|
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 |
Austria4114 Posts
On August 09 2025 23:52 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2025 17:03 Magic Powers wrote:On August 09 2025 11:21 BlackJack wrote:
If only there was someone that was warning people for years while Biden was leaning on social media sites to ban anti-vaxxers or Trudeau was freezing the bank accounts of protestors that, "you're not going to like it when the other side is back in the white house." The Trudeau case was ruled to be authoritarian overreach. But the Biden case was a nothingburger according to the (conservative leaning might I add) Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has rejected a case claiming the Biden administration illegally coerced social media platforms into taking down posts about Covid-19 and the 2020 election that were considered misinformation. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno Mp it was not, it is under review if the rules should change, but it was legal.
The Federal Court ruled that the freeze was a violation. I don't know what the situation is with the appeal, but for now we can say that Trudeau abused his authority.
Mosley wrote, “I have concluded that the decision to issue the Proclamation does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration.”
“I think it’s in the interest of this government and future governments and all Canadians that the threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act remains high and that it is truly, as Justice Mosley says, a legislation of last resort,” CCLA lawyer Ewa Krajewska told Global News.
Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland says that Ottawa will appeal the ruling.
https://globalnews.ca/news/10244673/emergencies-act-convoy-federal-court/
|
Northern Ireland25396 Posts
On August 10 2025 03:25 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2025 22:54 BlackJack wrote:On August 09 2025 17:03 Magic Powers wrote:On August 09 2025 11:21 BlackJack wrote:
If only there was someone that was warning people for years while Biden was leaning on social media sites to ban anti-vaxxers or Trudeau was freezing the bank accounts of protestors that, "you're not going to like it when the other side is back in the white house." The Trudeau case was ruled to be authoritarian overreach. But the Biden case was a nothingburger according to the (conservative leaning might I add) Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has rejected a case claiming the Biden administration illegally coerced social media platforms into taking down posts about Covid-19 and the 2020 election that were considered misinformation. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno 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.
Happy Cake Day!
Many politicians do things I don’t like, Trump is just unbelievably egregious, like it’s not even hidden, remotely. It’s stadium rock levels of brazen nonsense.
Conservatives will forever find excuses for it, and they’ll act surprised if I conclude they’d rather live in a society where a tyrant did what they wanted, than one where their supposed sacred principles were adhered to
|
Also, funny reason I picked Bob Menendez. The charges of corruption he ultimately was convicted of was accepting "gold bars worth over $100,000 and more than $480,000 in cash" from Egyptian nationals.
This same year, Trump accepted a $400,000,000 Boeing 747-8 jet from the Qatari royal family, and he plans on keeping it after he leaves office as a personal jet.
Hypocrisy isn't a flaw to conservatives, it's a strength. They're cackling with joy that Trump is--just on this case alone, mind you, let alone all the other bribes--getting away with 100x as much corruption as what Menendez to prison. The only notable conservatives that have spoken out about it have just commented it's bad optics, they don't actually think corruption is a bad thing when they do it.
|
Biden was let off the hook for classified documents because they immediately returned them once found.
Trump was prosecuted for it because he hid them, lied about having them, then admitted he had them but said he was allowed to and then refused to return them.
This is why "But the Democrats" always falls apart, the situations are not comparable.
And the Russian election interference did pretty much live up the hype, it happened. all reports into it by both Mueller and the Senate Intelligence committee concluded that it happened. You could say the only thing missing was Trump directly and publicly admitting to it but we kinda even got that with the Trump openly asking Russia for Hillary's emails.
|
United States42713 Posts
On August 10 2025 03:42 Gorsameth wrote:
Biden was let off the hook for classified documents because they immediately returned them once found.
Trump was prosecuted for it because he hid them, lied about having them, then admitted he had them but said he was allowed to and then refused to return them.
This is why "But the Democrats" always falls apart, the situations are not comparable.
And he was showing classified invasion plans for Iran to Kid Rock who reportedly explained to Trump that he didn’t think he was allowed to read them. It’s not just holding onto documents, it’s sharing them with randos to try to impress them.
|
Ok so there are too many people to reply to at this point.
A) Yes, Comey royally messed up the Hillary emails case. But you can understand how he did so by realizing two things 1) he was terrified what would happen to his career if it came out or if something was found on the laptop and he didn't say anything and B) he thought, like almost everyone in DC, that Hillary would win.
B) there is no oopsies clause with classified documents. The idea that Biden had them by accident or didn't know was absurd, many of them were from his days in the senate, he wasn't allowed to walk out of the safe room with them.
C) Recall how this convo started. We were talking about higher ed, I don't like what Trump has done with the law firms, or taking the jet.
but that kind of leads to the more general idea... you guys are proving my point.
