|
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 June 26 2019 08:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 08:27 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:53 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:43 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:24 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt you’re not remotely addressing the issue. You're doing the exact same thing you always do which is insisting that the issue is something completely unrelated to what the subject is, creating a straw man defence for the unrelated issue, and then complaining that everyone else is talking about the wrong thing.
If you weren't doing it intentionally I'd think you had some kind of disability.
Please feel free to stop making a fool out of yourself whenever you like and address the quid pro quo issue and not whether lawyers are required to have absolutely no opinions which appears to be a straw man you introduced. Complaining about Trump’s ability to pick who he wants for AG is even dumber than complaining about Barr. It’s his constitutional right. It is checked by the confirmation process and, if necessary, impeachment. Again you're dodging the issue. The issue is whether Trump selecting a guy to control an investigation into Trump is a conflict. You're answering the question of whether the constitution gives Trump the authority to select an AG and using that answer to somehow prove that there is no conflict because of a mystery step which you neglected to cover. You're responding to me pointing out that you only ever answer different questions to the ones asked by answering a different question to the one asked. You're a cliché. I am not dodging anything. It’s not a material conflict for the reasons I already discussed. It’s not a serious issue. You discussed whether Barr is entitled to have opinions earlier. That wasn't the issue. Try again. Maybe try reading the post before responding to it. That way you'll be able to see what you're meant to be responding to and can tailor your response. If you're still struggling you can probably ask literally any other person to explain the issue to you. I wasn't paying attention to your response to my first where you shifted the focus completely away from Barr and on Trump. But like I said, focusing on the conflict of interest that Trump had in picking Barr to be his AG is even dumber than asking about Barr's conflict of interest. Every president has this same conflict because every president picks his AG. It simply isn't a material issue. You might as well ask whether water is wet. And like I pointed out, there are multiple checks on this exercise of presidential authority, so it isn't a problem. How many of those Presidents were under investigation by the DoJ at the time they picked their AG?
It doesn't matter. First, AG's, as attorneys, are bound by their own rules of ethical conduct. If there's a real conflict, they have to recuse. But there's no real conflict per my prior post discuss Barr at length. Second, the appointment of the AG is still subject to congressional approval. Lastly, the AG isn't responsible for prosecuting a sitting president anyway. That has to be dealt with by Congress through impeachment proceedings.
And again, let me remind you that the investigation had already been delegated to a special counsel at the time of Barr's appointment and Barr let the special counsel complete the investigation. There's not even a whiff of impropriety here.
|
If the Barr/Trump thing is a-okay, I don't ever want to hear about the Strozk/Page texts ever again.
|
On June 26 2019 04:02 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 03:53 Simberto wrote:On June 26 2019 03:49 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 03:42 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2019 03:24 Simberto wrote:On June 26 2019 03:13 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Saving the planet isn't a "leftist" issue, it's a human issue. American Republicans are the only people on the planet, certainly the only political party, that thinks climate change is a hoax. So if anything, this is a "right-ist" problem of what they're choosing to believe. They are the issue, not everyone else who's in agreement on the reality of climate change.
They are slowly exporting that crazy. We didn't have any parties that insane, but luckily, now we have the AfD in Germany. So we have climate denying crazy right-wing people too now. We always had crazy right-wing climate denying people, they just didn't have a party willing to cater to that level of crazy. You’d think everyone in the Netherlands, of all places, would be opposed to rising sea levels. But it does amazing things for the local dyke-building economy. I dunno if both spellings are accurate, but I think it's dike here in the U.S. Dyke is (obviously) the derogatory term for a homosexual woman. I won't lie, when I read "dyke building", I thought of an army of robot lesbians.
Me too, and I approve of this bold new vision of the future.
|
United States42004 Posts
On June 26 2019 08:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 07:53 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:43 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:24 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt you’re not remotely addressing the issue. You're doing the exact same thing you always do which is insisting that the issue is something completely unrelated to what the subject is, creating a straw man defence for the unrelated issue, and then complaining that everyone else is talking about the wrong thing.
If you weren't doing it intentionally I'd think you had some kind of disability.
Please feel free to stop making a fool out of yourself whenever you like and address the quid pro quo issue and not whether lawyers are required to have absolutely no opinions which appears to be a straw man you introduced. Complaining about Trump’s ability to pick who he wants for AG is even dumber than complaining about Barr. It’s his constitutional right. It is checked by the confirmation process and, if necessary, impeachment. Again you're dodging the issue. The issue is whether Trump selecting a guy to control an investigation into Trump is a conflict. You're answering the question of whether the constitution gives Trump the authority to select an AG and using that answer to somehow prove that there is no conflict because of a mystery step which you neglected to cover. You're responding to me pointing out that you only ever answer different questions to the ones asked by answering a different question to the one asked. You're a cliché. I am not dodging anything. It’s not a material conflict for the reasons I already discussed. It’s not a serious issue. You discussed whether Barr is entitled to have opinions earlier. That wasn't the issue. Try again. Maybe try reading the post before responding to it. That way you'll be able to see what you're meant to be responding to and can tailor your response. If you're still struggling you can probably ask literally any other person to explain the issue to you. I wasn't paying attention to your response to my first where you shifted the focus completely away from Barr and on Trump. But like I said, focusing on the conflict of interest that Trump had in picking Barr to be his AG is even dumber than asking about Barr's conflict of interest. Every president has this same conflict because every president picks his AG. It simply isn't a material issue. You might as well ask whether water is wet. And like I pointed out, there are multiple checks on this exercise of presidential authority, so it isn't a problem.
