EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2770
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24211 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
Which is so vague that he may as well be referring to a game of bridge, but it's the tiniest bread crumb for everyone upset by her practically washing ACB's feet with her tongue. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 21 2020 06:34 Nevuk wrote: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm pointing out that it wound up being bullshit, as in, the announcement was "this could be on a scale of 0 to 100" and it wound up being precisely 0. The NY field office also sat on it for a bit so it would come out closer to the election (see Giuliani commenting it was coming earlier) His actual letter tempered expectations a bit more, but it was leaked in a highly biased manner by Chaffetz: Comey was fucking idiot to think that this wasn't going to happen, and should have informed the public at the same time. I guess I just have problems with the semantics. The actual Comey announcement was not bullshit, before or after. What came of it was underwhelming, or not what you and others inspected ... yet Comey never alleged anything beyond an investigation. So it a true statement ever bullshit if it’s unambiguously true and didn’t make any implicit promise of the kind that would make it bullshit? The Trump campaign usage of it was bullshit, but Comey and Congressional committees were absolutely not. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9241 Posts
On October 21 2020 06:24 Danglars wrote: You must’ve missed the president and VP debates, where the attacks included Biden incapable of restraining his left-wing supporters, unable to commit to norms like not packing the court, and Biden holding big rallies during the time he criticize Trump’s coronavirus response. Trump stands a very good chance of losing because of his lack of restraint on twitter and the campaign trail. Just don’t forget the other big “concerted” attacks this month and last month, weeks before the election (forget or lie about it that is). Why are you putting "concerted" in quotes when that was the very thing in my post that was specifying that I'm not talking about what you're talking about? None of the things you mentioned had 1% of the synchronization or persistence of those I did. I was talking about the stories in this cycle that are analogous to the emails / health of 2016. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On October 21 2020 06:43 Danglars wrote: I guess I just have problems with the semantics. The actual Comey announcement was not bullshit, before or after. What came of it was underwhelming, or not what you and others inspected ... yet Comey never alleged anything beyond an investigation. So it a true statement ever bullshit if it’s unambiguously true and didn’t make any implicit promise of the kind that would make it bullshit? The Trump campaign usage of it was bullshit, but Comey and Congressional committees were absolutely not. Well, I said it "wound up being bullshit", as in, that was what it turned into. Not his initial acts. So that's my narrow semantic take here. I do think Comey mishandled it so poorly that I'm not sure that the fact that the basis of what he said was objectively true actually helps. The way he handled made it being turned into bullshit an inevitability. Had he held a press conference and given the known facts to the public, the effect it had would have been, at most, 1/4-1/3 of what it did. Instead, he only provided it to congressional committees where it being leaked in partisan manner was inevitable. Most news papers rushed to press so fast that they had to highly modify the story the next day, and by that time it was too late. Comey made a promise that he knew could have required him to violate the standing policy of his office with regards to influencing elections. That's idiotic from an institutional point of view : say Hillary won, with a democratic trifecta (of which there was a mild chance). Do you know what her first act probably would have been? To tear down the FBI brick by brick, in direct response to Comey's actions. Even if she had only gotten the senate and wh, a massive investigation would have been launched into what led up to that, and it would have reflected extremely poorly on both Comey and the FBI based on what we know now - a NY field office was running around coordinating with a member of the Trump campaign (Giuliani). Strzok's affair would have still come out, and all the anti-Clinton messages would have instead been the focus. The only reason the FBI has been permitted to live after how poorly it behaved under Hoover was the policy about not influencing elections. So I guess my issue is with his initial promise : 100%, should not have been made. Or at the very least, not been kept in the manner he did. He could have informed congress the day after the election, and still technically kept his promise. If his staff leaked it, that's him being unable to control his staff, and he can still comment that the FBI has a policy of not commenting on anything close to the election : they already say this when asked about investigations that they aren't even doing. Which congressional committees are we referring to btw? I was under the impression all they did was leak it and not actually do any useful investigation (if by committee we're referring to Chaffetz). | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On October 21 2020 06:28 Erasme wrote: Remind me how many federal judges Trump appointed ? And why those seats were left vacant by Obama ? I'll let Mitch McConnell and his creepy ass laugh explain: | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 21 2020 06:58 Dan HH wrote: Why are you putting "concerted" in quotes when that was the very thing in my post that was specifying that I'm not talking about what you're talking about? None of the things you mentioned had 1% of the synchronization or persistence of those I did. I was talking about the stories in this cycle that are analogous to the emails / health of 2016. The easiest one to prove is Trump hammering Biden on catering to or encouraging the radical left. He’s been doing the Antifa comparisons for months now. He’s attached Biden to the unrest in Democrat-controlled urban areas in multiple speeches, and through surrogates, and in white house press briefings. He did it also in the debate. He’s been doing it in the rallies. You’re way off here in “big concerted attacks.” | ||
|
brian
United States9642 Posts
