xDaunt literally said "Democrats are making a big mistake doubling down on this investigation nonsense." Your posts are going hand in hand. Not every claim people make needs to be contentious, or a debate to be had. Sometimes people just call something what it is and it doesn't need to be argued. Apparently, you can quote another’s posts to prove the claim. Good to know. I think it’s wise to find a quote of mine if you’re actually wanting to ask me some question in light of former posts. This is just laziness on your part. So I take it from your insistence on how wrong I am that you don't think Democrats are making a mistake when they bring up the investigations into Trump? Or maybe you don't have a strong opinion. That's allowed. But you should also understand that people get irritated with you when you don't just say it, and instead use it as an opportunity to dunk on someone. I assume this bottom post is the most closest your position is on the most recent convo. Then NewSunshine question above that you didn't answer because I guess the bottom is your position? I just find it funny that you asked NewSunshine to look through your posts, called him lazy for not doing so, fair enough if it was recent, not fair if it was a year ago. Btw it took my almost an hour to find the post below. I seriously doubt people have time for that. I just personally think it's kinda ridiculous to ask some one to go back and read what could have been written 100 pages ago... This thread is literally almost 1500 pages. To find a specific conversation is almost pointless unless you have them bookmarked. It's just easier to state your position right then an there if some one is asking, and you're already engaged. So, I don't think its bad if some one calls you out for it, especially if you don't want to provide your own post or expand on your thought process. If you say you said it, it's easier if you provide it because you know where it's at, just as Green had me trying to provide posts because I "accused" you. Hypocritical on his part. Hypocritical on my part for calling Green lazy. The very post before, he used "xDaunt literally said" and "your posts are going hand in hand" to defend someone who put words in my mouth. I'm not some assembly of other conservative posters. I told him "I think it's wise to find a quote of mine if you're actually wanting to ask me some question in light of former posts." He didn't comment on whether he now finds the "hand in hand" argument sufficient, or whether he's changed his mind on that. Just ignore my posts and move on with questions. I think it's worth going back to this: Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 08:54 NewSunshine wrote:
while I can describe differences in how they argue/converse, I can think of precious little things they actually disagree on. This is not entirely because you and xDaunt agree on everything. I wouldn't even assume to think that. That's because if you do disagree with him, or if you're just trying to get one over on somebody, you just flat out refuse to state your position, instead leading people around in circles and telling them to re-read something you posted 20 pages ago. And then, because you were clearly so offended, you became a victim who is now no longer obligated to answer any further questions. Like the one DMCD repeatedly asked. Pro-tip. (Not for Danglars, he already knows this, but doesn't care.) If you genuinely want honest conversation with someone, who has perhaps misconstrued your position, the way to get there is not to stamp your feet and demand an apology every time it happens. You clarify and move forward. That's it. Maybe the apology comes afterward. But we haven't really moved forward yet. edit: also whee? I'm UHD now.
I've done this dance before. I've tried to clarify and move forward. There is no apology that comes. All that comes is people dismissing what you say and insisting your opinion regardless of what you say your intent was. You are one of the worse cherry picking cheer leaders on this.
|
On May 24 2019 08:29 Velr wrote:
Yeah, because you like to bash everything, glory to the revolution whiteout a solution. Gogogo.
Seriously, your the worst of the lot.There is a reason most grown ups don't spout the revolution bullshit, i'm sure you will one day arrive at that point.
lmao, I'm terrible. People don't advocate revolution because they are scared of it failing, they aren't shy about sharing that (sure as hell isn't a "maturity" thing). I recognize failing is likely a probable outcome. I just haven't seen anyone but Kwark willing to actually own what that means.
|
Julian Assange is being charged under the Espionage Act. Some commentators say the choice of charges implicates some first amendment protections for journalists. The legal precedent for using the act for this kind of disclosure has the New York Times worried:
WASHINGTON — Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks leader, has been indicted on 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act for his role in obtaining and publishing secret military and diplomatic documents in 2010, the Justice Department announced on Thursday — a novel case that raises profound First Amendment issues.
The new charges were part of an expanded indictment obtained by the Trump administration that significantly raised the stakes of the legal case against Mr. Assange, who is already fighting extradition proceedings in London based on an earlier hacking-related count brought by federal prosecutors in Northern Virginia.
The case has nothing to do with Russia’s 2016 election interference, when Mr. Assange’s organization published Democratic emails stolen by Russia to help elect President Trump, the case has nothing to do with the election interference. Instead, it focuses on Mr. Assange’s role in the leak, by the former army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, of hundreds of thousands of State Department cables and diplomatic files.
