|
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 |
Northern Ireland26074 Posts
On August 11 2022 20:50 YautjaHunting wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2022 20:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 10 2022 20:10 snugger wrote:On August 10 2022 19:24 Sadist wrote:
Nice to see an obvious smurf account mucking up the thread.
I dont think we should worry about any republican response to the raid. Their responses are all in bad faith anyway.
As long as the DOJ and FBI feel good about what they are doing and checked the right boxes itll all work out in the end. We make too much of a fuss about what traitors to democracy think.
That made me laugh because holy shit, double standards haha What double standards? On August 10 2022 19:44 Taelshin wrote:
@sadist well your right about one thing, you won't likely see or hear them here because they've mostly been banned high five big cat. Not because they're Republican; because they hadn't been able to have a reasonable conversation. In the years of lurking around and about it’s always been pretty obvious to see which way this community leans. Seeing Democrat voters literally broad brushing Republicans and even just right out behaving like they can afford to say anything they want on here compared to those who were pretty vocal about voting Rep who usually do end up getting banned. So yeah, just from observing, several people on here should’ve been banned here long ago but haven’t because they’re in line with the majority of the community here in terms of political views. Someone who even attempts to show that neither side has clean hands and bad apples and whatnot usually gets the stick. Honestly one of the reasons I refrain from taking part in any discussion on this thread, not worth getting banned just because your views don’t align. Says a lot about the moderating side on this website. Probably what that snugger dude who funnily enough got banned meant by double standards, can’t blame him. Just my 2 cents, won’t go into a discussion as we all know how that’ll turn out so I’ll just stick to the gaming related stuff. 🙂
They got banned for being complete pains in the arse, repeatedly and in myriad ways. Recent ban would be harsh, and wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t a previously banned user.
It’s little to do with political leaning, everything to do with that.
If the shoe was on the other foot, I’d wager nobody here would oppose Biden being raided by the FBI.
Not an innate right/left thing, but within this thread posters on the vague left can look at their ‘own’ critically.
Talked to plenty of conservatives who can do this, unfortunately they don’t tend to end up in this thread. Which is a pity as Id prefer a broader church in here.
|
On August 11 2022 20:50 YautjaHunting wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2022 20:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 10 2022 20:10 snugger wrote:On August 10 2022 19:24 Sadist wrote:
Nice to see an obvious smurf account mucking up the thread.
I dont think we should worry about any republican response to the raid. Their responses are all in bad faith anyway.
As long as the DOJ and FBI feel good about what they are doing and checked the right boxes itll all work out in the end. We make too much of a fuss about what traitors to democracy think.
That made me laugh because holy shit, double standards haha What double standards? On August 10 2022 19:44 Taelshin wrote:
@sadist well your right about one thing, you won't likely see or hear them here because they've mostly been banned high five big cat. Not because they're Republican; because they hadn't been able to have a reasonable conversation. In the years of lurking around and about it’s always been pretty obvious to see which way this community leans. Seeing Democrat voters literally broad brushing Republicans and even just right out behaving like they can afford to say anything they want on here compared to those who were pretty vocal about voting Rep who usually do end up getting banned. So yeah, just from observing, several people on here should’ve been banned here long ago but haven’t because they’re in line with the majority of the community here in terms of political views. Someone who even attempts to show that neither side has clean hands and bad apples and whatnot usually gets the stick. Honestly one of the reasons I refrain from taking part in any discussion on this thread, not worth getting banned just because your views don’t align. Says a lot about the moderating side on this website. Probably what that snugger dude who funnily enough got banned meant by double standards, can’t blame him. Just my 2 cents, won’t go into a discussion as we all know how that’ll turn out so I’ll just stick to the gaming related stuff. 🙂
Thank you for taking the time to write a response, even if you don't feel comfortable further discussing it. We'll unfortunately never know what snugger meant... not because he got banned, but because all he wanted to do was post snarky one-liners. He was probably a previously-banned user, less interested in trying to turn around his image, and more interested in acting like a fool for as long as the moderators would let him.
