|
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 18 2018 05:01 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. There are some reasons to discredit your perspective. The first would be that there is a lot of voter disenfranchisement in the USA, such as gerrymandering, preventing convicts from voting, trying to suppress black turn-out by various tricks, electoral college etc.. A lot of people can't vote because they have to work all day, or because there isn't a voting booth nearby, or because they aren't registered or they don't have an ID etc. Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. I would also say that voting is not the only legitimate form of doing politics. Historically most important reforms have roots in popular movements or come from strikes or demonstrations or other forms of political activism. It helps if you have friendly politicians in office, but even centrists or conservatives can enact good policy if they have to fear losing popular support. Also, the government is in many ways independent of the party which is in power (less true today), because of the permanent bureaucracy, the influence of corporations, the power of the military and the intelligence community and so on. Regardless of the increasing polarization, politicians are all pro-capitalist, pro-military and pro-business and have many things in common. Finally, it's useless and even reactionary to blame individuals for the existence of a system they have more or less no control over, and to say that because they weren't perfectly virtuous in the past that they should just accept a structurally unfair world. It betrays a sort of naive belief in voting fetishism. Thank you. I will take this into account and reconsider what I believe to be fair when these points are added in. Edit: maybe I am too easily swayed, your words make much more sense than mine did lol Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 04:44 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 04:17 ticklishmusic wrote:
I think the uproar over the press conference is maybe a little overblown, but Trump certainly turned what could have been a pretty routine, boring event into one that invites speculation given everything that's going on. It has been fueled by a lot of Republicans and others being stunned by a US President only attacking the US institutions while standing next to the leader of the guy who attacked our election process. And inviting him to assist us in the investigation. It was the one moment where Trump couldn’t escape the office and redefine in his image. A moment people could not downplay the impact of his actions as President. The biggest question is Why? Why does Trump take such a hard line with literally every nation he encounters expect for Russia and Putin. He will attack anyone, except for Putin. There is no good explanation beyond the speculation regarding the Russia investigation. Did he take a hard line with or say anything critical of Duterte? I think they are taking issue with the fact that they believe Trump should take his own presidential election (something he wants to view as incredible) into consideration when talking to Putin, since 12 Russian officers were charged recently. Duterte is free of that baggage to Trump, so the comparison isn't that simple.
My point is there's an insinuation that Trump is subservient to Russia in a way that can't easily be explained for the same reasons he's fond of other authoritarian leaders, particularly ones that don't talk shit about him.
Financial interests for one. Befriending authoritarians, especially as the President, makes it easier to do business in places that would otherwise be off-limits/severely restricted to US investors. Providing business opportunities not just for himself but for his family and people he sells that access to in his typically conman way.
Secondly, he's jealous. He wishes the US media talked about Trump dominating the US like they do Putin dominating Russia. He sees Duterte, Putin, Kim, etc... as implementing winning strategies. Funnily enough this has been a frustration among many, his preference for authoritarianism makes him less critical of left wing regimes which are traditionally viewed as being run by "despots and dictators" than most in either traditional party.
As for the election, I still think it's dumb for us to think Russia wouldn't also interfere in our elections. Not that there would be some sort of serious focus on Russia's election meddling had Hillary won. Instead it would just be painting all dissenters as Russian provocateurs and/or unwitting dupes.
|
On July 18 2018 03:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 03:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Beto calling for Trump's impeachment feels like a miss-step to me. I think that the general overreaction to the press conference and the allegations that Trump is a traitor/treasonous is a misstep. Trump's opposition looks unhinged.
You have been calling "trump's opposition" unhinged for over a year now. You have also been calling the investigation a witch hunt, a farce, a nothingburger, etc.. Yet more and more people, including ones close to trump, keep getting indicted or arrested. At what point do you go: "ok, maybe there's something to this whole russian puppet thing"?