I've switched to doing one at a time because you're struggling to keep up with one. We'll get to Barr and how you can't take a job offer from a guy whose ongoing case you're going to be in charge of. But right now it seems that you're intellectually over capacity with trying to understand one issue and I wouldn't want to potentially break you by presenting two issues at the same time.
You're right that the potential conflict of interest exists for all presidents. I'm glad you've gotten that far. Any president could hypothetically be investigated and therefore any president would hypothetically be conflicted between picking an impartial AG and picking a lapdog AG to absolve him of criminal behavior. Were the president Jimmy Carter then I'd agree it's probably not material because he's probably not picking his AG to bail him out of some kind of impending peanut related conspiracy. Is every president the president right now xDaunt? Because if not then "every president had this power" isn't relevant to the specifics of this issue. The materiality is impacted by the circumstances.
What you're doing here is again changing the damn issue because it's all you know how to do. Now you're going with "Well all presidents appoint AGs. Are you saying it's wrong for the president to appoint the AG? Are you saying all presidents have the same conflict? Clearly it was immaterial in other cases and therefore it's immaterial in all cases!"
Unfortunately you've failed to address the specific issue of why it is material in this case, the active and ongoing investigation into Trump at the time of his selection of an AG to oversee that case.
Try again xDaunt. Maybe eventually you'll understand the issue well enough to answer it.
|
On June 26 2019 06:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2019 18:16 Zambrah wrote:
Id like to see a response to KwarKs question, it's been brought up multiple times but never gotten a direct response from Danglars,
"Out of curiousity Danglars, do you see any kind of potential conflict of interest in Barr writing to Trump's legal defence team with an offer to defend Trump and an assertion that the Mueller investigation was a sham and Trump subsequently selecting Barr as the individual who decided what to do with the Mueller investigation?
Do you think that it looks terrible but Barr happened to independently draw conclusions that matched up with the conclusions he'd already assured Trump he would draw?
Or do you think, as every rational individual out there thinks, that he's not independent of Trump?" No, there's no material conflict of interest. Barr is entitled to his opinions, as is Trump. This isn't even a close call.
You therefore see no issue with Peter Strzok and Lisa Page sharing texts that are a little less than friendly towards Trump, given they're permitted to have opinions and all?
On June 26 2019 08:39 Gahlo wrote:
If the Barr/Trump thing is a-okay, I don't ever want to hear about the Strozk/Page texts ever again.
GH put it in the simplest lines possible; view XDaunt as a lawyer defending Donald Trump at every turn and his blatant hypocrisy makes sense, even if it's not especially agreeable. It does make his constant claims of rectitude highly amusing reading, however.
|
United States42004 Posts
On June 26 2019 08:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 08:32 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2019 08:27 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:53 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:43 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:24 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt you’re not remotely addressing the issue. You're doing the exact same thing you always do which is insisting that the issue is something completely unrelated to what the subject is, creating a straw man defence for the unrelated issue, and then complaining that everyone else is talking about the wrong thing.
If you weren't doing it intentionally I'd think you had some kind of disability.
Please feel free to stop making a fool out of yourself whenever you like and address the quid pro quo issue and not whether lawyers are required to have absolutely no opinions which appears to be a straw man you introduced. Complaining about Trump’s ability to pick who he wants for AG is even dumber than complaining about Barr. It’s his constitutional right. It is checked by the confirmation process and, if necessary, impeachment. Again you're dodging the issue. The issue is whether Trump selecting a guy to control an investigation into Trump is a conflict. You're answering the question of whether the constitution gives Trump the authority to select an AG and using that answer to somehow prove that there is no conflict because of a mystery step which you neglected to cover. You're responding to me pointing out that you only ever answer different questions to the ones asked by answering a different question to the one asked. You're a cliché. I am not dodging anything. It’s not a material conflict for the reasons I already discussed. It’s not a serious issue. You discussed whether Barr is entitled to have opinions earlier. That wasn't the issue. Try again. Maybe try reading the post before responding to it. That way you'll be able to see what you're meant to be responding to and can tailor your response. If you're still struggling you can probably ask literally any other person to explain the issue to you. I wasn't paying attention to your response to my first where you shifted the focus completely away from Barr and on Trump. But like I said, focusing on the conflict of interest that Trump had in picking Barr to be his AG is even dumber than asking about Barr's conflict of interest. Every president has this same conflict because every president picks his AG. It simply isn't a material issue. You might as well ask whether water is wet. And like I pointed out, there are multiple checks on this exercise of presidential authority, so it isn't a problem. How many of those Presidents were under investigation by the DoJ at the time they picked their AG? It doesn't matter. First, AG's, as attorneys, are bound by their own rules of ethical conduct. If there's a real conflict, they have to recuse. But there's no real conflict per my prior post discuss Barr at length. Second, the appointment of the AG is still subject to congressional approval. Lastly, the AG isn't responsible for prosecuting a sitting president anyway. That has to be dealt with by Congress through impeachment proceedings. And again, let me remind you that the investigation had already been delegated to a special counsel at the time of Barr's appointment and Barr let the special counsel complete the investigation. There's not even a whiff of impropriety here.
1) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with a sudden change of subject. Did you know Barr is a lawyer? Lawyers are subject to ethical standards. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted."
2) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some trivia about the political process. Did you know that Trump's AG nomination is reviewed by the party that controls the house. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted."
3) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some misdirection. The AG, although in a position to conclude on what the report said and preemptively exonerate Trump in conflict with the text of the report, is not responsible for prosecution. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted."