Neutrality has become a farce. Given that everything said about Biden either becomes a deflection, an excuse, or a "but Trump" comment is a great display of what I said about KwarK and to BlackJack yesterday. You guys don't want neutrality. You think you're right and you want that acted upon! Why was it ok that the FBI was trying to stop Trump before he was even inaugurated? Because he was bad and they were right. Why is it good for the universities to become political actors but still get taxpayer dollars? Because they agree with you and you're right.
That's why Peter Strzok and LIsa Page talking about making sure Trump loses gets nary a peep, but "if you have her emails release them!" is everywhere. It's why the Biden DOJ making sure Hunter got the best possible result was hardly a blip on the radar of anyone here. You guys don't want fairness, impartiality, or even an "adversarial" postures towards the president. You want partisans. And guess what? You got it!! And now you are going to get it back. That's how it works. I don't like Trump (although I obviously like more of what he does than others do) but I don't have to pretend that what's happening wasn't avoidable.
So far no one here is arguing with me making the case for fairness, they are making the case why they and their side should be allowed to do what they want and the guy they don't like shouldn't. Like I said last night, having never needed an ounce of humility or understanding before, they are loath to begin now.
|
Neutrality has become a farce because conservatives don't know how anything works, conservative media churns out fake scandals so you can cry "both sides" when Republicans are accused with real evidence, and even when a Democrat and Republican commit the exact same scandal you just ignore it for the latter while crying "see! We were right!" about the former. That about sums it up, yeah.
|
There is literally an oppsies clause, There are so many documents and the classifications levels are so broad, and peoples jobs change. The idea that you need to keep track of everything 100% of the time is unreasonable. thats why we have the agency that goes around and says "hey you have these you need to give it to us" and everyone whos reasonable can say "my bad here they are".
We are arguing the case for fairness. That means compareing different situations and how they resulted. You can't have a guy who golfs a third of his presidency costing the government to spend at his properties and act like hes better than a dude who was offered a ton of cash to lend his last name to a board of directors. One guy is in the white house and the other guy wasn't in the white house. Its fair to assume the people not the president are held to a lower standard than the people who are the president.
You don't even want the argument about fairness, you want to just declare victory that we have to have the conversation in the first place. If you would just wake up and smell the coruption we could have a reasonable conversation about what is fair for elected officals and non elected officals.
|
United States24686 Posts
On August 10 2025 04:35 Introvert wrote:
B) there is no oopsies clause with classified documents. The idea that Biden had them by accident or didn't know was absurd, many of them were from his days in the senate, he wasn't allowed to walk out of the safe room with them.
I realize the conversation is spiraling in multiple directions, and there's no way you could fairly field all discussions at once, but this general topic is close to me and I don't get what your point is here. The primary difference between Biden's classified documents case and Trump's is that team Biden, when the problem was self-identified, cooperated and corrected the issue where classified documents were mishandled. Trump did the opposite. It's 100x worse when that happens. If I accidentally brought classified documents home (which is surprisingly easy to do depending on the nature of your job, contrary to what you're implying), I'd self-report it and, as long as there's not a pattern of gross negligence, get off with an inquiry and a slap on the wrist. If I was caught lying about it or trying to hide it, I'd lose my security clearance and maybe face criminal consequences, depending on the severity. In light of that, what's your real point?
On August 10 2025 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
There is literally an oppsies clause, There are so many documents and the classifications levels are so broad, and peoples jobs change. The idea that you need to keep track of everything 100% of the time is unreasonable. thats why we have the agency that goes around and says "hey you have these you need to give it to us" and everyone whos reasonable can say "my bad here they are".
Yeah, it becomes much harder to maintain perfect accountability of classified and sensitive documents when you have jobs like Senator, VP, President, etc. Even at the working level, as long as you don't have a pattern of accidents that risk spilling classified information, you get off with an inquiry and a slap on the wrist when you violate the rules, such as accidentally taking home classified documents.
|
United States42713 Posts
If I’m following this exchange correctly it opened with Introvert arguing that law enforcement should protect the President from prosecution and cover up any of his crimes and Introvert is now explaining that it’s actually us who wants that because of how strongly we’re objecting to it. The people who say the support it don’t and the people who say it’s wrong support it.
I’m not sure he’s arguing in good faith here guys.
|
On August 10 2025 04:51 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 04:35 Introvert wrote:
B) there is no oopsies clause with classified documents. The idea that Biden had them by accident or didn't know was absurd, many of them were from his days in the senate, he wasn't allowed to walk out of the safe room with them.
I realize the conversation is spiraling in multiple directions, and there's no way you could fairly field all discussions at once, but this general topic is close to me and I don't get what your point is here. The primary difference between Biden's classified documents case and Trump's is that team Biden, when the problem was self-identified, cooperated and corrected the issue where classified documents were mishandled. Trump did the opposite. It's 100x worse when that happens. If I accidentally brought classified documents home (which is surprisingly easy to do depending on the nature of your job, contrary to what you're implying), I'd self-report it and, as long as there's not a pattern of gross negligence, get off with an inquiry and a slap on the wrist. If I was caught lying about it or trying to hide it, I'd lose my security clearance and maybe face criminal consequences, depending on the severity. In light of that, what's your real point?