|
On July 18 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 05:01 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. There are some reasons to discredit your perspective. The first would be that there is a lot of voter disenfranchisement in the USA, such as gerrymandering, preventing convicts from voting, trying to suppress black turn-out by various tricks, electoral college etc.. A lot of people can't vote because they have to work all day, or because there isn't a voting booth nearby, or because they aren't registered or they don't have an ID etc. Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. I would also say that voting is not the only legitimate form of doing politics. Historically most important reforms have roots in popular movements or come from strikes or demonstrations or other forms of political activism. It helps if you have friendly politicians in office, but even centrists or conservatives can enact good policy if they have to fear losing popular support. Also, the government is in many ways independent of the party which is in power (less true today), because of the permanent bureaucracy, the influence of corporations, the power of the military and the intelligence community and so on. Regardless of the increasing polarization, politicians are all pro-capitalist, pro-military and pro-business and have many things in common. Finally, it's useless and even reactionary to blame individuals for the existence of a system they have more or less no control over, and to say that because they weren't perfectly virtuous in the past that they should just accept a structurally unfair world. It betrays a sort of naive belief in voting fetishism. Thank you. I will take this into account and reconsider what I believe to be fair when these points are added in. Edit: maybe I am too easily swayed, your words make much more sense than mine did lol On July 18 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 04:44 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 04:17 ticklishmusic wrote:
I think the uproar over the press conference is maybe a little overblown, but Trump certainly turned what could have been a pretty routine, boring event into one that invites speculation given everything that's going on. It has been fueled by a lot of Republicans and others being stunned by a US President only attacking the US institutions while standing next to the leader of the guy who attacked our election process. And inviting him to assist us in the investigation. It was the one moment where Trump couldn’t escape the office and redefine in his image. A moment people could not downplay the impact of his actions as President. The biggest question is Why? Why does Trump take such a hard line with literally every nation he encounters expect for Russia and Putin. He will attack anyone, except for Putin. There is no good explanation beyond the speculation regarding the Russia investigation. Did he take a hard line with or say anything critical of Duterte? I think they are taking issue with the fact that they believe Trump should take his own presidential election (something he wants to view as incredible) into consideration when talking to Putin, since 12 Russian officers were charged recently. Duterte is free of that baggage to Trump, so the comparison isn't that simple. My point is there's an insinuation that Trump is subservient to Russia in a way that can't easily be explained for the same reasons he's fond of other authoritarian leaders, particularly ones that don't talk shit about him. Financial interests for one. Befriending authoritarians, especially as the President, makes it easier to do business in places that would otherwise be off-limits/severely restricted to US investors. Providing business opportunities not just for himself but for his family and people he sells that access to in his typically conman way. Secondly, he's jealous. He wishes the US media talked about Trump dominating the US like they do Putin dominating Russia. He sees Duterte, Putin, Kim, etc... as implementing winning strategies. Funnily enough this has been a frustration among many, his preference for authoritarianism makes him less critical of left wing regimes which are traditionally viewed as being run by "despots and dictators" than most in either traditional party. As for the election, I still think it's dumb for us to think Russia wouldn't also interfere in our elections. Not that there would be some sort of serious focus on Russia's election meddling had Hillary won. Instead it would just be painting all dissenters as Russian provocateurs and/or unwitting dupes.
I think that argument has some merit, but Trump talked a lot of shit about Kim and NK right up until the photo op meeting this year. Russia seems different, just because he is so set on having good relations with them. It mirrors his business relationship with Russia, which seems to go back a while. Or Putin knows something, which wouldn’t be shocking at all. It could be as simple as Trump took a lot of money he shouldn’t during a real estate deal.
I think the Russian messing with our elections isn’t something they would have tried until recently. In the 2000s, the congress then would have gone after Russia with a vengeance if they pulled half the trash they pulled last election. But this congress is so dysfunctional that we can barely keep sanctions in place.
And I think one of the things that is lost in the Russian interference is the goal is to erode trust in the process. That includes traditional dissenters, third parties and protests. The Russians want us distrusting the police and BLM equally. No one wins when there is this type of misinformation and interference in the political process.
|
On July 18 2018 05:34 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2018 03:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Beto calling for Trump's impeachment feels like a miss-step to me. I think that the general overreaction to the press conference and the allegations that Trump is a traitor/treasonous is a misstep. Trump's opposition looks unhinged. You have been calling "trump's opposition" unhinged for over a year now. You have also been calling the investigation a witch hunt, a farce, a nothingburger, etc.. Yet more and more people, including ones close to trump, keep getting indicted or arrested. At what point do you go: "ok, maybe there's something to this whole russian puppet thing"?
When the investigation finish's and we have something more then gossip and hearsay to go off on?
|
On July 18 2018 05:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 05:01 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. There are some reasons to discredit your perspective. The first would be that there is a lot of voter disenfranchisement in the USA, such as gerrymandering, preventing convicts from voting, trying to suppress black turn-out by various tricks, electoral college etc.. A lot of people can't vote because they have to work all day, or because there isn't a voting booth nearby, or because they aren't registered or they don't have an ID etc. Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. I would also say that voting is not the only legitimate form of doing politics. Historically most important reforms have roots in popular movements or come from strikes or demonstrations or other forms of political activism. It helps if you have friendly politicians in office, but even centrists or conservatives can enact good policy if they have to fear losing popular support. Also, the government is in many ways independent of the party which is in power (less true today), because of the permanent bureaucracy, the influence of corporations, the power of the military and the intelligence community and so on. Regardless of the increasing polarization, politicians are all pro-capitalist, pro-military and pro-business and have many things in common. Finally, it's useless and even reactionary to blame individuals for the existence of a system they have more or less no control over, and to say that because they weren't perfectly virtuous in the past that they should just accept a structurally unfair world. It betrays a sort of naive belief in voting fetishism. Thank you. I will take this into account and reconsider what I believe to be fair when these points are added in. Edit: maybe I am too easily swayed, your words make much more sense than mine did lol On July 18 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 04:44 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 04:17 ticklishmusic wrote:
I think the uproar over the press conference is maybe a little overblown, but Trump certainly turned what could have been a pretty routine, boring event into one that invites speculation given everything that's going on. It has been fueled by a lot of Republicans and others being stunned by a US President only attacking the US institutions while standing next to the leader of the guy who attacked our election process. And inviting him to assist us in the investigation. It was the one moment where Trump couldn’t escape the office and redefine in his image. A moment people could not downplay the impact of his actions as President. The biggest question is Why? Why does Trump take such a hard line with literally every nation he encounters expect for Russia and Putin. He will attack anyone, except for Putin. There is no good explanation beyond the speculation regarding the Russia investigation. Did he take a hard line with or say anything critical of Duterte? I think they are taking issue with the fact that they believe Trump should take his own presidential election (something he wants to view as incredible) into consideration when talking to Putin, since 12 Russian officers were charged recently. Duterte is free of that baggage to Trump, so the comparison isn't that simple. My point is there's an insinuation that Trump is subservient to Russia in a way that can't easily be explained for the same reasons he's fond of other authoritarian leaders, particularly ones that don't talk shit about him. Financial interests for one. Befriending authoritarians, especially as the President, makes it easier to do business in places that would otherwise be off-limits/severely restricted to US investors. Providing business opportunities not just for himself but for his family and people he sells that access to in his typically conman way. Secondly, he's jealous. He wishes the US media talked about Trump dominating the US like they do Putin dominating Russia. He sees Duterte, Putin, Kim, etc... as implementing winning strategies. Funnily enough this has been a frustration among many, his preference for authoritarianism makes him less critical of left wing regimes which are traditionally viewed as being run by "despots and dictators" than most in either traditional party. As for the election, I still think it's dumb for us to think Russia wouldn't also interfere in our elections. Not that there would be some sort of serious focus on Russia's election meddling had Hillary won. Instead it would just be painting all dissenters as Russian provocateurs and/or unwitting dupes. I think that argument has some merit, but Trump talked a lot of shit about Kim and NK right up until the photo op meeting this year. Russia seems different, just because he is so set on having good relations with them. It mirrors his business relationship with Russia, which seems to go back a while. Or Putin knows something, which wouldn’t be shocking at all. It could be as simple as Trump took a lot of money he shouldn’t during a real estate deal. I think the Russian messing with our elections isn’t something they would have tried until recently. In the 2000s, the congress then would have gone after Russia with a vengeance if they pulled half the trash they pulled last election. But this congress is so dysfunctional that we can barely keep sanctions in place. And I think one of the things that is lost in the Russian interference is the goal is to erode trust in the process. That includes traditional dissenters, third parties and protests. The Russians want us distrusting the police and BLM equally. No one wins when there is this type of misinformation and interference in the political process.
Setting aside that Russia/Putin and the USSR/Kruschev/Brezhnev are hardly the same entity, both the interference and the response by liberals (smearing movements like BLM by saying "Russia made you say that" or "Russians make people distrust BLM" ) dates backs at least to the 60's. Though you can find earlier connections.
What's new is how cheap and effective doing it with social media/the internet can be. Granted it's effectiveness has been highly exaggerated and amplified by the very people claiming to find it so heinous.
|
On July 18 2018 05:52 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 05:34 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2018 03:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Beto calling for Trump's impeachment feels like a miss-step to me. I think that the general overreaction to the press conference and the allegations that Trump is a traitor/treasonous is a misstep. Trump's opposition looks unhinged. You have been calling "trump's opposition" unhinged for over a year now. You have also been calling the investigation a witch hunt, a farce, a nothingburger, etc.. Yet more and more people, including ones close to trump, keep getting indicted or arrested. At what point do you go: "ok, maybe there's something to this whole russian puppet thing"? When the investigation finish's and we have something more then gossip and hearsay to go off on?
So then how is it justifiable to keep saying that the investigation is a witch hunt, a farce, etc... if it's not finished yet?
|
On July 18 2018 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 05:39 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 05:01 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. There are some reasons to discredit your perspective. The first would be that there is a lot of voter disenfranchisement in the USA, such as gerrymandering, preventing convicts from voting, trying to suppress black turn-out by various tricks, electoral college etc.. A lot of people can't vote because they have to work all day, or because there isn't a voting booth nearby, or because they aren't registered or they don't have an ID etc. Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. I would also say that voting is not the only legitimate form of doing politics. Historically most important reforms have roots in popular movements or come from strikes or demonstrations or other forms of political activism. It helps if you have friendly politicians in office, but even centrists or conservatives can enact good policy if they have to fear losing popular support. Also, the government is in many ways independent of the party which is in power (less true today), because of the permanent bureaucracy, the influence of corporations, the power of the military and the intelligence community and so on. Regardless of the increasing polarization, politicians are all pro-capitalist, pro-military and pro-business and have many things in common. Finally, it's useless and even reactionary to blame individuals for the existence of a system they have more or less no control over, and to say that because they weren't perfectly virtuous in the past that they should just accept a structurally unfair world. It betrays a sort of naive belief in voting fetishism. Thank you. I will take this into account and reconsider what I believe to be fair when these points are added in. Edit: maybe I am too easily swayed, your words make much more sense than mine did lol On July 18 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 04:44 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 04:17 ticklishmusic wrote:
I think the uproar over the press conference is maybe a little overblown, but Trump certainly turned what could have been a pretty routine, boring event into one that invites speculation given everything that's going on. It has been fueled by a lot of Republicans and others being stunned by a US President only attacking the US institutions while standing next to the leader of the guy who attacked our election process. And inviting him to assist us in the investigation. It was the one moment where Trump couldn’t escape the office and redefine in his image. A moment people could not downplay the impact of his actions as President. The biggest question is Why? Why does Trump take such a hard line with literally every nation he encounters expect for Russia and Putin. He will attack anyone, except for Putin. There is no good explanation beyond the speculation regarding the Russia investigation. Did he take a hard line with or say anything critical of Duterte? I think they are taking issue with the fact that they believe Trump should take his own presidential election (something he wants to view as incredible) into consideration when talking to Putin, since 12 Russian officers were charged recently. Duterte is free of that baggage to Trump, so the comparison isn't that simple. My point is there's an insinuation that Trump is subservient to Russia in a way that can't easily be explained for the same reasons he's fond of other authoritarian leaders, particularly ones that don't talk shit about him. Financial interests for one. Befriending authoritarians, especially as the President, makes it easier to do business in places that would otherwise be off-limits/severely restricted to US investors. Providing business opportunities not just for himself but for his family and people he sells that access to in his typically conman way. Secondly, he's jealous. He wishes the US media talked about Trump dominating the US like they do Putin dominating Russia. He sees Duterte, Putin, Kim, etc... as implementing winning strategies. Funnily enough this has been a frustration among many, his preference for authoritarianism makes him less critical of left wing regimes which are traditionally viewed as being run by "despots and dictators" than most in either traditional party. As for the election, I still think it's dumb for us to think Russia wouldn't also interfere in our elections. Not that there would be some sort of serious focus on Russia's election meddling had Hillary won. Instead it would just be painting all dissenters as Russian provocateurs and/or unwitting dupes. I think that argument has some merit, but Trump talked a lot of shit about Kim and NK right up until the photo op meeting this year. Russia seems different, just because he is so set on having good relations with them. It mirrors his business relationship with Russia, which seems to go back a while. Or Putin knows something, which wouldn’t be shocking at all. It could be as simple as Trump took a lot of money he shouldn’t during a real estate deal. I think the Russian messing with our elections isn’t something they would have tried until recently. In the 2000s, the congress then would have gone after Russia with a vengeance if they pulled half the trash they pulled last election. But this congress is so dysfunctional that we can barely keep sanctions in place. And I think one of the things that is lost in the Russian interference is the goal is to erode trust in the process. That includes traditional dissenters, third parties and protests. The Russians want us distrusting the police and BLM equally. No one wins when there is this type of misinformation and interference in the political process. Setting aside that Russia/Putin and the USSR/Kruschev/Brezhnev are hardly the same entity, both the interference and the response by liberals (smearing movements like BLM by saying "Russia made you say that" or "Russians make people distrust BLM" ) dates backs at least to the 60's. Though you can find earlier connections. What's new is how cheap and effective doing it with social media/the internet can be. Granted it's effectiveness has been highly exaggerated and amplified by the very people claiming to find it so heinous.
I agree that its overall impact on our views is limited. But I think the largest problem we have currently is that we don’t know how effective it is at influencing lawmakers or other lobbying groups. If you had asked me in 2016 if the NRA took a bunch of Russian funds and hung out with someone who was clearly a Russia agent, I might have laughed at it. It turns out that it is far stupider than we ever anticipated.
We just don’t our arms around the entire problem yet and I don’t think the regulatory agencies have the tools necessary to do it right now. The amount of dark money flowing into elections is getting silly and only getting worse. And until we get a fuller understanding of just how deep the rabbit hole is, we can’t address the problem.
But you should see the Russia investigation as a gift. It is the perfect vector to get tighter regulations on campaign donations and other lobbying. Forcing public, transparent disclosure is a good way to cut back on money in politics. And slip some other regulations too, because why not clean things up while we are in there?
|
On July 18 2018 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
What's new is how cheap and effective doing it with social media/the internet can be. Granted it's effectiveness has been highly exaggerated and amplified by the very people claiming to find it so heinous.
That's also new about all the other more legitimate reasons to not want Trump anywhere near a position of authority.
What's different about the Russia angle is that it's the odd one out. On every other aspect of governing he's been doing lip service to the lowest common conservative stereotype: taxes are bad, regulations are bad, international organizations are bad, social care is bad, science is wrong, trickle-down is good, coal is good, tough on crime, tough on terror, tough on immigration, tough on trade, tough on China, tough on NK, tough on Iran, buddy-buddy with Putin? Wait, what?
To me that seems the reason it's focused on so much. The media tried belittling Trump for not believing climate change is real, why would his voters flinch at that? They agree. The Russia spam though, it's a little bit more difficult to fight years of being programmed to think that Russia is evil.
Though I agree that its effectiveness is not particularly significant, and this story has played out a long time ago.
|
On July 18 2018 05:59 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 05:52 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 05:34 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2018 03:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Beto calling for Trump's impeachment feels like a miss-step to me. I think that the general overreaction to the press conference and the allegations that Trump is a traitor/treasonous is a misstep. Trump's opposition looks unhinged. You have been calling "trump's opposition" unhinged for over a year now. You have also been calling the investigation a witch hunt, a farce, a nothingburger, etc.. Yet more and more people, including ones close to trump, keep getting indicted or arrested. At what point do you go: "ok, maybe there's something to this whole russian puppet thing"? When the investigation finish's and we have something more then gossip and hearsay to go off on? So then how is it justifiable to keep saying that the investigation is a witch hunt, a farce, etc... if it's not finished yet?
Because its commentary on the investigation and not commentary on the perceived result of the investigation.
|
On July 18 2018 06:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 05:59 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 05:52 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 05:34 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2018 03:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Beto calling for Trump's impeachment feels like a miss-step to me. I think that the general overreaction to the press conference and the allegations that Trump is a traitor/treasonous is a misstep. Trump's opposition looks unhinged. You have been calling "trump's opposition" unhinged for over a year now. You have also been calling the investigation a witch hunt, a farce, a nothingburger, etc.. Yet more and more people, including ones close to trump, keep getting indicted or arrested. At what point do you go: "ok, maybe there's something to this whole russian puppet thing"? When the investigation finish's and we have something more then gossip and hearsay to go off on? So then how is it justifiable to keep saying that the investigation is a witch hunt, a farce, etc... if it's not finished yet? Because its commentary on the investigation and not commentary on the perceived result of the investigation.
