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.
On August 15 2020 20:15 Wombat_NI wrote: Ah Trump’s classic ‘I’m not saying or suggestion this but I’ve heard x from other people’ combo
He was directly asked about the specific claim by a reporter, who told him who had been making the claim and asked about the argument.
Still bad, because apparently I have to add that these days.
the proper response is a 'no, that is not right'. not to hum and ha about how it might be the case.
Nor would I put it past the Trump administration to get a reporter to ask that question to provide cover for pushing the theory.
Exactly. She was born in Oakland. There's no question to this. It's ridiculous. There's no "maybe she wasn't born in Oakland?" to this. His use of birtherism is purely to play to the racist part of the Republican base.
On August 15 2020 23:53 Trainrunnef wrote: Anyone else getting the vibe that Helter skelter is way too close for comfort? This craziness with the little boy in NC feels like a prelude for things to come.
Senseless murders from people who snap for any reason have always happened and will always happen. What matters is that the perpetrators are brought to justice and sometimes very publicly. In this case, it was done. I don't see the issue.
The only solution for this kind of thing NOT to happen is to remove firearms, so that a moment of madness does not end up with someone dead. However, we know how THAT has no chance to happen. So the only choice is to deal as best you can with the consequences.
Oh I agree, but in light of BLM protests and how the public is reacting in this situation it seems to me that the two are being conflated. Emotional social media reactions stoking flames of animosity isn't a new thing and I could see this and other events like it quickly becoming part of a larger conflict. Just hope this doesn't all go in the direction my gut is telling me.
On August 15 2020 23:53 Trainrunnef wrote: Anyone else getting the vibe that Helter skelter is way too close for comfort? This craziness with the little boy in NC feels like a prelude for things to come.
Senseless murders from people who snap for any reason have always happened and will always happen. What matters is that the perpetrators are brought to justice and sometimes very publicly. In this case, it was done. I don't see the issue.
The only solution for this kind of thing NOT to happen is to remove firearms, so that a moment of madness does not end up with someone dead. However, we know how THAT has no chance to happen. So the only choice is to deal as best you can with the consequences.
Oh I agree, but in light of BLM protests and how the public is reacting in this situation it seems to me that the two are being conflated. Emotional social media reactions stoking flames of animosity isn't a new thing and I could see this and other events like it quickly becoming part of a larger conflict. Just hope this doesn't all go in the direction my gut is telling me.
I don't know, I just see this as the far right yelling that "ah AH ! Look, people of color do murders too !" as somehow a gotcha ? on what ? When the whole BLM is about the lack of accountability for (mainly) police force and self-proclaimed vigilantes killing them.
Then again, I'm not in the US looking at what middle-of-the-pack/non-partisan people are thinking of it.
On August 15 2020 05:33 Nevuk wrote: There is an irregularity, in that people are almost never charged for what Flynn was (lying to the fbi). I believe the reason it's a crime is the same reason RICO is - to help prosecute the mob (and other organized groups) who cover up their crimes too well to be found guilty at trial (reading up on it, it's actually a civil war era relic that has gotten strengthened over the years - until 1900 it required demonstrating financial harm as a result of the lie). I'm not sure I'd call it a perjury trap, though. Selective prosecution, definitely (it's pretty much only ever used against those difficult to prosecute traditionally... like Martha Stewart or Petraeus). It's not a right/left bias, though.
I've found a washingtonexaminer (a far right newpaper, iirc) article on the topic, but I do recall many liberal legal commentators saying that they really don't like USC 1001 either.
Some of the things Flynn was alleged to have done WERE downright criminal (discussing the kidnapping of that cleric for Turkey) and he should never have been made a prominent national defense chief. I don't know if not charging him for that was part of his plea deal or not, but if it were true, he should absolutely have been charged with that.
A lot of organizations tend to return to their roots given enough time, as they were designed for that purpose. The FBI was initially used and conceived of as a way for Hoover to maintain political power as a non-elected official. It should come as no surprise, if they didn't fully let go of that, even after they got kneecapped after Hoover died.
I have no idea how their image got rehabilitated after that period, considering every time they've wound up in the news since it's been for some absurd malpractice.