You managed to cram three different introducing of new and separate issues into a single response. It's a rare triple daunt. Three different answers to questions that nobody was asked which fail to address the issue.
|
On June 26 2019 08:47 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2019 18:16 Zambrah wrote:
Id like to see a response to KwarKs question, it's been brought up multiple times but never gotten a direct response from Danglars,
"Out of curiousity Danglars, do you see any kind of potential conflict of interest in Barr writing to Trump's legal defence team with an offer to defend Trump and an assertion that the Mueller investigation was a sham and Trump subsequently selecting Barr as the individual who decided what to do with the Mueller investigation?
Do you think that it looks terrible but Barr happened to independently draw conclusions that matched up with the conclusions he'd already assured Trump he would draw?
Or do you think, as every rational individual out there thinks, that he's not independent of Trump?" No, there's no material conflict of interest. Barr is entitled to his opinions, as is Trump. This isn't even a close call. You therefore see no issue with Peter Strzok and Lisa Page sharing texts that are a little less than friendly towards Trump, given they're permitted to have opinions and all?
The problem isn't the texts in and of themselves (notwithstanding that they're a horrible look). The problem is that the texts, when taken in context with a lot of other things that we know about the case, strongly suggest that law enforcement officials were up to something nefarious in their investigations of Trump and his people. Strzok and Page are entitled to their opinions. What they're not entitled to do is break the law.
|
On June 26 2019 08:40 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 04:02 Ayaz2810 wrote:On June 26 2019 03:53 Simberto wrote:On June 26 2019 03:49 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 03:42 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2019 03:24 Simberto wrote:On June 26 2019 03:13 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Saving the planet isn't a "leftist" issue, it's a human issue. American Republicans are the only people on the planet, certainly the only political party, that thinks climate change is a hoax. So if anything, this is a "right-ist" problem of what they're choosing to believe. They are the issue, not everyone else who's in agreement on the reality of climate change.
They are slowly exporting that crazy. We didn't have any parties that insane, but luckily, now we have the AfD in Germany. So we have climate denying crazy right-wing people too now. We always had crazy right-wing climate denying people, they just didn't have a party willing to cater to that level of crazy. You’d think everyone in the Netherlands, of all places, would be opposed to rising sea levels. But it does amazing things for the local dyke-building economy. I dunno if both spellings are accurate, but I think it's dike here in the U.S. Dyke is (obviously) the derogatory term for a homosexual woman. I won't lie, when I read "dyke building", I thought of an army of robot lesbians. Me too, and I approve of this bold new vision of the future.
In future America, the pussy grabs you.
|
On June 26 2019 08:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 08:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:32 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2019 08:27 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:53 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:43 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:24 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt you’re not remotely addressing the issue. You're doing the exact same thing you always do which is insisting that the issue is something completely unrelated to what the subject is, creating a straw man defence for the unrelated issue, and then complaining that everyone else is talking about the wrong thing.
If you weren't doing it intentionally I'd think you had some kind of disability.
Please feel free to stop making a fool out of yourself whenever you like and address the quid pro quo issue and not whether lawyers are required to have absolutely no opinions which appears to be a straw man you introduced. Complaining about Trump’s ability to pick who he wants for AG is even dumber than complaining about Barr. It’s his constitutional right. It is checked by the confirmation process and, if necessary, impeachment. Again you're dodging the issue. The issue is whether Trump selecting a guy to control an investigation into Trump is a conflict. You're answering the question of whether the constitution gives Trump the authority to select an AG and using that answer to somehow prove that there is no conflict because of a mystery step which you neglected to cover. You're responding to me pointing out that you only ever answer different questions to the ones asked by answering a different question to the one asked. You're a cliché. I am not dodging anything. It’s not a material conflict for the reasons I already discussed. It’s not a serious issue. You discussed whether Barr is entitled to have opinions earlier. That wasn't the issue. Try again. Maybe try reading the post before responding to it. That way you'll be able to see what you're meant to be responding to and can tailor your response. If you're still struggling you can probably ask literally any other person to explain the issue to you. I wasn't paying attention to your response to my first where you shifted the focus completely away from Barr and on Trump. But like I said, focusing on the conflict of interest that Trump had in picking Barr to be his AG is even dumber than asking about Barr's conflict of interest. Every president has this same conflict because every president picks his AG. It simply isn't a material issue. You might as well ask whether water is wet. And like I pointed out, there are multiple checks on this exercise of presidential authority, so it isn't a problem. How many of those Presidents were under investigation by the DoJ at the time they picked their AG? It doesn't matter. First, AG's, as attorneys, are bound by their own rules of ethical conduct. If there's a real conflict, they have to recuse. But there's no real conflict per my prior post discuss Barr at length. Second, the appointment of the AG is still subject to congressional approval. Lastly, the AG isn't responsible for prosecuting a sitting president anyway. That has to be dealt with by Congress through impeachment proceedings. And again, let me remind you that the investigation had already been delegated to a special counsel at the time of Barr's appointment and Barr let the special counsel complete the investigation. There's not even a whiff of impropriety here. 1) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with a sudden change of subject. Did you know Barr is a lawyer? Lawyers are subject to ethical standards. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 2) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some trivia about the political process. Did you know that the AG nomination is reviewed by the party that controls the house. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 3) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some misdirection. The AG, although in a position to conclude on what the report said and preemptively exonerate Trump in conflict with the text of the report, is not responsible for prosecution. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." You managed to cram three different introducing of new and separate issues into a single response. It's a rare triple daunt. Three different answers to questions that nobody was asked which fail to address the issue.
He basically asked whether the conflict was material (whether it mattered that the president was under investigation at the time), and I directly explained why it wasn't. This isn't hard.
|
United States42004 Posts
On June 26 2019 08:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 08:49 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:32 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2019 08:27 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:53 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:43 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:24 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt you’re not remotely addressing the issue. You're doing the exact same thing you always do which is insisting that the issue is something completely unrelated to what the subject is, creating a straw man defence for the unrelated issue, and then complaining that everyone else is talking about the wrong thing.