When you call an investigation a witch hunt, farce, nothingburger, etc. I don't see how that doesn't imply the opinion that there will be no result. If people in Trump's camp want to conjecture that there's nothing to the investigation, then people outside that camp can full well conjecture in the other direction.
|
On July 18 2018 06:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 05:59 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 05:52 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 05:34 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2018 03:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Beto calling for Trump's impeachment feels like a miss-step to me. I think that the general overreaction to the press conference and the allegations that Trump is a traitor/treasonous is a misstep. Trump's opposition looks unhinged. You have been calling "trump's opposition" unhinged for over a year now. You have also been calling the investigation a witch hunt, a farce, a nothingburger, etc.. Yet more and more people, including ones close to trump, keep getting indicted or arrested. At what point do you go: "ok, maybe there's something to this whole russian puppet thing"? When the investigation finish's and we have something more then gossip and hearsay to go off on? So then how is it justifiable to keep saying that the investigation is a witch hunt, a farce, etc... if it's not finished yet? Because its commentary on the investigation and not commentary on the perceived result of the investigation.
But.... they've arrested tons of people. Several of whom are almost definitely going to jail. As in, they're definitely, 100% guilty.
How can that be 'gossip and hearsay'? That's literally people being arrested. I simply don't understand the counter rhetoric against this investigation anymore. It's like there's two realities, the one where Mueller is actually arresting actual people for actual criminal activity, and another one where he's sat twiddling his thumbs and maybe making paper aeroplanes and has nothing to show.
|
On July 18 2018 07:14 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 06:50 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 05:59 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 05:52 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 05:34 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2018 03:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Beto calling for Trump's impeachment feels like a miss-step to me. I think that the general overreaction to the press conference and the allegations that Trump is a traitor/treasonous is a misstep. Trump's opposition looks unhinged. You have been calling "trump's opposition" unhinged for over a year now. You have also been calling the investigation a witch hunt, a farce, a nothingburger, etc.. Yet more and more people, including ones close to trump, keep getting indicted or arrested. At what point do you go: "ok, maybe there's something to this whole russian puppet thing"? When the investigation finish's and we have something more then gossip and hearsay to go off on? So then how is it justifiable to keep saying that the investigation is a witch hunt, a farce, etc... if it's not finished yet? Because its commentary on the investigation and not commentary on the perceived result of the investigation. When you call an investigation a witch hunt, farce, nothingburger, etc. I don't see how that doesn't imply the opinion that there will be no result. If people in Trump's camp want to conjecture that there's nothing to the investigation, then people outside that camp can full well conjecture in the other direction.
It doesn't imply that there will be no result it implys that the information coming out from the investigation is ment to damm the person being investigated in public before it ever gets a chance at a trail per say.
And they can conjecture in either direction. As is the trump administration is doing it one way and the leadership in the Dems are doing the other way. I'm glad you admit both sides are valid for doing so.
On July 18 2018 07:16 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 06:50 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 05:59 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 05:52 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 05:34 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2018 03:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Beto calling for Trump's impeachment feels like a miss-step to me. I think that the general overreaction to the press conference and the allegations that Trump is a traitor/treasonous is a misstep. Trump's opposition looks unhinged. You have been calling "trump's opposition" unhinged for over a year now. You have also been calling the investigation a witch hunt, a farce, a nothingburger, etc.. Yet more and more people, including ones close to trump, keep getting indicted or arrested. At what point do you go: "ok, maybe there's something to this whole russian puppet thing"? When the investigation finish's and we have something more then gossip and hearsay to go off on? So then how is it justifiable to keep saying that the investigation is a witch hunt, a farce, etc... if it's not finished yet? Because its commentary on the investigation and not commentary on the perceived result of the investigation. But.... they've arrested tons of people. Several of whom are almost definitely going to jail. As in, they're definitely, 100% guilty. How can that be 'gossip and hearsay'? That's literally people being arrested. I simply don't understand the counter rhetoric against this investigation anymore. It's like there's two realities, the one where Mueller is actually arresting actual people for actual criminal activity, and another one where he's sat twiddling his thumbs and maybe making paper aeroplanes and has nothing to show.
Thats not entirely relevant to the main statement though. There has been people arrested but none of them is named trump, At most you can prove that russia influenced the election and trumps campaign adviser worked in the Ukrainian election the cycle before. Nothing has come out about collusion or trump being compromised yet.