I don’t really see much here from you, Nevuk. I never asked if you like him. The interview was set up as a friendly meeting trying to ascertain facts and allegations. This is why he didn’t feel the need to have a lawyer present; he was supposed to help oversee this kind of stuff, not be it’s target. The FBI agents tasked with this openly questioned whether their goal was to get him to lie so he could be prosecuted or fired, or if it was something about the Logan act. It’s about as slam dunk a case of trying to get someone to commit a crime as it comes. I see no reasoning of yours to know why you wouldn’t call it a perjury trap, other than you don’t like the guy and it’s sometimes used in other circumstances for other things. I don’t really think any of them stands up as a real argument. The FBI agents sure weren’t confused, because it was as plain as day to them. The only thing in doubt is abuse of power corruption or political bias corruption. Entrapment is the precise term for trying to get someone to commit a crime to prosecute, look it up. “Perjury” in this case is making false statements to federal investigators, and its classic use is making false statements in a court of law. It describes what you’re stating.
I'm ... mostly on your side, on this, actually. I only object to the terminology.
It's just not literally perjury (as that is a false statement in court or under oath). Pedantic, yes, but I feel like it's important to be exact about language in legal matters.
The fact is that it's actually more nefarious of a tactic than the term perjury trap implies, as that would require you to knowingly be under oath (while USC 1001 applies to any statement given to a federal officer investigating a crime). It's ripe for abuse and seems to be a tactic the FBI have turned towards to get easy convictions instead of prosecuting whatever the underlying crime they investigated actually was (could they have charged Flynn with the logan act? Sure. Could they have gotten a conviction? We'll never know).
The only mitigating factor to me is that Flynn did say under oath that he was aware it was a crime when he did it... but it still shouldn't be a crime.
That his charges have been dropped while the FBI isn't apologizing to Martha Stewart is definitely politically motivated, however.
Darn legal things. Trying to wrap my head around this, the beers may not have been conducive to this quest.
Flynn wasn’t charged with anything initially, ergo we skip the auld Miranda warnings and all that stuff.
With the caveat that this thread is about all the amount of gazing into the outside world of politics. I could read more but a lot of it is trash or misleading, or if true exceptionally aggravating as reality is, well aggravating. So excuse my ignorance is that vaguely what’s being alleged/discussed here?
He lied to the FBI about something that *may* be a crime within the confines of a 1799 bill called the Logan Act. (Specifically whether he had conversations discussing foreign affairs with an ambassador before taking office. I believe this was when he said that sanctions may be eased on Russia to the Russian ambassador after Obama left office).
The logan act has NEVER led to a conviction, and has only ever led to an indictment twice, in 220+ years.
Is Flynn guilty of it? Possibly, but so are *tons* of past officials, across the centuries, if it is being read broadly enough to apply.
It's a short law so you can decide for yourself:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
RE:
But under the auspices of something approaching mere questioning on a wider investigation in which he wasn’t a suspect he still fell afoul of the crime of lying to a federal officer, which they may have tried to create conditions for so as to have leverage against Flynn to give them dirt as per their investigation.
The FBI and US police in general are notorious for using tactics like this when questioning suspects, which is part of why we've had so many false convictions be made throughout the years. So it's entirely believable that they did that (it's honestly even expected - if questioned by US police, NEVER assume they are on your side. They aren't).
Did Flynn really lie about anything, though? He said "I don't remember," which is a legal hedge against a charge of lying, and the interviewing FBI agents opined that he showed no signs of lying. So not only was there no legitimate suspicion behind the FBI's decision to interview him, he probably didn't even lie to them when they did interview him. And why was the FBI even in the possession of a transcript of his call with Kislyak in the first place?
The evidence is becoming overwhelming that the collusion theory was concocted by intelligence and law enforcement.
Flynn was also alleged to have discussed kidnapping an american resident. That's a much more serious charge (though without the same political implications) and I would not be at all surprised if the lying to the fbi plea included dropping the investigation into that.
The legal arguments I've read are that the reason it was ok to charge him with lying is that Flynn was effectively obstructing justice. I don't really agree with that, but it's the legal stance as to why that law is usable.
The collusion theory, as far as I have been able to understand it, was almost proven. The intention to do so was there, and steps to do it were taken.