I always said the docs case was the one that had the most legs. It's hard to believe Biden had stuff, and let his biographer see, without know he shouldn't have had it. I understand that a lot of stuff is classified as a precaution, but it's hard to see how Biden "accidentally" walked off with stuff as a senator. Is it the crime of the century? No.
edit: appears unclear how much of the stuff the biographer saw.
On August 10 2025 04:51 KwarK wrote:
If I’m following this exchange correctly it opened with Introvert arguing that law enforcement should protect the President from prosecution and cover up any of his crimes and Introvert is now explaining that it’s actually us who wants that because of how strongly we’re objecting to it. The people who say the support it don’t and the people who say it’s wrong support it.
I’m not sure he’s arguing in good faith here guys.
We've reached the point where KwarK just starts making stuff up.
|
United States42713 Posts
On August 10 2025 04:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 04:51 KwarK wrote:
If I’m following this exchange correctly it opened with Introvert arguing that law enforcement should protect the President from prosecution and cover up any of his crimes and Introvert is now explaining that it’s actually us who wants that because of how strongly we’re objecting to it. The people who say the support it don’t and the people who say it’s wrong support it.
I’m not sure he’s arguing in good faith here guys. We've reached the point where KwarK just starts making stuff up.
You literally argued that he needed to stack the FBI with loyalists because if he didn't then they might investigate him.
|
KwarK isn't making anything up. That's exactly what you were arguing. You just don't like how bad it sounds when repeated back to you.
|
On August 09 2025 23:35 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 08 2025 22:06 oBlade wrote:On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
Also my uncle is alive because he got an mrna shot to treat his cancer. That is fantastic. I'm glad your uncle is alive. Is it the only treatment he got? Is he the only one that got it? Because obviously the US government can't afford $500 million per life saved, so please expand the anecdote or its significance. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The idea that curing cancer going to profitable to pharma companies is silly. What is this sentence supposed to mean? Are you saying pharma companies are intentionally keeping people sick with cancer to get more money? Or curing cancer would be a loss for them? I don't see how any company that "cured" cancer wouldn't be worth over a trillion dollars overnight. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The misconception that research dollars invested should be diverted to only known technologies and science is very ignorant and not how any of this works. This is a great rebuttal to something I haven't seen argued. It is a mistake to presuppose that the word "research" necessitates any government anything whatsoever. The research isn't banned, is it? If it's so promising, why does it need public dollars? If it's such a long shot, why would it deserve public dollars? Stuck on level 1 if this can't be answered. Nor is mRNA unknown anyway. Billions of doses worldwide. Should we fund it just because it'd be really nice if it worked out? There are thousands of proposed treatments for everything that have fallen by the wayside. Okay? Cost benefit. For example, it'd be really great if the world had a cheap source of nearly unlimited clean energy. It just so happens I'm working on it, it's called cold fusion. Do I deserve $10 billion in taxpayer funds, maybe not. Yeah its the only one he got. Why would you think that he was the only one who would receive the treatment? Do you think that there wouldn't be other lives saved through the advancement of mrna shots? My uncle isn't rich or exceptional, but he was able to get a genetically tailored shot of tuberculosis that killed his cancer cells really well. If the funding didn't go through he would have to get radiation therapty and other worse treatments. Curing cancer through one shot is less profitable than a series of treatments. Yes, it would be less profitable to cure cancer quickly instead of slowly over time. Why would a company be worth trillions of dollars if it only sells a cheap cure to a problem? If the government funds this research instead of a Pharma company that means that the patent can be used for the public good so we can have that cheap cure instead of an expensive series of treatments. You have assumed for some reason that the one company with the competitive advantage of a cancer cure that was probably expensive to research would sell it cheap, and also that the cure is one shot. I have no idea why you have assumed that. Your uncle's targeted therapy was probably not cheap, and it's not mass producible because his cancer and everyone's cancer are different. If a company had a "cure" for cancer, either one-size or individually tailored, they would profit off it. Either could be more expensive than the other, but either way they would drive down the cost of competing alternative treatments. Cancer sees no respite from this by the way as it's mRNA programs for respiratory viruses that are being phased out. Show nested quote +On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Its exactly what you were arguing. If the government doesn't fund a line of R&D that doesn't show profitability, a private company won't pay for it either. It deserves public dollars beacuse it potentially can be something. The greatest innovations and leaps in science come from public funding of things that don't make sense for a private business to fund. Dwarf wheat, or what you think wheat is, only was discovered to be so good beacuse some random guy was testing every kind of wheat he could find to see what would work best. If you have Cargill funding this research, this technology never makes it to India and pakistan, after Dwarf wheat spread to the subcontinent the wars between them stopped. Yes, the government should fund broad simple research that isn't directly investible or translatable as a big project. Dwarf wheat didn't cost half a billion. The point you're making has to face scale differences here. Show nested quote +On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Like yeah, if you can make experiments about cold fusion the government should be putting those billiosn to it, it would make everything a lot better. thats how cold fusion has been developed so far. Mrna vaccines were only created beacuse there was such insane funding given to it by the public. Even in the middle of the plague the government had to fund the research to cure it. Was there not enough of a profit motive for big pharma to fund it before the plague? Would it have been great to have mrna tech before it was needed? If it turned out so well for the covid vaccine why didn't the private sector fund the research into it?