You're mistaking your narratives. The narrative that Trump says about the investigation is that they're trying to manufacture evidence or a narrative about trump being compromised or that he colluded with the russians with a quid pro quo in order to win the election. No one is saying that Muller isn't doing anything that would be silly.
|
On July 18 2018 06:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 05:39 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 05:01 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. There are some reasons to discredit your perspective. The first would be that there is a lot of voter disenfranchisement in the USA, such as gerrymandering, preventing convicts from voting, trying to suppress black turn-out by various tricks, electoral college etc.. A lot of people can't vote because they have to work all day, or because there isn't a voting booth nearby, or because they aren't registered or they don't have an ID etc. Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. I would also say that voting is not the only legitimate form of doing politics. Historically most important reforms have roots in popular movements or come from strikes or demonstrations or other forms of political activism. It helps if you have friendly politicians in office, but even centrists or conservatives can enact good policy if they have to fear losing popular support. Also, the government is in many ways independent of the party which is in power (less true today), because of the permanent bureaucracy, the influence of corporations, the power of the military and the intelligence community and so on. Regardless of the increasing polarization, politicians are all pro-capitalist, pro-military and pro-business and have many things in common. Finally, it's useless and even reactionary to blame individuals for the existence of a system they have more or less no control over, and to say that because they weren't perfectly virtuous in the past that they should just accept a structurally unfair world. It betrays a sort of naive belief in voting fetishism. Thank you. I will take this into account and reconsider what I believe to be fair when these points are added in. Edit: maybe I am too easily swayed, your words make much more sense than mine did lol On July 18 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 04:44 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 04:17 ticklishmusic wrote:
I think the uproar over the press conference is maybe a little overblown, but Trump certainly turned what could have been a pretty routine, boring event into one that invites speculation given everything that's going on. It has been fueled by a lot of Republicans and others being stunned by a US President only attacking the US institutions while standing next to the leader of the guy who attacked our election process. And inviting him to assist us in the investigation. It was the one moment where Trump couldn’t escape the office and redefine in his image. A moment people could not downplay the impact of his actions as President. The biggest question is Why? Why does Trump take such a hard line with literally every nation he encounters expect for Russia and Putin. He will attack anyone, except for Putin. There is no good explanation beyond the speculation regarding the Russia investigation. Did he take a hard line with or say anything critical of Duterte? I think they are taking issue with the fact that they believe Trump should take his own presidential election (something he wants to view as incredible) into consideration when talking to Putin, since 12 Russian officers were charged recently. Duterte is free of that baggage to Trump, so the comparison isn't that simple. My point is there's an insinuation that Trump is subservient to Russia in a way that can't easily be explained for the same reasons he's fond of other authoritarian leaders, particularly ones that don't talk shit about him. Financial interests for one. Befriending authoritarians, especially as the President, makes it easier to do business in places that would otherwise be off-limits/severely restricted to US investors. Providing business opportunities not just for himself but for his family and people he sells that access to in his typically conman way. Secondly, he's jealous. He wishes the US media talked about Trump dominating the US like they do Putin dominating Russia. He sees Duterte, Putin, Kim, etc... as implementing winning strategies. Funnily enough this has been a frustration among many, his preference for authoritarianism makes him less critical of left wing regimes which are traditionally viewed as being run by "despots and dictators" than most in either traditional party. As for the election, I still think it's dumb for us to think Russia wouldn't also interfere in our elections. Not that there would be some sort of serious focus on Russia's election meddling had Hillary won. Instead it would just be painting all dissenters as Russian provocateurs and/or unwitting dupes. I think that argument has some merit, but Trump talked a lot of shit about Kim and NK right up until the photo op meeting this year. Russia seems different, just because he is so set on having good relations with them. It mirrors his business relationship with Russia, which seems to go back a while. Or Putin knows something, which wouldn’t be shocking at all. It could be as simple as Trump took a lot of money he shouldn’t during a real estate deal. I think the Russian messing with our elections isn’t something they would have tried until recently. In the 2000s, the congress then would have gone after Russia with a vengeance if they pulled half the trash they pulled last election. But this congress is so dysfunctional that we can barely keep sanctions in place. And I think one of the things that is lost in the Russian interference is the goal is to erode trust in the process. That includes traditional dissenters, third parties and protests. The Russians want us distrusting the police and BLM equally. No one wins when there is this type of misinformation and interference in the political process. Setting aside that Russia/Putin and the USSR/Kruschev/Brezhnev are hardly the same entity, both the interference and the response by liberals (smearing movements like BLM by saying "Russia made you say that" or "Russians make people distrust BLM" ) dates backs at least to the 60's. Though you can find earlier connections. What's new is how cheap and effective doing it with social media/the internet can be. Granted it's effectiveness has been highly exaggerated and amplified by the very people claiming to find it so heinous. I agree that its overall impact on our views is limited. But I think the largest problem we have currently is that we don’t know how effective it is at influencing lawmakers or other lobbying groups. If you had asked me in 2016 if the NRA took a bunch of Russian funds and hung out with someone who was clearly a Russia agent, I might have laughed at it. It turns out that it is far stupider than we ever anticipated. We just don’t our arms around the entire problem yet and I don’t think the regulatory agencies have the tools necessary to do it right now. The amount of dark money flowing into elections is getting silly and only getting worse. And until we get a fuller understanding of just how deep the rabbit hole is, we can’t address the problem. But you should see the Russia investigation as a gift. It is the perfect vector to get tighter regulations on campaign donations and other lobbying. Forcing public, transparent disclosure is a good way to cut back on money in politics. And slip some other regulations too, because why not clean things up while we are in there?
I'd take this position more seriously if the same people were also as concerned about Israel and the other countries that have been openly influencing US political campaigns for a years before Russia.
So what "starts" as a concern about foreign meddling, really boils down to a generic anti-Russian sentiment vaguely based on how bad Putin/"communism" is but not the foreign countries that overtly influence our elections that we don't ever talk about.
In the grand scheme of "influencing our public officials" Russia isn't worse than Saudi Arabia, or the ethnic cleansing Israel's lobbying gets our support for.