If you weren't doing it intentionally I'd think you had some kind of disability.
Please feel free to stop making a fool out of yourself whenever you like and address the quid pro quo issue and not whether lawyers are required to have absolutely no opinions which appears to be a straw man you introduced. Complaining about Trump’s ability to pick who he wants for AG is even dumber than complaining about Barr. It’s his constitutional right. It is checked by the confirmation process and, if necessary, impeachment. Again you're dodging the issue. The issue is whether Trump selecting a guy to control an investigation into Trump is a conflict. You're answering the question of whether the constitution gives Trump the authority to select an AG and using that answer to somehow prove that there is no conflict because of a mystery step which you neglected to cover. You're responding to me pointing out that you only ever answer different questions to the ones asked by answering a different question to the one asked. You're a cliché. I am not dodging anything. It’s not a material conflict for the reasons I already discussed. It’s not a serious issue. You discussed whether Barr is entitled to have opinions earlier. That wasn't the issue. Try again. Maybe try reading the post before responding to it. That way you'll be able to see what you're meant to be responding to and can tailor your response. If you're still struggling you can probably ask literally any other person to explain the issue to you. I wasn't paying attention to your response to my first where you shifted the focus completely away from Barr and on Trump. But like I said, focusing on the conflict of interest that Trump had in picking Barr to be his AG is even dumber than asking about Barr's conflict of interest. Every president has this same conflict because every president picks his AG. It simply isn't a material issue. You might as well ask whether water is wet. And like I pointed out, there are multiple checks on this exercise of presidential authority, so it isn't a problem. How many of those Presidents were under investigation by the DoJ at the time they picked their AG? It doesn't matter. First, AG's, as attorneys, are bound by their own rules of ethical conduct. If there's a real conflict, they have to recuse. But there's no real conflict per my prior post discuss Barr at length. Second, the appointment of the AG is still subject to congressional approval. Lastly, the AG isn't responsible for prosecuting a sitting president anyway. That has to be dealt with by Congress through impeachment proceedings. And again, let me remind you that the investigation had already been delegated to a special counsel at the time of Barr's appointment and Barr let the special counsel complete the investigation. There's not even a whiff of impropriety here. 1) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with a sudden change of subject. Did you know Barr is a lawyer? Lawyers are subject to ethical standards. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 2) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some trivia about the political process. Did you know that the AG nomination is reviewed by the party that controls the house. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 3) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some misdirection. The AG, although in a position to conclude on what the report said and preemptively exonerate Trump in conflict with the text of the report, is not responsible for prosecution. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." You managed to cram three different introducing of new and separate issues into a single response. It's a rare triple daunt. Three different answers to questions that nobody was asked which fail to address the issue. He asked whether the conflict was material, and I directly explained why it wasn't. This isn't hard.
You didn't even address the conflict. You just introduced three new issues and rested your case.
How does Barr being a lawyer make Trump less conflicted when choosing who to nominate? It's the nomination process that Trump is conflicted over. Lawyers being subject to ethical standards is completely irrelevant to the nomination process.
You can't keep doing this shit and hoping you'll get away with it. You can't respond to the suggestion that Trump might be more inclined to nominate someone who will help him, a suggestion which applies regardless of who is nominated, with facts about Barr and insist that it's relevant.
|
On June 26 2019 08:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 08:47 iamthedave wrote:On June 26 2019 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2019 18:16 Zambrah wrote:
Id like to see a response to KwarKs question, it's been brought up multiple times but never gotten a direct response from Danglars,
"Out of curiousity Danglars, do you see any kind of potential conflict of interest in Barr writing to Trump's legal defence team with an offer to defend Trump and an assertion that the Mueller investigation was a sham and Trump subsequently selecting Barr as the individual who decided what to do with the Mueller investigation?
Do you think that it looks terrible but Barr happened to independently draw conclusions that matched up with the conclusions he'd already assured Trump he would draw?
Or do you think, as every rational individual out there thinks, that he's not independent of Trump?" No, there's no material conflict of interest. Barr is entitled to his opinions, as is Trump. This isn't even a close call. You therefore see no issue with Peter Strzok and Lisa Page sharing texts that are a little less than friendly towards Trump, given they're permitted to have opinions and all? The problem isn't the texts in and of themselves (notwithstanding that they're a horrible look). The problem is that the texts, when taken in context with a lot of other things that we know about the case, strongly suggest that law enforcement officials were up to something nefarious in their investigations of Trump and his people. Strzok and Page are entitled to their opinions. What they're not entitled to do is break the law.
The other things "we" know? I don't even have to ask what you're referring to. You know uh... that's all bullshit right? Ham-handed right-wing obfuscation of the facts.