Justice Department officials did not explain why they decided to charge Mr. Assange under the Espionage Act — a step also debated within the Obama administration but ultimately not taken. Although the indictment established a precedent that deems criminal actions related to obtaining, and in some cases publishing, state secrets, the officials sought to minimize the implications for press freedoms.
They noted that most of the new charges were related to obtaining the archives of secret documents, as opposed to publishing them. In the counts that deemed the publication of the files a crime, prosecutors focused on a handful of documents revealing the names of people who provided information to the United States in dangerous places like war zones.
“Some say that Assange is a journalist and that he should be immune for prosecution for these actions,” said John Demers, the head of the department’s National Security Division, at a briefing with reporters. “The department takes seriously the role of journalists in our democracy and we thank you for it. It is not and has never been the department’s policy to target them for reporting.”
But Mr. Assange, he said, was “no journalist.” Mr. Demers accused him of conspiring with Ms. Manning to obtain classified information and said “no responsible actor, journalist or otherwise, would purposefully publish the names of individuals he or she knew to be confidential human sources in a war zone, exposing them to the gravest of dangers.”
Still, the Trump administration’s move could establish a precedent used to criminalize future acts of national security journalism that are essentially the same from a legal perspective, said Jameel Jaffer of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
“The charges rely almost entirely on conduct that investigative journalists engage in every day,” he said. “The indictment should be understood as a frontal attack on press freedom.”
Editors’ Picks
Emma Thompson Gets a Shock at 60
‘S.N.L.,’ Hosted by Paul Rudd, Takes On Trump and the Abortion Bans
Robert Mnuchin Would Rather Not Discuss His Client (or His Son)
Mr. Demers left the press briefing without taking questions, and a Justice Department official who stayed behind to answer questions on the condition that he would not be named would not address any about how most of the basic actions the indictment deemed felonies by Mr. Assange differed in a legally meaningful way from ordinary national-security investigative journalism — working with sources to obtain secret information of news value and publishing that information without the government’s permission.
Notably, The New York Times, among many other news organizations, obtained precisely the same archives of documents from WikiLeaks, without authorization from the government — the act that most of the charges addressed. While The Times did take steps to withhold the names of informants in the subset of the files it published, it is not clear how that is legally different from publishing other classified information.
NYT
I think he's rotten and on the hook for more. However, criminalizing journalistic conduct ... essentially the government saying who is and isn't a journalist and enjoying protections ... looks like a bad deal.
|
On May 24 2019 08:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 07:38 Velr wrote:
Why are you guys still trying? Its the same since 3-4 years. They never answer if it's inconvienient. This topic had its best itmes when these people were restrictied to a certain blog. If you wanted bullshit you could go and read there, if not you went here... Which was sometims silent, as it should be, politics isn't wrestling. Don't think it's fair to diss my blog just because I managed to be able to disagree with Danglars and xDaunt without it devolving into shit flinging every time. fwiw I preferred it the other way too, but I have enjoyed the few times Trump/Republican bashing hasn't dominated this thread.
GH's blog is perfect evidence showing who are not the problematic posters around here.
|
On May 24 2019 08:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 08:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 07:38 Velr wrote:
Why are you guys still trying? Its the same since 3-4 years. They never answer if it's inconvienient. This topic had its best itmes when these people were restrictied to a certain blog. If you wanted bullshit you could go and read there, if not you went here... Which was sometims silent, as it should be, politics isn't wrestling. Don't think it's fair to diss my blog just because I managed to be able to disagree with Danglars and xDaunt without it devolving into shit flinging every time. fwiw I preferred it the other way too, but I have enjoyed the few times Trump/Republican bashing hasn't dominated this thread. GH's blog is perfect evidence showing who are not the problematic posters around here.
This post is like schrödinger's cat. It is both a backhanded insult and obvious self own at the same time, oscillating at a at a irony frequency previously thought impossible. It challenges then very foundation of the internet's make up, threatening to create a black hole made entirely of pure, compressed memes.
|
On May 24 2019 08:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 08:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2019 07:38 Velr wrote:
Why are you guys still trying? Its the same since 3-4 years. They never answer if it's inconvienient. This topic had its best itmes when these people were restrictied to a certain blog. If you wanted bullshit you could go and read there, if not you went here... Which was sometims silent, as it should be, politics isn't wrestling. Don't think it's fair to diss my blog just because I managed to be able to disagree with Danglars and xDaunt without it devolving into shit flinging every time. fwiw I preferred it the other way too, but I have enjoyed the few times Trump/Republican bashing hasn't dominated this thread. GH's blog is perfect evidence showing who are not the problematic posters around here.