Here are the flaws: 1. The reason it didn't actually happen was that the Trump campaign was too incompetent to actually follow through correctly (specifically Don Jr's tower meeting). Don Jr could have (and probably should have) been charged, with the only reason the Mueller report said they didn't being his complete ignorance as to how the law worked.
2. Trump wasn't directly implicated as giving the order for any of his staff to try to coordinate (outside of his one public email request, there's no evidence that he asked for aid from Russia with the campaign).
3.There's no evidence Trump directly offered anything of value to Putin. This is the "useful idiot" defense: Putin wanted Trump to win because he'd be a bad president/easy to manipulate, rather than an explicit quid pro quo.
So, intent to collude/attempting to collude so was proven, but actually succeeding at collusion was not. Flynn's discussion was taken to be a quid pro quo that would have satisfied flaw 3, but there's still no proof that Trump asked him to do it (and even after flipping, he didn't say Trump told him to have the conversation).
If flaws 2/3 were never solved, then removing Trump was never justified based on the Russian angle (much of the Mueller report focuses on Trump's obstruction of justice, which he undeniably did. However, Nixon's obstruction wasn't sufficient to remove him : it required evidence he gave the watergate orders directly).
I don't think it was an intentional conspiracy on the part of the FBI to look at the facts and conclude that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia - the actual conclusion was a lot more bizarre and a stranger than fiction story (that they tried and failed due to incompetence). Their problem was that the FBI cut lots of corners, due to how they were so sure of their investigation's conclusion and due to how damning the underlying crime would be(reminds me of the last few seasons of The Wire). This is something that law enforcement does all the time if they have no oversight, which to me reinforces Danglar's point that an organization like the FBI needs some kind of civilian oversight.
The Ukraine scandal was much more cut and dry, and far more damning of Trump. It wasn't just his campaign, it was him directly asking. If so much focus hadn't already been given to the Russian collusion (which was much more complicated and relied on less clear fact patterns), I think it would have been a lot worse for him.
On August 16 2020 02:40 Nevuk wrote:The Ukraine scandal was much more cut and dry, and far more damning of Trump. It wasn't just his campaign, it was him directly asking. If so much focus hadn't already been given to the Russian collusion (which was much more complicated and relied on less clear fact patterns), I think it would have been a lot worse for him.
The base would not have left him which meant the Senate would not have voted against him and nothing would have changed.
On August 15 2020 05:33 Nevuk wrote: There is an irregularity, in that people are almost never charged for what Flynn was (lying to the fbi). I believe the reason it's a crime is the same reason RICO is - to help prosecute the mob (and other organized groups) who cover up their crimes too well to be found guilty at trial (reading up on it, it's actually a civil war era relic that has gotten strengthened over the years - until 1900 it required demonstrating financial harm as a result of the lie). I'm not sure I'd call it a perjury trap, though. Selective prosecution, definitely (it's pretty much only ever used against those difficult to prosecute traditionally... like Martha Stewart or Petraeus). It's not a right/left bias, though.
I've found a washingtonexaminer (a far right newpaper, iirc) article on the topic, but I do recall many liberal legal commentators saying that they really don't like USC 1001 either.
Some of the things Flynn was alleged to have done WERE downright criminal (discussing the kidnapping of that cleric for Turkey) and he should never have been made a prominent national defense chief. I don't know if not charging him for that was part of his plea deal or not, but if it were true, he should absolutely have been charged with that.
A lot of organizations tend to return to their roots given enough time, as they were designed for that purpose. The FBI was initially used and conceived of as a way for Hoover to maintain political power as a non-elected official. It should come as no surprise, if they didn't fully let go of that, even after they got kneecapped after Hoover died.
I have no idea how their image got rehabilitated after that period, considering every time they've wound up in the news since it's been for some absurd malpractice.