EDIT: Should probably be clear for those who don't immediately know what he is referencing. It's a conspiracy theory that the "deep state" hatched a plan to bring down Trump with false evidence, illegally obtained warrants etc, and making up crimes to nail his associates for. I guess those people just ignore how many Republicans did the actual work at the FBI/CIA/DOJ.
|
On June 26 2019 08:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 08:54 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:49 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:32 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2019 08:27 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:53 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:43 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:38 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Complaining about Trump’s ability to pick who he wants for AG is even dumber than complaining about Barr. It’s his constitutional right. It is checked by the confirmation process and, if necessary, impeachment. Again you're dodging the issue. The issue is whether Trump selecting a guy to control an investigation into Trump is a conflict. You're answering the question of whether the constitution gives Trump the authority to select an AG and using that answer to somehow prove that there is no conflict because of a mystery step which you neglected to cover. You're responding to me pointing out that you only ever answer different questions to the ones asked by answering a different question to the one asked. You're a cliché. I am not dodging anything. It’s not a material conflict for the reasons I already discussed. It’s not a serious issue. You discussed whether Barr is entitled to have opinions earlier. That wasn't the issue. Try again. Maybe try reading the post before responding to it. That way you'll be able to see what you're meant to be responding to and can tailor your response. If you're still struggling you can probably ask literally any other person to explain the issue to you. I wasn't paying attention to your response to my first where you shifted the focus completely away from Barr and on Trump. But like I said, focusing on the conflict of interest that Trump had in picking Barr to be his AG is even dumber than asking about Barr's conflict of interest. Every president has this same conflict because every president picks his AG. It simply isn't a material issue. You might as well ask whether water is wet. And like I pointed out, there are multiple checks on this exercise of presidential authority, so it isn't a problem. How many of those Presidents were under investigation by the DoJ at the time they picked their AG? It doesn't matter. First, AG's, as attorneys, are bound by their own rules of ethical conduct. If there's a real conflict, they have to recuse. But there's no real conflict per my prior post discuss Barr at length. Second, the appointment of the AG is still subject to congressional approval. Lastly, the AG isn't responsible for prosecuting a sitting president anyway. That has to be dealt with by Congress through impeachment proceedings. And again, let me remind you that the investigation had already been delegated to a special counsel at the time of Barr's appointment and Barr let the special counsel complete the investigation. There's not even a whiff of impropriety here. 1) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with a sudden change of subject. Did you know Barr is a lawyer? Lawyers are subject to ethical standards. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 2) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some trivia about the political process. Did you know that the AG nomination is reviewed by the party that controls the house. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 3) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some misdirection. The AG, although in a position to conclude on what the report said and preemptively exonerate Trump in conflict with the text of the report, is not responsible for prosecution. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." You managed to cram three different introducing of new and separate issues into a single response. It's a rare triple daunt. Three different answers to questions that nobody was asked which fail to address the issue. He asked whether the conflict was material, and I directly explained why it wasn't. This isn't hard. You didn't even address the conflict. You just introduced three new issues and rested your case. How does Barr being a lawyer make Trump less conflicted when choosing who to nominate? It's the nomination process that Trump is conflicted over. Lawyers being subject to ethical standards is completely irrelevant to the nomination process.
Why do I need to address the conflict when the conflict doesn't matter? Your point boils down to "water is wet." Big fucking deal. Who cares? It's neither interesting nor profound nor worthy of discussion for the reasons that I have given.
And no, I did not introduce three new issues. I gave three reasons why the conflict does not matter. Here's what's really going on: you are avoiding the reality that you're asking an incredibly stupid question that is predicated upon a poor understanding of how the system works and the specific facts in this instance.
|
United States42004 Posts
On June 26 2019 09:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 08:57 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:54 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:49 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:32 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2019 08:27 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:53 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:43 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Again you're dodging the issue. The issue is whether Trump selecting a guy to control an investigation into Trump is a conflict. You're answering the question of whether the constitution gives Trump the authority to select an AG and using that answer to somehow prove that there is no conflict because of a mystery step which you neglected to cover.
You're responding to me pointing out that you only ever answer different questions to the ones asked by answering a different question to the one asked. You're a cliché. I am not dodging anything. It’s not a material conflict for the reasons I already discussed. It’s not a serious issue. You discussed whether Barr is entitled to have opinions earlier. That wasn't the issue. Try again. Maybe try reading the post before responding to it. That way you'll be able to see what you're meant to be responding to and can tailor your response. If you're still struggling you can probably ask literally any other person to explain the issue to you. I wasn't paying attention to your response to my first where you shifted the focus completely away from Barr and on Trump. But like I said, focusing on the conflict of interest that Trump had in picking Barr to be his AG is even dumber than asking about Barr's conflict of interest. Every president has this same conflict because every president picks his AG. It simply isn't a material issue. You might as well ask whether water is wet. And like I pointed out, there are multiple checks on this exercise of presidential authority, so it isn't a problem. How many of those Presidents were under investigation by the DoJ at the time they picked their AG? It doesn't matter. First, AG's, as attorneys, are bound by their own rules of ethical conduct. If there's a real conflict, they have to recuse. But there's no real conflict per my prior post discuss Barr at length. Second, the appointment of the AG is still subject to congressional approval. Lastly, the AG isn't responsible for prosecuting a sitting president anyway. That has to be dealt with by Congress through impeachment proceedings. And again, let me remind you that the investigation had already been delegated to a special counsel at the time of Barr's appointment and Barr let the special counsel complete the investigation. There's not even a whiff of impropriety here. 1) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with a sudden change of subject. Did you know Barr is a lawyer? Lawyers are subject to ethical standards. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 2) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some trivia about the political process. Did you know that the AG nomination is reviewed by the party that controls the house. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 3) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some misdirection. The AG, although in a position to conclude on what the report said and preemptively exonerate Trump in conflict with the text of the report, is not responsible for prosecution. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." You managed to cram three different introducing of new and separate issues into a single response. It's a rare triple daunt. Three different answers to questions that nobody was asked which fail to address the issue. He asked whether the conflict was material, and I directly explained why it wasn't. This isn't hard. You didn't even address the conflict. You just introduced three new issues and rested your case. How does Barr being a lawyer make Trump less conflicted when choosing who to nominate? It's the nomination process that Trump is conflicted over. Lawyers being subject to ethical standards is completely irrelevant to the nomination process. Why do I need to address the conflict when the conflict doesn't matter? Your point boils down to "water is wet." Big fucking deal. Who cares? It's neither interesting nor profound nor worthy of discussion for the reasons that I have given. And no, I did not introduce three new issues. I gave three reasons why the conflict does not matter. Here's what's really going on: you are avoiding the reality that you're asking an incredibly stupid question that is predicated upon a poor understanding of how the system works and the specific facts in this instance.
