|
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 July 13 2018 21:13 m4ini wrote:That's why nothing made sense to me yesterday. Show nested quote +No one came to his defense after he was a part of that damning IG report, but now, because he plays counter-showman, he's a normal public servant.
This is simply bullshit, didn't realise that at 3am in the morning. Of course he was defended, the only ones taking that IG report and tried to "hang" Strozk because of it were the usual suspects.
And I seem to recall that at the time I called Danglars out about it and his response was full of mealy mouthed maybes and alleged's.
I've never been able to find a single concrete thing Strzok did wrong. He wasn't removed from the investigation because he fucked up, he was removed because of the appearance of having fucked up, and he's been punished for causing the FBI some grief.
I'm fine with both of those things; if you embarrass the people you work for, even accidentally, you get punished for it. Cool.
But the idea that he should be dragged in front of CONGRESS to 'answer for his... crimes???' is stupidity. And there's no defending it because it's 'just political theatre'. It's a complete waste of time is what it is. If that's the defense, why not do it weekly? Have a Democratic-supporting White House janitor in Congress next week, and they can create soundbites off that. I can hear it in my mind's ear: "How dare you, sir, wash the floors of Republican offices with such lack of vigour? Everyone in this room knows you'd have gotten these floors to a shine if this was a Democratic administration (chortle), and your partisan bias is offensive to me and my colleagues, and you should be ashamed of yourself."
And yes, I'm a way bigger defender of the guy now. Before he was a slightly careless employee in a job, no more deserving of my praise or condemnation than any. Now he's a US citizen getting picked on by his feckless government for nakedly political reasons.
Any right thinking person should be on his side for that reason alone. In fact, right-leaning people in particular should be on his side for that reason alone.
|
It is all part of the larger attempt to prove the FBI has been against Trump since the before election. It started when the FBI gave a report on Russian interference back in early 2017 where they said they had a creditable lead on a member of the Trump election team communicating with the Russia. The Republican controlled intelligence committee responded VERY poorly to that news and they have been trying to undercut the investigation ever since.
There are a lot of theories way they are so invested in doing it. But one of them that seems likely is that some of the House members may have been less than careful about who they accepted campaign funds from and know they could get caught up in the investigation.
|
On July 13 2018 21:37 Plansix wrote:
It is all part of the larger attempt to prove the FBI has been against Trump since the before election. It started when the FBI gave a report on Russian interference back in early 2017 where they said they had a creditable lead on a member of the Trump election team communicating with the Russia. The Republican controlled intelligence committee responded VERY poorly to that news and they have been trying to undercut the investigation ever since.
There are a lot of theories way they are so invested in doing it. But one of them that seems likely is that some of the House members may have been less than careful about who they accepted campaign funds from and know they could get caught up in the investigation.
Makes sense. Honestly, I hope they're just being party loyalists. Your country's in way worse shape if that's what's going on under all this nonsense.
|
On July 13 2018 21:37 Plansix wrote:
It is all part of the larger attempt to prove the FBI has been against Trump since the before election. It started when the FBI gave a report on Russian interference back in early 2017 where they said they had a creditable lead on a member of the Trump election team communicating with the Russia. The Republican controlled intelligence committee responded VERY poorly to that news and they have been trying to undercut the investigation ever since.
There are a lot of theories way they are so invested in doing it. But one of them that seems likely is that some of the House members may have been less than careful about who they accepted campaign funds from and know they could get caught up in the investigation.
Is campaign finance reform still ever a thing in the US?
It was always mentioned of the West Wing (obviously the source of all my US politics knowledge outside of what I can gleam from this thread).
|
On July 13 2018 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2018 21:37 Plansix wrote:
It is all part of the larger attempt to prove the FBI has been against Trump since the before election. It started when the FBI gave a report on Russian interference back in early 2017 where they said they had a creditable lead on a member of the Trump election team communicating with the Russia. The Republican controlled intelligence committee responded VERY poorly to that news and they have been trying to undercut the investigation ever since.
There are a lot of theories way they are so invested in doing it. But one of them that seems likely is that some of the House members may have been less than careful about who they accepted campaign funds from and know they could get caught up in the investigation.
Is campaign finance reform still ever a thing in the US? It was always mentioned of the West Wing (obviously the source of all my US politics knowledge outside of what I can gleam from this thread).