I don’t really see much here from you, Nevuk. I never asked if you like him. The interview was set up as a friendly meeting trying to ascertain facts and allegations. This is why he didn’t feel the need to have a lawyer present; he was supposed to help oversee this kind of stuff, not be it’s target. The FBI agents tasked with this openly questioned whether their goal was to get him to lie so he could be prosecuted or fired, or if it was something about the Logan act. It’s about as slam dunk a case of trying to get someone to commit a crime as it comes. I see no reasoning of yours to know why you wouldn’t call it a perjury trap, other than you don’t like the guy and it’s sometimes used in other circumstances for other things. I don’t really think any of them stands up as a real argument. The FBI agents sure weren’t confused, because it was as plain as day to them. The only thing in doubt is abuse of power corruption or political bias corruption. Entrapment is the precise term for trying to get someone to commit a crime to prosecute, look it up. “Perjury” in this case is making false statements to federal investigators, and its classic use is making false statements in a court of law. It describes what you’re stating.
I'm ... mostly on your side, on this, actually. I only object to the terminology.
It's just not literally perjury (as that is a false statement in court or under oath). Pedantic, yes, but I feel like it's important to be exact about language in legal matters.
The fact is that it's actually more nefarious of a tactic than the term perjury trap implies, as that would require you to knowingly be under oath (while USC 1001 applies to any statement given to a federal officer investigating a crime). It's ripe for abuse and seems to be a tactic the FBI have turned towards to get easy convictions instead of prosecuting whatever the underlying crime they investigated actually was (could they have charged Flynn with the logan act? Sure. Could they have gotten a conviction? We'll never know).
The only mitigating factor to me is that Flynn did say under oath that he was aware it was a crime when he did it... but it still shouldn't be a crime.
That his charges have been dropped while the FBI isn't apologizing to Martha Stewart is definitely politically motivated, however.
Darn legal things. Trying to wrap my head around this, the beers may not have been conducive to this quest.
Flynn wasn’t charged with anything initially, ergo we skip the auld Miranda warnings and all that stuff.
With the caveat that this thread is about all the amount of gazing into the outside world of politics. I could read more but a lot of it is trash or misleading, or if true exceptionally aggravating as reality is, well aggravating. So excuse my ignorance is that vaguely what’s being alleged/discussed here?
He lied to the FBI about something that *may* be a crime within the confines of a 1799 bill called the Logan Act. (Specifically whether he had conversations discussing foreign affairs with an ambassador before taking office. I believe this was when he said that sanctions may be eased on Russia to the Russian ambassador after Obama left office).
The logan act has NEVER led to a conviction, and has only ever led to an indictment twice, in 220+ years.
Is Flynn guilty of it? Possibly, but so are *tons* of past officials, across the centuries, if it is being read broadly enough to apply.
It's a short law so you can decide for yourself:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
RE:
But under the auspices of something approaching mere questioning on a wider investigation in which he wasn’t a suspect he still fell afoul of the crime of lying to a federal officer, which they may have tried to create conditions for so as to have leverage against Flynn to give them dirt as per their investigation.
The FBI and US police in general are notorious for using tactics like this when questioning suspects, which is part of why we've had so many false convictions be made throughout the years. So it's entirely believable that they did that (it's honestly even expected - if questioned by US police, NEVER assume they are on your side. They aren't).
Did Flynn really lie about anything, though? He said "I don't remember," which is a legal hedge against a charge of lying, and the interviewing FBI agents opined that he showed no signs of lying. So not only was there no legitimate suspicion behind the FBI's decision to interview him, he probably didn't even lie to them when they did interview him. And why was the FBI even in the possession of a transcript of his call with Kislyak in the first place?
The evidence is becoming overwhelming that the collusion theory was concocted by intelligence and law enforcement.
Flynn was also alleged to have discussed kidnapping an american resident. That's a much more serious charge (though without the same political implications) and I would not be at all surprised if the lying to the fbi plea included dropping the investigation into that.
The legal arguments I've read are that the reason it was ok to charge him with lying is that Flynn was effectively obstructing justice. I don't really agree with that, but it's the legal stance as to why that law is usable.
The collusion theory, as far as I have been able to understand it, was almost proven. The intention to do so was there, and steps to do it were taken.
Here are the flaws: 1. The reason it didn't actually happen was that the Trump campaign was too incompetent to actually follow through correctly (specifically Don Jr's tower meeting). Don Jr could have (and probably should have) been charged, with the only reason the Mueller report said they didn't being his complete ignorance as to how the law worked.
2. Trump wasn't directly implicated as giving the order for any of his staff to try to coordinate (outside of his one public email request, there's no evidence that he asked for aid from Russia with the campaign).
