EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5149
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Introvert
United States4766 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42710 Posts
On August 10 2025 02:05 Introvert wrote: Actually I'm talking about Comey and Russiagate, not the docs case. Comey's investigation found that he did coordinate with Russia but there was no explicit agreed tit for tat. He did that one too. Russia literally did intervene to promote the Trump campaign and undermine the Clinton campaign and Trump literally did meet with Russian spies to discuss sanctions relief in the event of a Trump victory. Trump's campaign manager did repeatedly meet and discuss strategy with Russian spies. But in any case, if the price of addressing Russiagate is abandoning the entire idea of neutral law enforcement then it's too high. You pose the question of what is he meant to do when being investigated by law enforcement, just sit there and take it? Yes, that's exactly what he's meant to do. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4766 Posts
On August 10 2025 02:16 KwarK wrote: Comey's investigation found that he did coordinate with Russia but there was no explicit agreed tit for tat. He did that one too. Russia literally did intervene to promote the Trump campaign and undermine the Clinton campaign and Trump literally did meet with Russian spies to discuss sanctions relief in the event of a Trump victory. Trump's campaign manager did repeatedly meet and discuss strategy with Russian spies. But in any case, if the price of addressing Russiagate is abandoning the entire idea of neutral law enforcement then it's too high. You pose the question of what is he meant to do when being investigated by law enforcement, just sit there and take it? Yes, that's exactly what he's meant to do. The idea of neutrality in law enforcement was already dead and James Comey is a tier 1 player in that game that's my point. I will not relitigate it yet again but the Russia collusion story failed to live up to its initial hype, whatever dis happen. Bur the hype was enough to hamper the start of a brand new presidency. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24685 Posts
Sorry, but "there was too much unfair hype" is not relevant after idiotic crap like that. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1492 Posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election | ||
|
KwarK
United States42710 Posts
On August 10 2025 02:35 Introvert wrote: The idea of neutrality in law enforcement was already dead Mueller was a Republican but even if we set all of that aside for a minute, surely it's preferable for elected officials to be investigated for their crimes by adversarial police on the lookout for any criminality than to throw out the entire idea of crime. I just can't see any circumstances other than full on gangster rule in which the best option is to just have law enforcement stacked with guys on the payroll whose job is to cover up any crimes by the boss. And yet you're presenting this as something he had no choice but to do to avoid some greater evil. What possible greater evil are you afraid of? | ||
|
Introvert
United States4766 Posts
On August 10 2025 02:42 KwarK wrote: Mueller was a Republican but even if we set all of that aside for a minute, surely it's preferable for elected officials to be investigated for their crimes by adversarial police on the lookout for any criminality than to throw out the entire idea of crime. I just can't see any circumstances other than full on gangster rule in which the best option is to just have law enforcement stacked with guys on the payroll whose job is to cover up any crimes by the boss. And yet you're presenting this as something he had no choice but to do to avoid some greater evil. What possible greater evil are you afraid of? The question is if they were actually "on the lookout for any criminality" or if that was a pretense (it was a pretense). This is why having the neutrality of these organizations be undermined by the organizations themselves is so damaging. Is it better if they are "adversarial" if they are really just partisan? It's not so clear. Where was the FBI when it came time to be "adversarial" with the Biden admin? Or the DOJ, which tried to give Hunter a sweetheart deal? Nowhere. It only goes one way, which is why you can say what you just said above and think it's obviously better one way than another. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42710 Posts
On August 10 2025 02:55 Introvert wrote: The question is if they were actually "on the lookout for any criminality" or if that was a pretense (it was a pretense). This is why having the neutrality of these organizations be undermined by the organizations themselves is so damaging. Is it better if they are "adversarial" if they are really just partisan? It's not so clear. Where was the FBI when it came time to be "adversarial" with the Biden admin? Or the DOJ, who tried to give Hunter a sweetheart deal? Nowhere. It only goes one way, which is why you can say what you just said above and think it's obviously better one way than another. What did the gangster FBI cover up for Biden? | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1492 Posts
CEOs are foreign countries are openly bribing Trump right now, they aren't even really trying to hide it, but conservatives are proud of the display of power. This was after four years of a made-up scandal about Biden's family using their name to enrich themselves, and eight years after Ivanka Trump was literally doing the exact thing they accused the Bidens of in China and Saudi Arabia. It doesn't matter to them. The hypocrisy is a bonus, not a fault, because they love the idea that they're so powerful that they can be openly hypocritical and get away with it. Republican voters think they're in on the joke, meanwhile the people they voted for are robbing them blind and laughing about it. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4766 Posts
On August 10 2025 02:56 KwarK wrote: What did the gangster FBI cover up for Biden? See that's exactly the point. Who knows, because the FBI and DOJ weren’t actually adversarial. There were no leaks. We know Biden was let off for having classified docs, and we know the DOJ tried to get Hunter off as much as they could. We know the FBI knew the laptop was legit back in 2019 iirc. Yet, no leaks! If they were adversarial organizations by your standards these should have been 5 alarm fires or we should hsvs found out about them way earlier. Meanwhile, we have texts from the FBI lovebirds in 2016 about how they weren't going to let Trump win. And we havw people justifying Biden last minute pardons because Trump. Somehow the pretensions of the Dems who control these places perfectly matches with the opinions of Dems here. It’s a miracle! | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1492 Posts