No the nation went the other direction and decided that money was speech so things got a lot worse on that issue.
|
On July 13 2018 22:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2018 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 13 2018 21:37 Plansix wrote:
It is all part of the larger attempt to prove the FBI has been against Trump since the before election. It started when the FBI gave a report on Russian interference back in early 2017 where they said they had a creditable lead on a member of the Trump election team communicating with the Russia. The Republican controlled intelligence committee responded VERY poorly to that news and they have been trying to undercut the investigation ever since.
There are a lot of theories way they are so invested in doing it. But one of them that seems likely is that some of the House members may have been less than careful about who they accepted campaign funds from and know they could get caught up in the investigation.
Is campaign finance reform still ever a thing in the US? It was always mentioned of the West Wing (obviously the source of all my US politics knowledge outside of what I can gleam from this thread). No the nation went the other direction and decided that money was speech so things got a lot worse on that issue.
With this big investigation going on surely now is a good time to push on it. Trump could do it and make himself look good in the process.
I guess people gave up on it because too many politicians were getting too much out of it to stop.
|
On July 13 2018 22:17 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2018 22:16 Sermokala wrote:On July 13 2018 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 13 2018 21:37 Plansix wrote:
It is all part of the larger attempt to prove the FBI has been against Trump since the before election. It started when the FBI gave a report on Russian interference back in early 2017 where they said they had a creditable lead on a member of the Trump election team communicating with the Russia. The Republican controlled intelligence committee responded VERY poorly to that news and they have been trying to undercut the investigation ever since.
There are a lot of theories way they are so invested in doing it. But one of them that seems likely is that some of the House members may have been less than careful about who they accepted campaign funds from and know they could get caught up in the investigation.
Is campaign finance reform still ever a thing in the US? It was always mentioned of the West Wing (obviously the source of all my US politics knowledge outside of what I can gleam from this thread). No the nation went the other direction and decided that money was speech so things got a lot worse on that issue. With this big investigation going on surely now is a good time to push on it. Trump could do it and make himself look good in the process. I guess people gave up on it because too many politicians were getting too much out of it to stop.
It isn’t even that. The entire GOP is funded by dark money backers like the Mercers and the Koch brothers. The Democrats are also part of that game, because its an arms race and they didn’t feel they could keep up with GOP otherwise. Though the tide is shifting slowly for the democrats.
The bigger problem is that every time congress tries to limit the impact of money on campaigns, the court undercuts them and screws everything up. Even if they passed a law tomorrow, it would be instantly challenged and likely end up before the court to be watered down by the conservative justices. The only smart thing that came out of Hilary Clinton’s campaign was the hail mary idea of amending the Constitution to fix the problem (even if she was likely never going to go through it, still a good idea).
|
On July 13 2018 22:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2018 22:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 13 2018 22:16 Sermokala wrote:On July 13 2018 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 13 2018 21:37 Plansix wrote:
It is all part of the larger attempt to prove the FBI has been against Trump since the before election. It started when the FBI gave a report on Russian interference back in early 2017 where they said they had a creditable lead on a member of the Trump election team communicating with the Russia. The Republican controlled intelligence committee responded VERY poorly to that news and they have been trying to undercut the investigation ever since.
There are a lot of theories way they are so invested in doing it. But one of them that seems likely is that some of the House members may have been less than careful about who they accepted campaign funds from and know they could get caught up in the investigation.
Is campaign finance reform still ever a thing in the US? It was always mentioned of the West Wing (obviously the source of all my US politics knowledge outside of what I can gleam from this thread). No the nation went the other direction and decided that money was speech so things got a lot worse on that issue. With this big investigation going on surely now is a good time to push on it. Trump could do it and make himself look good in the process. I guess people gave up on it because too many politicians were getting too much out of it to stop. It isn’t even that. The entire GOP is funded by dark money backers like the Mercers and the Koch brothers. The Democrats are also part of that game, because its an arms race and they didn’t feel they could keep up with GOP otherwise. Though the tide is shifting slowly for the democrats. The bigger problem is that every time congress tries to limit the impact of money on campaigns, the court undercuts them and screws everything up. Even if they passed a law tomorrow, it would be instantly challenged and likely end up before the court to be watered down by the conservative justices. The only smart thing that came out of Hilary Clinton’s campaign was the hail mary idea of amending the Constitution to fix the problem (even if she was likely never going to go through it, still a good idea).
You make it sound like the Democrats had no choice but to play the money game.