3.There's no evidence Trump directly offered anything of value to Putin. This is the "useful idiot" defense: Putin wanted Trump to win because he'd be a bad president/easy to manipulate, rather than an explicit quid pro quo.
So, intent to collude/attempting to collude so was proven, but actually succeeding at collusion was not. Flynn's discussion was taken to be a quid pro quo that would have satisfied flaw 3, but there's still no proof that Trump asked him to do it (and even after flipping, he didn't say Trump told him to have the conversation).
If flaws 2/3 were never solved, then removing Trump was never justified based on the Russian angle (much of the Mueller report focuses on Trump's obstruction of justice, which he undeniably did. However, Nixon's obstruction wasn't sufficient to remove him : it required evidence he gave the watergate orders directly).
I don't think it was an intentional conspiracy on the part of the FBI to look at the facts and conclude that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia - the actual conclusion was a lot more bizarre and a stranger than fiction story (that they tried and failed due to incompetence). Their problem was that the FBI cut lots of corners, due to how they were so sure of their investigation's conclusion and due to how damning the underlying crime would be(reminds me of the last few seasons of The Wire). This is something that law enforcement does all the time if they have no oversight, which to me reinforces Danglar's point that an organization like the FBI needs some kind of civilian oversight.
The Ukraine scandal was much more cut and dry, and far more damning of Trump. It wasn't just his campaign, it was him directly asking. If so much focus hadn't already been given to the Russian collusion (which was much more complicated and relied on less clear fact patterns), I think it would have been a lot worse for him.
As far as I'm aware, Don Jr's Trump Tower meeting was not on the FBI's radar. It came out as a media story, but it was not part of the investigation. So it can't be used as a retroactive justification for the investigation. There's also strong evidence that the meeting was orchestrated by Fusion GPS, since Fusion was double-dipping with clients on both sides of this issue, having both a Russian client (the Russian lawyer who arranged the Trump Tower meeting) and a Hillary Clinton anti-Trump client seeking to build a collusion case. E.g., on the day of or day before the Trump Tower meeting, Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS founder) had breakfast with the Russian lawyer who was to meet with Don Jr (this is admitted and proven). In other words, the Trump Tower meeting was another sting - further evidence of the artificiality of the whole collusion theory.
I find it more likely that the reason Flynn agreed to plead guilty was that the Mueller team was threatening Flynn's son with FARA charges. And the FARA stuff is on par with the Logan Act - a statute that wasn't being enforced. Flynn's lawyers had previously advised him that, since FARA wasn't being enforced, Flynn only needed to "register" as a lobbyist under another law rather than FARA. So this again is an artificial aspect of the whole investigation.
There was never genuine evidence of collusion. There were only stings and the Russian disinfo contained in the Steele dossier. It was concocted and fake.
On August 15 2020 23:53 Trainrunnef wrote: Anyone else getting the vibe that Helter skelter is way too close for comfort? This craziness with the little boy in NC feels like a prelude for things to come.
No? And the 5 year old white kids murder was barely reported in the media, if it had had the coverage that Floyd had maybe we'd see something, maybe you might have a point but you're clutching at straws.
On August 15 2020 23:53 Trainrunnef wrote: Anyone else getting the vibe that Helter skelter is way too close for comfort? This craziness with the little boy in NC feels like a prelude for things to come.
No? And the 5 year old white kids murder was barely reported in the media, if it had had the coverage that Floyd had maybe we'd see something, maybe you might have a point but you're clutching at straws.
Yeah mainstream media didn't pick it up in the same way, for lots of different reasons, but social media (or at least my social media) is getting pretty saturated with memes comparing the two situations and looking to show anger at that fact (regardless of how dumb that is). One of the more concerning things in that particular killing was the reported motivation (cause the boy was white) and how that carries potential to snowball into bigger reactions from the circles that are sharing the story. Hopefully I'm just engaging in some pearl clutching for no reason.
On August 15 2020 23:53 Trainrunnef wrote: Anyone else getting the vibe that Helter skelter is way too close for comfort? This craziness with the little boy in NC feels like a prelude for things to come.
No? And the 5 year old white kids murder was barely reported in the media, if it had had the coverage that Floyd had maybe we'd see something, maybe you might have a point but you're clutching at straws.