Which, when layered with the less tempered versions of this "Russia controls the president" narrative it betrays an almost strictly anti-Trump/Republican lens through which this "foreign influence" concern is viewed.
|
On July 18 2018 08:12 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 07:14 NewSunshine wrote:On July 18 2018 06:50 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 05:59 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 05:52 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 05:34 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2018 03:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Beto calling for Trump's impeachment feels like a miss-step to me. I think that the general overreaction to the press conference and the allegations that Trump is a traitor/treasonous is a misstep. Trump's opposition looks unhinged. You have been calling "trump's opposition" unhinged for over a year now. You have also been calling the investigation a witch hunt, a farce, a nothingburger, etc.. Yet more and more people, including ones close to trump, keep getting indicted or arrested. At what point do you go: "ok, maybe there's something to this whole russian puppet thing"? When the investigation finish's and we have something more then gossip and hearsay to go off on? So then how is it justifiable to keep saying that the investigation is a witch hunt, a farce, etc... if it's not finished yet? Because its commentary on the investigation and not commentary on the perceived result of the investigation. When you call an investigation a witch hunt, farce, nothingburger, etc. I don't see how that doesn't imply the opinion that there will be no result. If people in Trump's camp want to conjecture that there's nothing to the investigation, then people outside that camp can full well conjecture in the other direction. It doesn't imply that there will be no result it implys that the information coming out from the investigation is ment to damm the person being investigated in public before it ever gets a chance at a trail per say.
This use of the term "nothingburger" is new to me. As in nobody else I've seen using such a term has ever bothered to put forth a nuanced opinion, and only seeks to shit on not only the idea that the investigation might actually be valid, but mostly that it remains to be seen what comes of it. I can't accept that you speak for everyone here, sorry.
|
On July 18 2018 08:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 06:11 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 05:39 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 05:01 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. There are some reasons to discredit your perspective. The first would be that there is a lot of voter disenfranchisement in the USA, such as gerrymandering, preventing convicts from voting, trying to suppress black turn-out by various tricks, electoral college etc.. A lot of people can't vote because they have to work all day, or because there isn't a voting booth nearby, or because they aren't registered or they don't have an ID etc. Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. I would also say that voting is not the only legitimate form of doing politics. Historically most important reforms have roots in popular movements or come from strikes or demonstrations or other forms of political activism. It helps if you have friendly politicians in office, but even centrists or conservatives can enact good policy if they have to fear losing popular support. Also, the government is in many ways independent of the party which is in power (less true today), because of the permanent bureaucracy, the influence of corporations, the power of the military and the intelligence community and so on. Regardless of the increasing polarization, politicians are all pro-capitalist, pro-military and pro-business and have many things in common. Finally, it's useless and even reactionary to blame individuals for the existence of a system they have more or less no control over, and to say that because they weren't perfectly virtuous in the past that they should just accept a structurally unfair world. It betrays a sort of naive belief in voting fetishism. Thank you. I will take this into account and reconsider what I believe to be fair when these points are added in. Edit: maybe I am too easily swayed, your words make much more sense than mine did lol On July 18 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 04:44 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 04:17 ticklishmusic wrote:
I think the uproar over the press conference is maybe a little overblown, but Trump certainly turned what could have been a pretty routine, boring event into one that invites speculation given everything that's going on. It has been fueled by a lot of Republicans and others being stunned by a US President only attacking the US institutions while standing next to the leader of the guy who attacked our election process. And inviting him to assist us in the investigation. It was the one moment where Trump couldn’t escape the office and redefine in his image. A moment people could not downplay the impact of his actions as President. The biggest question is Why? Why does Trump take such a hard line with literally every nation he encounters expect for Russia and Putin. He will attack anyone, except for Putin. There is no good explanation beyond the speculation regarding the Russia investigation. Did he take a hard line with or say anything critical of Duterte? I think they are taking issue with the fact that they believe Trump should take his own presidential election (something he wants to view as incredible) into consideration when talking to Putin, since 12 Russian officers were charged recently. Duterte is free of that baggage to Trump, so the comparison isn't that simple. My point is there's an insinuation that Trump is subservient to Russia in a way that can't easily be explained for the same reasons he's fond of other authoritarian leaders, particularly ones that don't talk shit about him. Financial interests for one. Befriending authoritarians, especially as the President, makes it easier to do business in places that would otherwise be off-limits/severely restricted to US investors. Providing business opportunities not just for himself but for his family and people he sells that access to in his typically conman way. Secondly, he's jealous. He wishes the US media talked about Trump dominating the US like they do Putin dominating Russia. He sees Duterte, Putin, Kim, etc... as implementing winning strategies. Funnily enough this has been a frustration among many, his preference for authoritarianism makes him less critical of left wing regimes which are traditionally viewed as being run by "despots and dictators" than most in either traditional party. As for the election, I still think it's dumb for us to think Russia wouldn't also interfere in our elections. Not that there would be some sort of serious focus on Russia's election meddling had Hillary won. Instead it would just be painting all dissenters as Russian provocateurs and/or unwitting dupes. I think that argument has some merit, but Trump talked a lot of shit about Kim and NK right up until the photo op meeting this year. Russia seems different, just because he is so set on having good relations with them. It mirrors his business