I think there's more diversity of opinions within this chat than you may realize. I'm from the United States, so when I use an American lens, I mostly see anywhere from moderate to far-left perspectives from my country's political spectrum. I rarely see well-supported American Republican opinions, and that's probably because they tend to not be factually or morally defensible. That's not the fault of TL. Other countries have more serious conversations along a political spectrum that's indeed more to the left (or, at least, includes more space to the left), but I think that's because those other countries are more self-aware and don't assume that everyone who votes Democratic is necessarily a socialist or Communist. The TL moderators have at least some standards for what's acceptable to post, which is why trolls, bad-faith interlocutors, and people making absurd assertions are less likely to be allowed on this forum than, say, Twitter or Fox News. I think it's less about purposeful, discriminatory exclusion, and more about pushing for reasonable discussion from those willing to engage in it. But, to be fair, I'm certainly more to the left than the conservatives who have been banned (so there may be some bias from my perspective), and I'm probably not the most inflammatory left-leaning poster in this thread lol.
Edit: Just saw Drone's post, so I'll stop discussing it here, as well.
|
This is another self-own for Trump, given that this is exactly what he ended up doing when he left office.
Trump Made It A Felony To Mishandle Classified Documents In 2018
Oddly enough, one of the multiple laws covering the mishandling of government information is one that Trump himself amended during his tenure in the Oval Office, as pointed out by Tennessee state Sen. Jeff Yarbro (D) on Twitter.
Tucked into a bill Trump signed into law in January 2018 was a provision increasing the punishment for knowingly removing classified materials with the intent to retain them at an “unauthorized location.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-made-it-a-felony-to-mishandle-classified-documents-in-2018_n_62f3c2e9e4b0133dd5b4f229
|
fits the theme. laws are for other people.
|
|
|
On August 12 2022 00:29 JimmiC wrote:
All those people upset about Hillary's emails must be absolutely furious about this!
Nah, it's all about the "What about Hunter Biden's laptop!?" for them.
|
Garland has confirmed he did personally approve the search of mar-a-lago. which makes sense, you’d hope so. it would be a little too stupid to let anyone else make a decision to publicly investigate the president on behalf of the federal government.
bidens plausible deniability i had read about previously rings a little hollow now, but i didn’t believe it in the first place. frankly he should’ve also personally green-lit it, necessary or not.
|
|
|
People often plead the 5th 400 times when they're innocent.
|
On August 12 2022 05:24 brian wrote:
Garland has confirmed he did personally approve the search of mar-a-lago. which makes sense, you’d hope so. it would be a little too stupid to let anyone else make a decision to publicly investigate the president on behalf of the federal government.
bidens plausible deniability i had read about previously rings a little hollow now, but i didn’t believe it in the first place. frankly he should’ve also personally green-lit it, necessary or not. No it doesn't.
Trump is a political figure. It makes perfect sense for Biden to not be involved in the investigation, and not be informed of the raid, to avoid any possibility of political interference or motivation tainting said investigation.
This is the FBI doing there job, and not engaging in a political witch-hunt at the orders of the President.
|
On August 12 2022 06:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2022 05:24 brian wrote:
Garland has confirmed he did personally approve the search of mar-a-lago. which makes sense, you’d hope so. it would be a little too stupid to let anyone else make a decision to publicly investigate the president on behalf of the federal government.
bidens plausible deniability i had read about previously rings a little hollow now, but i didn’t believe it in the first place. frankly he should’ve also personally green-lit it, necessary or not. No it doesn't. Trump is a political figure. It makes perfect sense for Biden to not be involved in the investigation, and not be informed of the raid, to avoid any possibility of political interference or motivation tainting said investigation. This is the FBI doing there job, and not engaging in a political witch-hunt at the orders of the President.
Yeah Biden personally signing off on a raid of one of his political rivals is a terrible look and would give credibility to the "political witch hunt" nonsense the right has been spewing.
|
Would the unsealing inform us what kind of files they looked for? I want to know if it's some random government case files marked classfied or if it's actually like nuclear_submarine_design.pdf
|
On August 12 2022 06:41 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Would the unsealing inform us what kind of files they looked for? I want to know if it's some random government case files marked classfied or if it's actually like nuclear_submarine_design.pdf
Very likely it would, but it won’t reveal the classified information itself. How much detail it provides remains for be seen. It would also detail the evidence that served as the basis for the warrant, which is almost certainly from an informant’s sworn affidavit.
|
|
|
On August 12 2022 06:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2022 05:24 brian wrote:
Garland has confirmed he did personally approve the search of mar-a-lago. which makes sense, you’d hope so. it would be a little too stupid to let anyone else make a decision to publicly investigate the president on behalf of the federal government.