What do you want to see with this story and the reaction exactly?
The perp got collared and charged with first degree murder within like a day right? It’s the classic ‘that’s awful’ story that you read and feel bad about and then move on to the myriad of other shit stuff going down.
A human tragedy indeed, not particularly one that bears much repetition in the news cycle. How often do regular murders without a celebrity involved, some mystery of culprit, or it being some kind of mass spree shooting get plastered all over the news?
Cannon Hinnant’a murder is a casebook example of a white kid getting the justice he deserves. Kid gets murdered, Darrius Sessoms gets arrested for 1st degree murder and is given no bond. No one involved, even the police or relatives of the child, believes there was a racial component to the murder. The only sign was that Sessoms seemed to have things on his mind the day before, they were apparently cordial neighbours. These stories appear in the news and disappear because something bad happened, the bad person will go to jail and justice (as much as it can in these circumstances) will be served.
If black people could get justice for white people using excessive force and showing no regard for the well-being of the people they arrest or harass, then it wouldn’t need to appear in the media. People would think twice before shooting black people because “they looked like gangstas” or think they could get away with claims that they felt threatened by an unarmed black man in collared shirt and tie.
The protests are about accountability but apparently hack networks are asking “why aren’t people talking about this white kid getting murdered by black people like Floyd?! double standards, BLM is a black supremacist movement!” as if they’re listening to the BLM movement through a English->Japanese->French->English translator.
On August 16 2020 13:02 StalkerTL wrote: Cannon Hinnant’a murder is a casebook example of a white kid getting the justice he deserves. Kid gets murdered, Darrius Sessoms gets arrested for 1st degree murder and is given no bond. No one involved, even the police or relatives of the child, believes there was a racial component to the murder. The only sign was that Sessoms seemed to have things on his mind the day before, they were apparently cordial neighbours. These stories appear in the news and disappear because something bad happened, the bad person will go to jail and justice (as much as it can in these circumstances) will be served.
If black people could get justice for white people using excessive force and showing no regard for the well-being of the people they arrest or harass, then it wouldn’t need to appear in the media. People would think twice before shooting black people because “they looked like gangstas” or think they could get away with claims that they felt threatened by an unarmed black man in collared shirt and tie.
The protests are about accountability but apparently hack networks are asking “why aren’t people talking about this white kid getting murdered by black people like Floyd?! double standards, BLM is a black supremacist movement!” as if they’re listening to the BLM movement through a English->Japanese->French->English translator.
I think you may want to reword first sentence. Not sure about others but my first reaction was "what the ...?" It does read somewhat creepy on the first look.
On August 16 2020 13:02 StalkerTL wrote: Cannon Hinnant’a murder is a casebook example of a white kid getting the justice he deserves. Kid gets murdered, Darrius Sessoms gets arrested for 1st degree murder and is given no bond. No one involved, even the police or relatives of the child, believes there was a racial component to the murder. The only sign was that Sessoms seemed to have things on his mind the day before, they were apparently cordial neighbours. These stories appear in the news and disappear because something bad happened, the bad person will go to jail and justice (as much as it can in these circumstances) will be served.
If black people could get justice for white people using excessive force and showing no regard for the well-being of the people they arrest or harass, then it wouldn’t need to appear in the media. People would think twice before shooting black people because “they looked like gangstas” or think they could get away with claims that they felt threatened by an unarmed black man in collared shirt and tie.
The protests are about accountability but apparently hack networks are asking “why aren’t people talking about this white kid getting murdered by black people like Floyd?! double standards, BLM is a black supremacist movement!” as if they’re listening to the BLM movement through a English->Japanese->French->English translator.
I think you may want to reword first sentence. Not sure about others but my first reaction was "what the ...?" It does read somewhat creepy on the first look.
Yeah I noticed that. I was like 'oh I don't like where this is going' and then 'oh so that's what he meant'.
On August 16 2020 08:20 Nevuk wrote: Trump said he may consider pardoning Edward Snowden today. Honestly, one of the only pardons he's commented on (or done) that I would 100% agree with.
I can't see it actually happening though, considering how against it those on both the right and center-establishment are.
Amash and some other libertarians have been pushing for it.