And we finally get to it. After six different attempts to answer different questions and change the issue, each of which was rejected, you finally state that accusing Trump of being conflicted when nominating a guy to oversee the investigation into Trump is like saying water is wet.
But in a sudden twist we switch to gaslighting. "Why do you even care about the conflict? You're stating the obvious. Water is wet. Who fucking cares? Big fucking deal".
Your problem, xDaunt, is that I know what you're doing. After you've been unable to successfully change the subject to something other than the conflict you're now insisting that the conflict doesn't even matter. So naturally I'm going to do my part in this game and call you out again. You can't just go "big fucking deal" and make everyone agree that it's a small chaste deal.
|
On June 26 2019 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 04:22 Ryzel wrote:On June 26 2019 03:41 Sermokala wrote:On June 26 2019 03:18 Starlightsun wrote:
I think people should be allowed to make political blog threads again, to keep down the volume of completely unproductive fighting and contrarianism here. The unproductive fighting and contrarianism is the thread. the only thing the blog did was create echo chambers. Having text based debates on the internet with anononyms strangers having any chance of actually convincing anyone of changing their opinion is a farcical level of optimism of todays cynasism based discourse. There’s this weird meta that’s developed in this thread where it’s just accepted that no one will actually change anyone else’s mind, so instead it’s turned into a training ground where people practice their arguments and rhetoric on each other (at least two people, GH and Danglars, have admitted to this in the past). I don’t necessarily mind that, but if no one is going to take each other seriously then I’d rather not waste my time slogging through bullshit debate/rhetoric techniques and calling each other out on it ad nauseum, if instead I could just learn and judge someone’s beliefs by the strength and logic of their underlying premises. #zlefinformoderator Why does this myth that my blog was an echo chamber persist? I used to be a Democrat and now I'm a Communist and IgnE certainly influenced that, so I'd say you're both just flat out wrong.
Yeah I wouldn't say it was an echo chamber. It was nice to peruse the two separate threads that weren't filled with pages and pages of pure contrarian fighting.
|
On June 26 2019 08:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 07:53 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:43 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:24 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt you’re not remotely addressing the issue. You're doing the exact same thing you always do which is insisting that the issue is something completely unrelated to what the subject is, creating a straw man defence for the unrelated issue, and then complaining that everyone else is talking about the wrong thing.
If you weren't doing it intentionally I'd think you had some kind of disability.
Please feel free to stop making a fool out of yourself whenever you like and address the quid pro quo issue and not whether lawyers are required to have absolutely no opinions which appears to be a straw man you introduced. Complaining about Trump’s ability to pick who he wants for AG is even dumber than complaining about Barr. It’s his constitutional right. It is checked by the confirmation process and, if necessary, impeachment. Again you're dodging the issue. The issue is whether Trump selecting a guy to control an investigation into Trump is a conflict. You're answering the question of whether the constitution gives Trump the authority to select an AG and using that answer to somehow prove that there is no conflict because of a mystery step which you neglected to cover. You're responding to me pointing out that you only ever answer different questions to the ones asked by answering a different question to the one asked. You're a cliché. I am not dodging anything. It’s not a material conflict for the reasons I already discussed. It’s not a serious issue. You discussed whether Barr is entitled to have opinions earlier. That wasn't the issue. Try again. Maybe try reading the post before responding to it. That way you'll be able to see what you're meant to be responding to and can tailor your response. If you're still struggling you can probably ask literally any other person to explain the issue to you. I wasn't paying attention to your response to my first where you shifted the focus completely away from Barr and on Trump. But like I said, focusing on the conflict of interest that Trump had in picking Barr to be his AG is even dumber than asking about Barr's conflict of interest. Every president has this same conflict because every president picks his AG. It simply isn't a material issue. You might as well ask whether water is wet. And like I pointed out, there are multiple checks on this exercise of presidential authority, so it isn't a problem.
Presidents prior to trump picked an AG based on qualifications to do the job, trump picked barr because he agreed to shut down the mueller investigation.
On that fact alone they are both guilty of obstruction.
|
Here's your MAGA, assholes. You finally did it. You brought me to tears. Congratulations. Fuck man. Just... fuck. I'm out of words.
"A horrific photo from the US border with Mexico shows a Salvadoran father and his daughter face-down in the water, having drowned while trying to get to the United States.