bidens plausible deniability i had read about previously rings a little hollow now, but i didn’t believe it in the first place. frankly he should’ve also personally green-lit it, necessary or not. No it doesn't. Trump is a political figure. It makes perfect sense for Biden to not be involved in the investigation, and not be informed of the raid, to avoid any possibility of political interference or motivation tainting said investigation. This is the FBI doing there job, and not engaging in a political witch-hunt at the orders of the President.
i think signing off on it and ‘at his orders’ are extremely different? and i guess i just strongly disagree. if we’re going to investigate a president, it should require the approval of the current president to specifically ensure it isn’t a witch hunt. in approving himself, he’d implicitly be recognizing or acknowledging the door he’s opening on his own conduct from the next in line. it’s not something to be taken lightly.
|
On August 12 2022 07:03 JimmiC wrote:
I read that Trump has the right to just show it himself and that he does not says there is a bunch of things in there he does not want others to read. As long he just rants without proof his followers will fall lock step. I predict he does sign off on the unsealing and the QAnon people says its because of 4d chess.
Yup, Trump and his lawyers have a copy of the warrant and can show it to the public whenever they wish. The right calling for answers from the FBI and DOJ are ignoring that they can get those answers from the man whose boots they love to lick so much. It's manufactured outrage to paint Trump as a victim and to keep their viewers from considering he might be the criminal we've all said he is.
|
On August 12 2022 07:11 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2022 06:06 Gorsameth wrote:On August 12 2022 05:24 brian wrote:
Garland has confirmed he did personally approve the search of mar-a-lago. which makes sense, you’d hope so. it would be a little too stupid to let anyone else make a decision to publicly investigate the president on behalf of the federal government.
bidens plausible deniability i had read about previously rings a little hollow now, but i didn’t believe it in the first place. frankly he should’ve also personally green-lit it, necessary or not. No it doesn't. Trump is a political figure. It makes perfect sense for Biden to not be involved in the investigation, and not be informed of the raid, to avoid any possibility of political interference or motivation tainting said investigation. This is the FBI doing there job, and not engaging in a political witch-hunt at the orders of the President. i think signing off on it and ‘at his orders’ are extremely different? and i guess i just strongly disagree. if we’re going to investigate a president, it should require the approval of the current president to specifically ensure it isn’t a witch hunt. in approving himself, he’d implicitly be recognizing or acknowledging the door he’s opening on his own conduct from the next in line. it’s not something to be taken lightly.
But Trump is Biden's likely opponent in 2024. Biden signing off on it makes it look like a witch hunt. I don't want the people in charge investigating their political opponents. That takes us one step closer to fascism. Leave the investigating to the proper organizations and leave people with a clear conflict of interest out of it.
|
On August 12 2022 05:51 NewSunshine wrote:
People often plead the 5th 400 times when they're innocent.
They do but this was also the same guy who insisted that "only the guilty plead the 5th".
|
On August 12 2022 07:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2022 05:51 NewSunshine wrote:
People often plead the 5th 400 times when they're innocent. They do but this was also the same guy who insisted that "only the guilty plead the 5th".
Absolutely, he set the landmine himself and then stepped on it. I do want to make it clear though that I'm not also saying that people only plead the 5th if they're guilty. Are odds good that they're guilty if they're invoking the 5th? Yeah, probably. But also there's enough horseshit in our justice system at large that there's legitimate reasons why people who have done nothing wrong need to plead the 5th. So I'm not echoing Trump here.
Something I am saying, is that you have to do an awful lot of very interesting things to have to plead the 5th 440 times. The American peasantry is way too boring for that.
|
On August 12 2022 07:48 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2022 07:39 Sermokala wrote:On August 12 2022 05:51 NewSunshine wrote:
People often plead the 5th 400 times when they're innocent. They do but this was also the same guy who insisted that "only the guilty plead the 5th". Absolutely, he set the landmine himself and then stepped on it. I do want to make it clear though that I'm not also saying that people only plead the 5th if they're guilty. Are odds good that they're guilty if they're invoking the 5th? Yeah, probably. But also there's enough horseshit in our justice system at large that there's legitimate reasons why people who have done nothing wrong need to plead the 5th. So I'm not echoing Trump here. Something I am saying, is that you have to do an awful lot of very interesting things to have to plead the 5th 440 times. The American peasantry is way too boring for that.
Sounds like he plead the fifth on every question. Reminds me of when Mike Flynn plead the fifth when the Jan 6 Committee asked him if he believed in a peaceful transition of power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