relationship with Russia, which seems to go back a while. Or Putin knows something, which wouldn’t be shocking at all. It could be as simple as Trump took a lot of money he shouldn’t during a real estate deal. I think the Russian messing with our elections isn’t something they would have tried until recently. In the 2000s, the congress then would have gone after Russia with a vengeance if they pulled half the trash they pulled last election. But this congress is so dysfunctional that we can barely keep sanctions in place. And I think one of the things that is lost in the Russian interference is the goal is to erode trust in the process. That includes traditional dissenters, third parties and protests. The Russians want us distrusting the police and BLM equally. No one wins when there is this type of misinformation and interference in the political process. Setting aside that Russia/Putin and the USSR/Kruschev/Brezhnev are hardly the same entity, both the interference and the response by liberals (smearing movements like BLM by saying "Russia made you say that" or "Russians make people distrust BLM" ) dates backs at least to the 60's. Though you can find earlier connections. What's new is how cheap and effective doing it with social media/the internet can be. Granted it's effectiveness has been highly exaggerated and amplified by the very people claiming to find it so heinous. I agree that its overall impact on our views is limited. But I think the largest problem we have currently is that we don’t know how effective it is at influencing lawmakers or other lobbying groups. If you had asked me in 2016 if the NRA took a bunch of Russian funds and hung out with someone who was clearly a Russia agent, I might have laughed at it. It turns out that it is far stupider than we ever anticipated. We just don’t our arms around the entire problem yet and I don’t think the regulatory agencies have the tools necessary to do it right now. The amount of dark money flowing into elections is getting silly and only getting worse. And until we get a fuller understanding of just how deep the rabbit hole is, we can’t address the problem. But you should see the Russia investigation as a gift. It is the perfect vector to get tighter regulations on campaign donations and other lobbying. Forcing public, transparent disclosure is a good way to cut back on money in politics. And slip some other regulations too, because why not clean things up while we are in there? I'd take this position more seriously if the same people were also as concerned about Israel and the other countries that have been openly influencing US political campaigns for a years before Russia. So what "starts" as a concern about foreign meddling, really boils down to a generic anti-Russian sentiment vaguely based on how bad Putin/"communism" is but not the foreign countries that overtly influence our elections that we don't ever talk about. In the grand scheme of "influencing our public officials" Russia isn't worse than Saudi Arabia, or the ethnic cleansing Israel's lobbying gets our support for. Which, when layered with the less tempered versions of this "Russia controls the president" narrative it betrays an almost strictly anti-Trump/Republican lens through which this "foreign influence" concern is viewed.
Israel is a long time ally, Russia is not
You can argue that both of those countries do things that shouldn't align with the US core values, but one of them fights with you guys in Syria while the other fights against. Putting them all in the same category doesn't make sense at all. You can launch planes from Israeli bases while Russia buzzes naval ships with jets and sends TU-95 bombers into your airspace just to test the response
|
The fact that Trump hand edits these prepared remarks has always amused me. Like he is so angry and addled that he angrily yells at a peice of paper that says things he doesn’t like.
But he does such a terrible job that the press was able to see what he crossed out and what he wrote. That the people responsible won’t be brought to justice, or something?
I fully expect him to return to bashing the Meuller investigation tomorrow, like nothing happened.
|
Can we dedicate the next 2 pages on this thread discussing the 4D plausible deniability of "no COLUSION"?
|
This clearly a trick to fool the media.
|
On July 18 2018 08:39 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 08:12 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 07:14 NewSunshine wrote:On July 18 2018 06:50 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 05:59 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 05:52 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 05:34 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2018 03:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Beto calling for Trump's impeachment feels like a miss-step to me. I think that the general overreaction to the press conference and the allegations that Trump is a traitor/treasonous is a misstep. Trump's opposition looks unhinged. You have been calling "trump's opposition" unhinged for over a year now. You have also been calling the investigation a witch hunt, a farce, a nothingburger, etc.. Yet more and more people, including ones close to trump, keep getting indicted or arrested. At what point do you go: "ok, maybe there's something to this whole russian puppet thing"? When the investigation finish's and we have something more then gossip and hearsay to go off on? So then how is it justifiable to keep saying that the investigation is a witch hunt, a farce, etc... if it's not finished yet? Because its commentary on the investigation and not commentary on the perceived result of the investigation. When you call an investigation a witch hunt, farce, nothingburger, etc. I don't see how that doesn't imply the opinion that there will be no result. If people in Trump's camp want to conjecture that there's nothing to the investigation, then people outside that camp can full well conjecture in the other direction. It doesn't imply that there will be no result it implys that the information coming out from the investigation is ment to damm the person being investigated in public before it ever gets a chance at a trail per say. This use of the term "nothingburger" is new to me. As in nobody else I've seen using such a term has ever bothered to put forth a nuanced opinion, and only seeks to shit on not only the idea that the investigation might actually be valid, but mostly that it remains to be seen what comes of it. I can't accept that you speak for everyone here, sorry.
Are you sure you responded to the person you thought you were responding to?
|
On July 18 2018 08:50 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/svdate/status/1019326017150824449The fact that Trump hand edits these prepared remarks has always amused me. Like he is so angry and addled that he angrily yells at a peice of paper that says things he doesn’t like. But he does such a terrible job that the press was able to see what he crossed out and what he wrote. That the people responsible won’t be brought to justice, or something? I fully expect him to return to bashing the Meuller investigation tomorrow, like nothing happened.
Any ardent Trump supporters want to explain why he would cross out the section about bringing those involved to justice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