(it's via fox news, gonna try to find a twitter embed real quick, but the mediaite link is there with the video).
Someone should tell him that it will really stick it to Obama and “the deep state” if he pardons Snowden. His base would love it if he told them to love it.
This is a long-form read on how Obama only fairly recently warmed up to the notion of Biden campaigning to be president, and how the two had some significant fractures over political styles. It goes that Obama operated a rather cold, data-driven, policy wonk politics that naturally lent itself to Hillary as his successor, while Biden was always a very empathetic, person-first, meet-halfway type from an older generation.
Lot of Obama's staffers derided Biden because of his gaffes, tendency to ramble on, and "fuck things up" along with being perceived as unintelligent (this is kinda why I don't believe he's going senile now, because he's always been like this). During the 2020 primaries, there was skepticism over Biden's message from Obama staffers and the media, but he prevailed over expectations because it ended up resonating the best, along with Biden's strengths in cultivating relationships in Congress like with Bernie, or with mayors and governors.
In the less-remembered part of that encounter, however, Biden also decried the snobby intelligentsia that had taken over the Democratic Party. “It seems to me you’ve all become heartless technocrats,” he said. “We have never as a party moved this nation by 14-point position papers and nine-point programs.”
That sensibility is part of what separates him from Obama. “It really is the difference between street smarts and, you know, Harvard smart,” Panetta said.
That’s why even some Republicans believe Biden may be better poised to fulfill Obama’s promises of restoring unity and civility in Washington than the “change we can believe in” 44th president was. If Biden wins, many Democrats and Republicans believe that at least relations between the White House and Congress will be better than in any other recent administration, including Obama’s.
It's an interesting question to pose if Obama and Hillary and the Democratic Party as a whole not realizing and adopting Biden's strengths paved the way for Trump because they veered towards an arrogant, technocratic tone, which is the kind of tone that Trump railed against rather successfully. While most of this thread are ambivalent towards or dislike Biden, he's also got his own kind of political shrewdness and wisdom that I think posters here tend to underestimate, even if he sounds like your grandpa at Thanksgiving.
On August 17 2020 13:06 PhoenixVoid wrote: This is a long-form read on how Obama only fairly recently warmed up to the notion of Biden campaigning to be president, and how the two had some significant fractures over political styles. It goes that Obama operated a rather cold, data-driven, policy wonk politics that naturally lent itself to Hillary as his successor, while Biden was always a very empathetic, person-first, meet-halfway type from an older generation.
Lot of Obama's staffers derided Biden because of his gaffes, tendency to ramble on, and "fuck things up" along with being perceived as unintelligent (this is kinda why I don't believe he's going senile now, because he's always been like this). During the 2020 primaries, there was skepticism over Biden's message from Obama staffers and the media, but he prevailed over expectations because it ended up resonating the best, along with Biden's strengths in cultivating relationships in Congress like with Bernie, or with mayors and governors.
In the less-remembered part of that encounter, however, Biden also decried the snobby intelligentsia that had taken over the Democratic Party. “It seems to me you’ve all become heartless technocrats,” he said. “We have never as a party moved this nation by 14-point position papers and nine-point programs.”
That sensibility is part of what separates him from Obama. “It really is the difference between street smarts and, you know, Harvard smart,” Panetta said.
That’s why even some Republicans believe Biden may be better poised to fulfill Obama’s promises of restoring unity and civility in Washington than the “change we can believe in” 44th president was. If Biden wins, many Democrats and Republicans believe that at least relations between the White House and Congress will be better than in any other recent administration, including Obama’s.
It's an interesting question to pose if Obama and Hillary and the Democratic Party as a whole not realizing and adopting Biden's strengths paved the way for Trump because they veered towards an arrogant, technocratic tone, which is the kind of tone that Trump railed against rather successfully. While most of this thread are ambivalent towards or dislike Biden, he's also got his own kind of political shrewdness and wisdom that I think posters here tend to underestimate, even if he sounds like your grandpa at Thanksgiving.
Just a reminder that Trump actually lost the popular vote and won a few key states narrowly. My impression is that most of the people who are put off by that kind of tone tend to be Republicans anyway and would've voted for Trump regardless of who's his opponent.
EPT