The young girl is tucked inside her father's shirt, her right arm around his neck as they lie near the shore. They were discovered on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/25/americas/mexico-photo-of-father-and-daughter-dead-in-rio-grande/index.html
|
On June 26 2019 09:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:57 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:54 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:49 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:32 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2019 08:27 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:53 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:48 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I am not dodging anything. It’s not a material conflict for the reasons I already discussed. It’s not a serious issue. You discussed whether Barr is entitled to have opinions earlier. That wasn't the issue. Try again. Maybe try reading the post before responding to it. That way you'll be able to see what you're meant to be responding to and can tailor your response. If you're still struggling you can probably ask literally any other person to explain the issue to you. I wasn't paying attention to your response to my first where you shifted the focus completely away from Barr and on Trump. But like I said, focusing on the conflict of interest that Trump had in picking Barr to be his AG is even dumber than asking about Barr's conflict of interest. Every president has this same conflict because every president picks his AG. It simply isn't a material issue. You might as well ask whether water is wet. And like I pointed out, there are multiple checks on this exercise of presidential authority, so it isn't a problem. How many of those Presidents were under investigation by the DoJ at the time they picked their AG? It doesn't matter. First, AG's, as attorneys, are bound by their own rules of ethical conduct. If there's a real conflict, they have to recuse. But there's no real conflict per my prior post discuss Barr at length. Second, the appointment of the AG is still subject to congressional approval. Lastly, the AG isn't responsible for prosecuting a sitting president anyway. That has to be dealt with by Congress through impeachment proceedings. And again, let me remind you that the investigation had already been delegated to a special counsel at the time of Barr's appointment and Barr let the special counsel complete the investigation. There's not even a whiff of impropriety here. 1) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with a sudden change of subject. Did you know Barr is a lawyer? Lawyers are subject to ethical standards. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 2) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some trivia about the political process. Did you know that the AG nomination is reviewed by the party that controls the house. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 3) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some misdirection. The AG, although in a position to conclude on what the report said and preemptively exonerate Trump in conflict with the text of the report, is not responsible for prosecution. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." You managed to cram three different introducing of new and separate issues into a single response. It's a rare triple daunt. Three different answers to questions that nobody was asked which fail to address the issue. He asked whether the conflict was material, and I directly explained why it wasn't. This isn't hard. You didn't even address the conflict. You just introduced three new issues and rested your case. How does Barr being a lawyer make Trump less conflicted when choosing who to nominate? It's the nomination process that Trump is conflicted over. Lawyers being subject to ethical standards is completely irrelevant to the nomination process. Why do I need to address the conflict when the conflict doesn't matter? Your point boils down to "water is wet." Big fucking deal. Who cares? It's neither interesting nor profound nor worthy of discussion for the reasons that I have given. And no, I did not introduce three new issues. I gave three reasons why the conflict does not matter. Here's what's really going on: you are avoiding the reality that you're asking an incredibly stupid question that is predicated upon a poor understanding of how the system works and the specific facts in this instance. And we finally get to it. After six different attempts to answer different questions and change the issue, each of which was rejected, you finally state that accusing Trump of being conflicted when nominating a guy to oversee the investigation into Trump is like saying water is wet. But in a sudden twist we switch to gaslighting. "Why do you even care about the conflict? You're stating the obvious. Water is wet. Who fucking cares? Big fucking deal". Your problem, xDaunt, is that I know what you're doing. After you've been unable to successfully change the subject to something other than the conflict you're now insisting that the conflict doesn't even matter. So naturally I'm going to do my part in this game and call you out again. You can't just go "big fucking deal" and make everyone agree that it's a small chaste deal.
"Finally get to it?" Have you not read any of my posts? I have said the same exact thing in every one of my posts regardless of whether I was addressing Trump's conflict or Barr's conflict: "it's not material." That you think that you have finally forced something out of me is simply incredible. So no, you clearly don't know what I'm doing, just as you don't understand the conflict issue at all.
|
On June 26 2019 09:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:57 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:54 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:49 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 08:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 08:32 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2019 08:27 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:53 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:48 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I am not dodging anything. It’s not a material conflict for the reasons I already discussed. It’s not a serious issue. You discussed whether Barr is entitled to have opinions earlier. That wasn't the issue. Try again. Maybe try reading the post before responding to it. That way you'll be able to see what you're meant to be responding to and can tailor your response. If you're still struggling you can probably ask literally any other person to explain the issue to you. I wasn't paying attention to your response to my first where you shifted the focus completely away from Barr and on Trump. But like I said, focusing on the conflict of interest that Trump had in picking Barr to be his AG is even dumber than asking about Barr's conflict of interest. Every president has this same conflict because every president picks his AG. It simply isn't a material issue. You might as well ask whether water is wet. And like I pointed out, there are multiple checks on this exercise of presidential authority, so it isn't a problem. How many of those Presidents were under investigation by the DoJ at the time they picked their AG? It doesn't matter. First, AG's, as attorneys, are bound by their own rules of ethical conduct. If there's a real conflict, they have to recuse. But there's no real conflict per my prior post discuss Barr at length. Second, the appointment of the AG is still subject to congressional approval. Lastly, the AG isn't responsible for prosecuting a sitting president anyway. That has to be dealt with by Congress through impeachment proceedings. And again, let me remind you that the investigation had already been delegated to a special counsel at the time of Barr's appointment and Barr let the special counsel complete the investigation. There's not even a whiff of impropriety here. 1) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with a sudden change of subject. Did you know Barr is a lawyer? Lawyers are subject to ethical standards. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 2) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some trivia about the political process. Did you know that the AG nomination is reviewed by the party that controls the house. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." 3) "Let me answer the question of whether Trump is conflicted with some misdirection. The AG, although in a position to conclude on what the report said and preemptively exonerate Trump in conflict with the text of the report, is not responsible for prosecution. I trust that answers the question of whether Trump is conflicted." You managed to cram three different introducing of new and separate issues into a single response. It's a rare triple daunt. Three different answers to questions that nobody was asked which fail to address the issue. He asked whether the conflict was material, and I directly explained why it wasn't. This isn't hard. You didn't even address the conflict. You just introduced three new issues and rested your case. How does Barr being a lawyer make Trump less conflicted when choosing who to nominate? It's the nomination process that Trump is conflicted over. Lawyers being subject to ethical standards is completely irrelevant to the nomination process. Why do I need to address the conflict when the conflict doesn't matter? Your point boils down to "water is wet." Big fucking deal. Who cares? It's neither interesting nor profound nor worthy of discussion for the reasons that I have given. And no, I did not introduce three new issues. I gave three reasons why the conflict does not matter. Here's what's really going on: you are avoiding the reality that you're asking an incredibly stupid question that is predicated upon a poor understanding of how the system works and the specific facts in this instance. And we finally get to it. After six different attempts to answer different questions and change the issue, each of which was rejected, you finally state that accusing Trump of being conflicted when nominating a guy to oversee the investigation into Trump is like saying water is wet. But in a sudden twist we switch to gaslighting. "Why do you even care about the conflict? You're stating the obvious. Water is wet. Who fucking cares? Big fucking deal". Your problem, xDaunt, is that I know what you're doing. After you've been unable to successfully change the subject to something other than the conflict you're now insisting that the conflict doesn't even matter. So naturally I'm going to do my part in this game and call you out again. You can't just go "big fucking deal" and make everyone agree that it's a small chaste deal.