On August 10 2025 03:10 Introvert wrote: See that's exactly the point. Who knows, because the FBI and DOJ weren’t actually adversarial. There were no leaks. We know Biden was let off for having classified docs, and we know the DOJ tried to get Hunter off as much as they could. We know the FBI knew the laptop was legit back in 2019 iirc. Yet, no leaks! If they were adversarial organizations by your standards these should have been 5 alarm fires or we should hsvs found out about them way earlier. Meanwhile, we have texts from the FBI lovebirds in 2016 about how they weren't going to let Trump win. And we havw people justifying Biden last minute pardons because Trump. Somehow the pretensions of the Dems who control these places perfectly matches with the opinions of Dems here. It’s a miracle! Translation: Democrats not committing crimes is proof that they did. Republicans committing crimes is proof that they don't. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25396 Posts
It’s almost like they’ve gone after a brazenly corrupt individual, and perpetual criminal rather than it being down to him being a Republican. Yeah sure plenty of the media would have shit on him, I highly doubt that if Romney had won in any of his attempts that he’d have faced these kind of cases. Or McCain for that matter. It’s almost like the guy conservatives have hitched their flag to is a giant crook, and bodies that are supposed to deal with such scenarios, have. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24685 Posts
edit: On August 10 2025 03:14 WombaT wrote: It’s almost like they’ve gone after a brazenly corrupt individual, and perpetual criminal rather than it being down to him being a Republican. Pretty much. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4766 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1492 Posts
| ||
Magic Powers
Austria4114 Posts
On August 09 2025 22:54 BlackJack wrote: They correctly ruled that it wasn’t illegal but that doesn’t necessarily make it a nothingburger. It’s just not a good place to be to punish people for their speech to appease the White House, whether it’s legal or not. Hell, people just finished complaining that Stephen Colbert was fired because Paramount wanted to placate Trump. The president is allowed to voice opinions, and I'm fine with the president calling out social media's rampant propaganda. Trump doesn't just voice opinions, he abuses executive orders at an absurd rate, he threatens people directly and individually, he sends ICE after entire states, he vanishes the Epstein list, and so forth. I just don't see a valid comparison where "Biden did it and nobody complained and now Trump's doing it and everybody's complaining". I don't think that's what's happening. My point is we can reasonably compare the severeity of Biden's words and actions to those of Obama, Bill Clinton, even Bush. Not to Trump. Trump is a completely different animal, he's much crazier than any other president before him. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4766 Posts
On August 10 2025 03:21 LightSpectra wrote: Introvert, if you were working for the FBI and your job was to surveil a Democrat that was brazenly corrupt like Bob Menendez, what do you think you'd do if that guy started running for president and climbed to the frontrunner of the polls? Funny you mention Bob Menendez, as Dems covered for him until the last possible moment, including one in this thread who i believe said he was proud to vote for him last time  Now apparently I've been wrong about this stuff before but I seem to recall that from a NJ resident. As to your question, i would hope that I would do my work quickly and make it as airtight as possible so when it was passed up the chain it was ready for all the inevitable scrutiny. I would hope that I wouldn't be leaking select details to the press. I hope. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1492 Posts
On August 10 2025 03:25 Introvert wrote: As to your question, i would hope that I would do my work quickly and make it as airtight as possible so when it was passed up the chain it was ready for all the inevitable scrutiny. Oops, it doesn't matter how airtight it was, the moment your department releases some details Democrats (in this hypothetical scenario) start crying that it's fake news, weaponization of law enforcement, and a nothingburger. Now what do you do, knowing for a fact that this Menendez-ish candidate is extremely corrupt? I would hope that I wouldn't be leaking select details to the press. I hope. Like Comey leaking that he was reopening the Hillary Clinton email server investigation which, according to numerous sources, literally cost her the election, even though she was ultimately exonerated. But you're really convinced Comey was the leftwing deepstate because he came to the same conclusion as Senate Republicans that Russia interfered in the same election. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42710 Posts
Edit: then it was, I think, Sessions? who wrote an Op Ed saying that if he was AG then he would not only not recuse himself, he would intervene to protect Trump. Shortly afterwards he was appointed AG and then got an early draft of the Mueller report, selectively edited it, and released “no collusion” to the press. The full conclusion he drew that quote from was that there was extensive coordination but insufficient evidence of a specific documented conspiracy. Magats ran with the “no collusion” line and we’re still yet to get a single one of them to actually read Mueller’s report. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25396 Posts
On August 10 2025 03:18 Introvert wrote: Republicans have been fighting the modern bureaucracy almost since it was created. But these places viewed Trump as a threat when they didn't see Bush as one, for example. They threw away what credibility they had when they decided that he couldn't be allowed to win and then that he couldn't be allowed to govern. Both your objections would hold more water if these places didnt start acting as opposition before he even won. Why did they view Trump as a threat and not Bush? Could it be that Bush (largely) operated within accepted parameters and conventions and Trump absolutely does not? | ||
| ||