If anything, both sides are equally guilty.
|
Listening to him ramble on in the conference in ENgland with Theresa may damages my brain. How the fuck did he get from anwering a question why he believes Boris Johnson would be a good PM to congratulating himself for his work as POTUS. Like what the fuck?
|
Trump refuses to take a question from CNN. He says it is “fake news”. He takes a question from Fox News instead.
Q: How can you improve relations with Russia when they have illegally occupied another country?
Trump says that happened when Obama was president. He says he does not think Putin would have done that if Trump had been president. He says, if you look at what he has done, no other president has done so much. Crimea was an Obama disaster.
The stable genius ladies and gentlemen.
Obama is to blame for crimea. Putin wouldn't have invaded crimea if he would've been president, because, well. I don't really know, but yeah. As to how to "fix it" or "improve relations"? Picture a tumbleweed.
|
On July 13 2018 21:01 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2018 10:41 Introvert wrote:On July 13 2018 10:25 m4ini wrote:
To be fair, "integrity" can be a hard concept to grasp if you don't actually have any.
We have people working in Law with political opinions, we got two options there. Either, they can do their job without their political bias interfering - which is something they argue isn't possible, apparently. The other option is to put them on trial for unethical behaviour - because i'm pretty sure it's illegal to do a better/worse job based on your clients political views.
It's pretty simple, really. It takes a lot of integrity to say that I'm speaking badly of strozk because of his political views. But this is always the way it is, just assume that's what I, or any conservative in this thread, is doing. No one came to his defense after he was a part of that damning IG report, but now, because he plays counter-showman, he's a normal public servant. Now that is disingenuous. Just like Comey, anyone who dumps on Trump receives the famous "strange new respect" from the left. edit: also impressive how we can call the whole thing a sham while at the same time cheering on those involved in the deception. It's like the excuse "everyone does it" is twisted even further. everyone came to his defense as part of that ‘damning’ IG report. your misrepresentation of the past is disingenuous. to those not blinded by partisan hackery the claims against Strozk have always been ridiculous. i mean why try to get away with a stupid lie like that as if we’re morons. again. if at first you don’t succeed, stop. it’s an embarrassment.
if people defended him here I don't recall it. What I do recall is that people saying that it couldn't be proved that he was biased in any particular action, which is a pretty high bar. As igne pointed out at the time, that's how these things are written.
From one of the first google results
Horowitz says he found no affirmative evidence that Strzok skewed his decision-making for political reasons. But he says he “did not have confidence” that Strzok’s decision in the campaign’s final month to prioritize the Trump campaign/Russia probe over new Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop “was free from bias.” He writes that Strzok and other FBI employees “brought discredit to themselves” and hurt the bureau’s reputation.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/14/17448960/inspector-general-report-justice-fbi-clinton-emails-comey
There's more obviously, but that's a quick find. He is not someone to be lauded.
I mean maybe people here were defending him and I'm not remembering.
|
On July 13 2018 22:28 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2018 22:26 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2018 22:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 13 2018 22:16 Sermokala wrote:On July 13 2018 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 13 2018 21:37 Plansix wrote:
It is all part of the larger attempt to prove the FBI has been against Trump since the before election. It started when the FBI gave a report on Russian interference back in early 2017 where they said they had a creditable lead on a member of the Trump election team communicating with the Russia. The Republican controlled intelligence committee responded VERY poorly to that news and they have been trying to undercut the investigation ever since.
There are a lot of theories way they are so invested in doing it. But one of them that seems likely is that some of the House members may have been less than careful about who they accepted campaign funds from and know they could get caught up in the investigation.
Is campaign finance reform still ever a thing in the US? It was always mentioned of the West Wing (obviously the source of all my US politics knowledge outside of what I can gleam from this thread). No the nation went the other direction and decided that money was speech so things got a lot worse on that issue. With this big investigation going on surely now is a good time to push on it. Trump could do it and make himself look good in the process. I guess people gave up on it because too many politicians were getting too much out of it to stop. It isn’t even that. The entire GOP is funded by dark money backers like the Mercers and the Koch brothers. The Democrats are also part of that game, because its an arms race and they didn’t feel they could keep up with GOP otherwise. Though the tide is shifting slowly for the democrats. The bigger problem is that every time congress tries to limit the impact of money on campaigns, the court undercuts them and screws everything up. Even if they passed a law tomorrow, it would be instantly challenged and likely end up before the court to be watered down by the conservative justices. The only smart thing that came out of Hilary Clinton’s campaign was the hail mary idea of amending the Constitution to fix the problem (even if she was likely never going to go through it, still a good idea). You make it sound like the Democrats had no choice but to play the money game. If anything, both sides are equally guilty.