I appreciate you doing this. It's the best way to deal with arguments xDaunt presents instead of taking the bait like so many do.
If others followed this strategy I think there'd be a lot less of the silly back and forths and more valuable dialogue (it's how I handled it in my blog). What you eventually get to is a self-interested position that bends or outright flips the rules as necessary to argue in favor of his own self-interest.
The coherency is in it's short-term selfishness, but beyond that, it falls apart as any sort of ethical worldview in that it's ubiquitous application renders it meaningless/useless.
There's not a soul here (not even intro or danglars) that believes for a second that xDaunt wouldn't have the opposite position given identical circumstances with Obama in Trump's stead.
|
On June 26 2019 09:14 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 08:27 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:53 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:43 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 07:24 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt you’re not remotely addressing the issue. You're doing the exact same thing you always do which is insisting that the issue is something completely unrelated to what the subject is, creating a straw man defence for the unrelated issue, and then complaining that everyone else is talking about the wrong thing.
If you weren't doing it intentionally I'd think you had some kind of disability.
Please feel free to stop making a fool out of yourself whenever you like and address the quid pro quo issue and not whether lawyers are required to have absolutely no opinions which appears to be a straw man you introduced. Complaining about Trump’s ability to pick who he wants for AG is even dumber than complaining about Barr. It’s his constitutional right. It is checked by the confirmation process and, if necessary, impeachment. Again you're dodging the issue. The issue is whether Trump selecting a guy to control an investigation into Trump is a conflict. You're answering the question of whether the constitution gives Trump the authority to select an AG and using that answer to somehow prove that there is no conflict because of a mystery step which you neglected to cover. You're responding to me pointing out that you only ever answer different questions to the ones asked by answering a different question to the one asked. You're a cliché. I am not dodging anything. It’s not a material conflict for the reasons I already discussed. It’s not a serious issue. You discussed whether Barr is entitled to have opinions earlier. That wasn't the issue. Try again. Maybe try reading the post before responding to it. That way you'll be able to see what you're meant to be responding to and can tailor your response. If you're still struggling you can probably ask literally any other person to explain the issue to you. I wasn't paying attention to your response to my first where you shifted the focus completely away from Barr and on Trump. But like I said, focusing on the conflict of interest that Trump had in picking Barr to be his AG is even dumber than asking about Barr's conflict of interest. Every president has this same conflict because every president picks his AG. It simply isn't a material issue. You might as well ask whether water is wet. And like I pointed out, there are multiple checks on this exercise of presidential authority, so it isn't a problem. Presidents prior to trump picked an AG based on qualifications to do the job, trump picked barr because he agreed to shut down the mueller investigation. On that fact alone they are both guilty of obstruction.
I think Barr did shut down the Mueller investigation, but I think he did it for very different reasons than you think he did.
|
On June 26 2019 07:34 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 03:31 IgnE wrote:
i am not making any equivalences. i think i need a name for what happens when people just parrot back some rote meta-argument at me
just to make it clear, i was only specifically talking about the alternative facts around immigrant court appearances. the way you divide up the cases and track outcomes matters immensely. it is also not unreasonable to think that the very recent surge in border crossings and the tremendous strain it puts on the underequipped administration might produce deviations from even relatively recent history. i am open to the possibility that the testimony of the head of DHS in front of congress might have some validity. i am also open to the possibility that it might be false. but it seems very disingenuous to me to only accept facts because they agree with what you want to be true rather than having some reasonable explanation of why the facts you are citing are better than the others. even if 90% of immigrants have shown up over some time period under some conditions the relevant question is what about this time period, under these circumstances. and if DHS says the relevant dataset is actually 7,000 recent cases where 90% did not show up, maybe he is right?
that said, the major question about holding or releasing from my point of view is “how much does it matter if they don’t show up?” what should be the priority? is there some other way to track them? do we need more lawyers? etc.
You said that it's your opinion that people on "both sides" are likely using alternative facts to support their view. If you aren't mentioning the fact that the current administration is constantly lying (sarah sanders, kelly anne conway, trump, fox news, etc...), then your words are drawing an equivalence between the two groups (whether that is your intention or not). You cannot talk about immigration and say both sides are are equal in regard to speaking actual facts. Calling immigration a "crisis" is an alternative fact. That's what this administration did, starting calling something that at most needed reform, a "crisis." Then ripped DACA apart, which made ZERO fucking sense, and continue to make it a problem to justify building a wall (which will do nothing). Remember the "fact" that Mexico pays for the wall? DHS is part of this administration, for people question DHS's claims makes sense given the history of this administration, just makes sense. The entire administration is untrustworthy if you depend on facts for your reality. That's my point in quoting your post.
i don’t think anybody is saying “immigration” generally, as a concept, is a “crisis”. but given the photos and videos of suffering and dead immigrants, a lot of people do seem to think that whatever is happening at the border is, in fact, a crisis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