On October 21 2020 07:18 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I'll let Mitch McConnell and his creepy ass laugh explain: https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1315293590713663489 i have to imagine we would find round agreement that McConnell is a proud obstructionist, from even the most conservative of our friends. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On October 21 2020 08:06 brian wrote: i have to imagine we would find round agreement that McConnell is a proud obstructionist, from even the most conservative of our friends. I think you might be in for a disappointment there. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
FBI in possession of laptop containing Hunter Biden's emails, and agree with Director of National Intelligence Ratcliffe's assessment that emails were not part of Russian disinformation campaign. www.foxnews.com | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22492 Posts
On October 21 2020 08:22 Doodsmack wrote: it would probably help if the administration had even an ounce of good faith or integrity left.Intriguing news from Fox here. No surprise really. The rest of the MSM are circling the wagons only because they don't like the underlying story. www.foxnews.com But after having lied over and over and over again there is no reason for anyone to take them on their word. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On October 21 2020 08:28 Gorsameth wrote: it would probably help if the administration had even an ounce of good faith or integrity left. But after having lied over and over and over again there is no reason for anyone to take them on their word. You'd believe the FBI in a heartbeat if the story was remotely unfavorable to Trump. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22492 Posts
On October 21 2020 08:38 Doodsmack wrote: I would be much more inclined to yes.You'd believe the FBI in a heartbeat if the story was remotely unfavorable to Trump. Its very easy to explain. Trump continually lies and asks the people around him to lie, this is a fact. Therefor if Trump or those around him say something good for Trump it may be a lie. If its something bad for Trump its unlikely the lie comes from Trump, tho not impossible cause he ain't the brightest, therefor it is more believable. This is the price Trump pays for constantly lying, no one believes him when its good news, and people are inclined to believe it when its bad news. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 21 2020 07:02 Nevuk wrote: Well, I said it "wound up being bullshit", as in, that was what it turned into. Not his initial acts. So that's my narrow semantic take here. I do think Comey mishandled it so poorly that I'm not sure that the fact that the basis of what he said was objectively true actually helps. The way he handled made it being turned into bullshit an inevitability. Had he held a press conference and given the known facts to the public, the effect it had would have been, at most, 1/4-1/3 of what it did. Instead, he only provided it to congressional committees where it being leaked in partisan manner was inevitable. Most news papers rushed to press so fast that they had to highly modify the story the next day, and by that time it was too late. Comey made a promise that he knew could have required him to violate the standing policy of his office with regards to influencing elections. That's idiotic from an institutional point of view : say Hillary won, with a democratic trifecta (of which there was a mild chance). Do you know what her first act probably would have been? To tear down the FBI brick by brick, in direct response to Comey's actions. Even if she had only gotten the senate and wh, a massive investigation would have been launched into what led up to that, and it would have reflected extremely poorly on both Comey and the FBI based on what we know now - a NY field office was running around coordinating with a member of the Trump campaign (Giuliani). Strzok's affair would have still come out, and all the anti-Clinton messages would have instead been the focus. The only reason the FBI has been permitted to live after how poorly it behaved under Hoover was the policy about not influencing elections. So I guess my issue is with his initial promise : 100%, should not have been made. Or at the very least, not been kept in the manner he did. He could have informed congress the day after the election, and still technically kept his promise. If his staff leaked it, that's him being unable to control his staff, and he can still comment that the FBI has a policy of not commenting on anything close to the election : they already say this when asked about investigations that they aren't even doing. Which congressional committees are we referring to btw? I was under the impression all they did was leak it and not actually do any useful investigation (if by committee we're referring to Chaffetz). He certainly paid big for that promise. But who could imagine the sexter of underage teens had emails pursuant to the prior investigation? He never thought anything more on that front would be discovered. Yes, I'm talking about the committee letters to Comey before and after, which never alleged something that could be called "bullshit." On October 21 2020 08:22 Doodsmack wrote: Intriguing news from Fox here. No surprise really. The rest of the MSM are circling the wagons only because they don't like the underlying story. www.foxnews.com Intelligence community releases information damaging to Trump: "Sick burn! Omg this government is so corrupt! This is only the tip of the iceberg, they will definitely discover more. He's going to jail for a long time after his presidency. Intelligence community releases information helpful to Trump: "It's just so sad he corrupts everything he touches. What a corrupt person. You simply cannot trust anything from this administration. He has his handpicked lieutenants controlling everything." | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On October 21 2020 09:13 Doodsmack wrote: I can almost guarantee you the liberal media will not be covering the story. Just look at how quick they were to circle the wagons. CNN and NYT basically snorted Clinton email stories every single day. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On October 21 2020 09:26 Mohdoo wrote: CNN and NYT basically snorted Clinton email stories every single day. Which they now deeply regret, and thats the reason they won't cover it. They shudder to think of a second trump win. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