The Democrats and Republicans both pushed for campaign finance reform in the 2000s, but a section of the GOP fought against it and funded the challenges to the current laws. Citizens United was caused by a right leaning film maker created a hit piece to undercut Clinton, funded by conservatives who wanted to attack her. That ruling was validation that they could dump unlimited money into political influencing.
So the Democrats are guilty of taking the money, for sure. But the more right leaning part of the Republican party has been the one trying to undo the laws and allow more money into politics.
|
On July 13 2018 22:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2018 21:01 brian wrote:On July 13 2018 10:41 Introvert wrote:On July 13 2018 10:25 m4ini wrote:
To be fair, "integrity" can be a hard concept to grasp if you don't actually have any.
We have people working in Law with political opinions, we got two options there. Either, they can do their job without their political bias interfering - which is something they argue isn't possible, apparently. The other option is to put them on trial for unethical behaviour - because i'm pretty sure it's illegal to do a better/worse job based on your clients political views.
It's pretty simple, really. It takes a lot of integrity to say that I'm speaking badly of strozk because of his political views. But this is always the way it is, just assume that's what I, or any conservative in this thread, is doing. No one came to his defense after he was a part of that damning IG report, but now, because he plays counter-showman, he's a normal public servant. Now that is disingenuous. Just like Comey, anyone who dumps on Trump receives the famous "strange new respect" from the left. edit: also impressive how we can call the whole thing a sham while at the same time cheering on those involved in the deception. It's like the excuse "everyone does it" is twisted even further. everyone came to his defense as part of that ‘damning’ IG report. your misrepresentation of the past is disingenuous. to those not blinded by partisan hackery the claims against Strozk have always been ridiculous. i mean why try to get away with a stupid lie like that as if we’re morons. again. if at first you don’t succeed, stop. it’s an embarrassment. if people defended him here I don't recall it. What I do recall is that people saying that it couldn't be proved that he was biased in any particular action, which is a pretty high bar. As igne pointed out at the time, that's how these things are written. From one of the first google results Show nested quote +Horowitz says he found no affirmative evidence that Strzok skewed his decision-making for political reasons. But he says he “did not have confidence” that Strzok’s decision in the campaign’s final month to prioritize the Trump campaign/Russia probe over new Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop “was free from bias.” He writes that Strzok and other FBI employees “brought discredit to themselves” and hurt the bureau’s reputation. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/14/17448960/inspector-general-report-justice-fbi-clinton-emails-comeyThere's more obviously, but that's a quick find. He is not someone to be lauded. I mean maybe people here were defending him and I'm not remembering.
i’d like to take your word on that but it’s not the first time history miraculously has changed, so i’m not inclined to give you any benefit of the doubt. there is no less than a dozen pages of ‘text messages between lovers does not a bias make.’
and surely there is room between lauding and acknowledging personal opinions exist. it’s not a high bar. it’s the bar. any halfwit with a finger can point and shout bias, but we aren’t congressmen; and further more that doesn’t make it true.
|
On July 13 2018 22:28 Broetchenholer wrote:
Listening to him ramble on in the conference in ENgland with Theresa may damages my brain. How the fuck did he get from anwering a question why he believes Boris Johnson would be a good PM to congratulating himself for his work as POTUS. Like what the fuck? Its easy when your a massive narcissist.
|
On July 13 2018 22:37 brian wrote:
i’d like to take your word on that but it’s not the first time history miraculously has changed. there is no less than a dozen pages of ‘text messages between lovers does not a bias make.’
and surely there is room between lauding and acknowledging personal opinions exist.
maybe we are using the same words differently. There was definitely a lot of "well, it didn't matter." I don't recall seeing what we saw here yesterday though.
I'm not sure what your edit means.
Yesterday I was told I should be celebrating him for standing up to the government (ie congress). That's a lot more than "acknowledging personal opinions."
edit: I mean the lines from the piece I quoted should be enough by themselves, right? No one should be defending this guy. But apparently no one agrees, which I find surprising.
|
today(or some eleven or twelve hours ago specifically) you said nobody had ever defended him before the praise he received yesterday and i called you out for the lie that that is.