I mean I only had to ban one person in ~170 pages. Pretty much every poster can/does engage in reasonably decent dialogue when they are held accountable. From my experience this thread makes it very easy to avoid accountability so long as your advocating the most hegemonic ideas.
You experience this when you see how effortlessly people can just disregard reality to attack Trump (like when the thread unanimously agreed Trump was manipulating his audience into believing he was describing all abortions when he specifically wasn't.
They experience it when they see how easily you can seemingly care more about Roger Stone's 4th amendment than the millions of people who have theirs systemically violated every year. (I'll come up with a better example here if anyone is confused what I mean).
|
Fwiw, the reason why grownups don't entertain those revolutionary ideas is because they grew up in the 1990s when everyone thought liberalism was the final answer to the world for 10 years. We're slowing moving out of that, arguably too slowly.
|
On May 24 2019 08:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2019 04:57 NewSunshine wrote:On May 24 2019 02:42 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2019 02:06 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 23 2019 06:37 NewSunshine wrote:On May 23 2019 06:36 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2019 05:57 NewSunshine wrote:On May 23 2019 05:41 Danglars wrote:
I said they’re making a mistake in impeachment talk and going after Barr. The rest is just commentary on the investigation into FISA warrants and the counterintelligence investigation. You really should spend more time reading my posts than the time you spend (mis)typing my name. I mean, xDaunt literally said "Democrats are making a big mistake doubling down on this investigation nonsense." Your posts are going hand in hand. Not every claim people make needs to be contentious, or a debate to be had. Sometimes people just call something what it is and it doesn't need to be argued. Apparently, you can quote another’s posts to prove the claim. Good to know. I think it’s wise to find a quote of mine if you’re actually wanting to ask me some question in light of former posts. This is just laziness on your part. So I take it from your insistence on how wrong I am that you don't think Democrats are making a mistake when they bring up the investigations into Trump? Or maybe you don't have a strong opinion. That's allowed. But you should also understand that people get irritated with you when you don't just say it, and instead use it as an opportunity to dunk on someone. I assume this bottom post is the most closest your position is on the most recent convo. Then NewSunshine question above that you didn't answer because I guess the bottom is your position? I just find it funny that you asked NewSunshine to look through your posts, called him lazy for not doing so, fair enough if it was recent, not fair if it was a year ago. Btw it took my almost an hour to find the post below. I seriously doubt people have time for that. I just personally think it's kinda ridiculous to ask some one to go back and read what could have been written 100 pages ago... This thread is literally almost 1500 pages. To find a specific conversation is almost pointless unless you have them bookmarked. It's just easier to state your position right then an there if some one is asking, and you're already engaged. So, I don't think its bad if some one calls you out for it, especially if you don't want to provide your own post or expand on your thought process. If you say you said it, it's easier if you provide it because you know where it's at, just as Green had me trying to provide posts because I "accused" you. Hypocritical on his part. Hypocritical on my part for calling Green lazy. The very post before, he used "xDaunt literally said" and "your posts are going hand in hand" to defend someone who put words in my mouth. I'm not some assembly of other conservative posters. I told him "I think it's wise to find a quote of mine if you're actually wanting to ask me some question in light of former posts." He didn't comment on whether he now finds the "hand in hand" argument sufficient, or whether he's changed his mind on that. Just ignore my posts and move on with questions. I think it's worth going back to this: On May 23 2019 08:54 NewSunshine wrote:
while I can describe differences in how they argue/converse, I can think of precious little things they actually disagree on. This is not entirely because you and xDaunt agree on everything. I wouldn't even assume to think that. That's because if you do disagree with him, or if you're just trying to get one over on somebody, you just flat out refuse to state your position, instead leading people around in circles and telling them to re-read something you posted 20 pages ago. And then, because you were clearly so offended, you became a victim who is now no longer obligated to answer any further questions. Like the one DMCD repeatedly asked. Pro-tip. (Not for Danglars, he already knows this, but doesn't care.) If you genuinely want honest conversation with someone, who has perhaps misconstrued your position, the way to get there is not to stamp your feet and demand an apology every time it happens. You clarify and move forward. That's it. Maybe the apology comes afterward. But we haven't really moved forward yet. edit: also whee? I'm UHD now. I've done this dance before. I've tried to clarify and move forward. There is no apology that comes. All that comes is people dismissing what you say and insisting your opinion regardless of what you say your intent was. You are one of the worse cherry picking cheer leaders on this.
I don't even know what the context for this post is supposed to be. I've never considered you the sort to respond the way Danglars does in conversations. I do notice you tend to take offence to things that aren't directed at you though, and I don't know why that is either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