°in the interest of not trying to nail you to a cross i’m just leaving it at this. your attempts to move the goal post explain are duly noted.°
and yes we certainly disagree on whether he is defensible or not. and apparently on how damning that excerpt is. because to me it is just another ill formed opinion. one when spoken aloud now leaves him just as ‘biased’ as his subject. after all, he’s stated an opinion, and works for public office. surely his findings cannot be trusted. ./s
perhaps he is next in line for the inquisition. you think?
|
On July 13 2018 22:56 brian wrote:
today you said nobody had ever defended him before the praise he received yesterday and i called you out for the lie that that is.
As I attempted to explain, all I recall is people saying that it didnt matter. if people thought he's actually a hero of some sort than I apologize for not remembering it.
edit: I mean post-report in particular. The IG was very hard on him and Comey.
lol @ goalposts. as if defense and excuse making are the same thing.
|
The IG reports are normally harsh for almost anyone they investigate. But if the IG does not recommend criminal chargers or termination, it shows the infraction wasn’t that serious.
|
On July 13 2018 22:59 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2018 22:56 brian wrote:
today you said nobody had ever defended him before the praise he received yesterday and i called you out for the lie that that is. As I attempted to explain, all I recall is people saying that it didnt matter. if people thought he's actually a hero of some sort than I apologize for not remembering it. edit: I mean post-report specifically. The IG was very hard on him and Comey.
The Strzok thing was at the time more 'jesus christ will they stop making mountains out of molehills'; there were very few people saying it was some sort of calamity that he was removed from the investigation.
The transition from that to full throated defense came when people like Danglars acted like he was The Enemy Of The People and deserved to be fired for it, without there ever being a solid 'it' to punish. And now when Strzok, essentially a random law enforcement guy now that he's no longer associated with the Mueller investigation (and is therefore probably doing nothing of faintest political interest since he's not super high in the FBI) is dragged by Congress to get hammered with questions over a controversy that existed entirely in their own heads, that centres on... something? Maybe?
It's a congressional hearing over nothing. Literally nothing. Alleged bias, not even confirmed bias. That he was already punished for, just in case. Oh, and even then, it's a victimless non-crime that hurt nobody and affected nothing that anyone is aware of. And if he can be dragged in front of Congress for bias, cannot all of those Congressmen likewise be dragged in front of Congress for bias?
I don't know, intro. How much more clearly can this be a case of the state moving against a private citizen for jumped up reasons? And why, since that clearly is the case, doesn't that bother you?
He'll probably be fine. But this is an attempt to ruin a man's life because he had a political opinion. One of the soundbites linked on here was literal 100% character assassination, nothing but attacking him for infidelity.
How is that okay, even if it is just an attempt?
|
On July 13 2018 23:23 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2018 22:59 Introvert wrote:On July 13 2018 22:56 brian wrote:
today you said nobody had ever defended him before the praise he received yesterday and i called you out for the lie that that is. As I attempted to explain, all I recall is people saying that it didnt matter. if people thought he's actually a hero of some sort than I apologize for not remembering it. edit: I mean post-report specifically. The IG was very hard on him and Comey. The Strzok thing was at the time more 'jesus christ will they stop making mountains out of molehills'; there were very few people saying it was some sort of calamity that he was removed from the investigation. The transition from that to full throated defense came when people like Danglars acted like he was The Enemy Of The People and deserved to be fired for it, without there ever being a solid 'it' to punish. And now when Strzok, essentially a random law enforcement guy now that he's no longer associated with the Mueller investigation (and is therefore probably doing nothing of faintest political interest since he's not super high in the FBI) is dragged by Congress to get hammered with questions over a controversy that existed entirely in their own heads, that centres on... something? Maybe? It's a congressional hearing over nothing. Literally nothing. Alleged bias, not even confirmed bias. That he was already punished for, just in case. Oh, and even then, it's a victimless non-crime that hurt nobody and affected nothing that anyone is aware of. And if he can be dragged in front of Congress for bias, cannot all of those Congressmen likewise be dragged in front of Congress for bias? I don't know, intro. How much more clearly can this be a case of the state moving against a private citizen for jumped up reasons? And why, since that clearly is the case, doesn't that bother you? He'll probably be fine. But this is an attempt to ruin a man's life because he had a political opinion. One of the soundbites linked on here was literal 100% character assassination, nothing but attacking him for infidelity. How is that okay, even if it is just an attempt?
If you are politically biased against someone you are investigating for a crime, and you admitted as much in the texts that you sent using a work phone, then I don't see why it isn't a big deal.
As an investigator in such a high-profile case, Strzok is expected to uphold not only impartiality, but also the appearance of impartiality. Since he has evidently failed to do so, he should be censured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