Yes cost benifit, great argument. If there was an agency that could generate 3 dollars for every dollar invested should we fund that? If cold fusion only cost 100 billion we should pay that instantly. You only get to cold fusion though by spending money on thousands of lines of research that lead nowhere. One potential line is by generating the fuel in orbit useing solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere, and then bringing it down to earth. Cold fusion hasn't been developed. It's not going to be developed. It's a complete pseudoscientific scam. "Generating the fuel in orbit using solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere" is something so divorced from reality it makes me feel cruel for having vastly overestimated what I'm dealing with. Solar power is not cold fusion. Solar power is good, which makes it different than cold fusion. Solar panels create electricity, which is different than cold fusion devices, which do not create electricity, but can be measured to create electricity if you plug them into a wall outlet. Solar panels in space are good at powering things - if the things they are powering are also in space. Otherwise spending millions to billions of dollars making solar farms in orbit and beaming shit with lasers is not more efficient than just putting panels on Earth. Every cent on cold fusion is PURE waste. So the government shouldn't be the one wasting. Every cent spent on putting a solar panel in orbit and beaming the electricity can give you electricity, but is nonetheless a waste because money is limited and you can get the electricity by using the same money to put far more solar panels on the ground. mRNA vaccines for covid were something the government and pharma had no choice but to do. It's not ideal at all. Ideal would be the government having funded non-mRNA vaccine programs for SARS/coronaviruses over the previous 2 decades so we would have been at a better starting point when the pandemic broke out. As it is, they made a therapy with nonnegligible side effects that possibly cuts your chance of getting the virus in half for a few months. That's fine. And now we have it. Now we need other things. Show nested quote +On August 09 2025 16:54 Acrofales wrote:
E: and I forgot to connect this back to mRNA research. Do I think public funding is needed for mRNA vaccine research? I don't know. I am not a medical researcher. Nor are you, Sermokala, and most importantly, nor is RFK. Mostly public funding is approved or denied by a panel of established researchers who evaluate the project based on a number of criteria. Some of those criteria are political, but I can't think of any other bans on the use of technology for idealist reasons. The only one that springs to mind was W's ban on stemcell research. And it was criticized by many many people, including myself, at the time. But at least the ethical argument was clear at the time. That argument doesn't even exist in the case of mRNA vaccines. It is a ban based on RFK's personal dislike of the topic. And that is not a reason funding should be cut. You are appealing to an authority on the basis of their imaginarily unassailable integrity as being part of the system. A researcher will always be biased towards research. A rocket scientist will always be biased towards rockets. A bridge builder will always be biased towards bridges. That's fine but there's a limit when spending someone else's money. So who watches the researchers? Oversight? HHS is the system. RFK is the expert. You don't have the luxury of saying you're just a layman, you have the obligation to listen to what a government agency says and then learn actually more about it. Because it's not a "personal dislike" by him it's a determination by multiple people that they are not good enough for public money to continue to pursue when it comes to respiratory viruses. Put it this way, the $500 million covers 22 mRNA vaccine programs for respiratory viruses. Why couldn't we get away with 21 before? Why would 23 be superfluous?
They would have to sell it cheap, because they are not going to be able to stop other countries from just copying the cure and running with it because they ask nicely. People aren't going to just take "well you're too poor for the cancer shot we can make easily for everyone so I guess you just die" well.
It would be one shot. You get a talored shot of a disease that is reprogrammed to train your body to make white blood cells that kill your specific cancer.
It was cheap, hes not a rich person, and it is mass reproducible because the process of getting the specific cancer sequence, then sticking it into a few machines to get the proper shot, to getting it injected is really strightforward. You get a sample of the cancer, you put it into a sequencing machine (that has advanced beacuse of covid to the point where random hospitols can have one on standby) You take that sequence and you reprogram a weakened culture of a disease you keep on standby cheap. Its a medical treatement, It would be like saying you can't mass produce glasses beacuse of how different different eye perscriptions are. Yet zenni has them cheap beacuse the technology has developed.
Again you don't know how MRNA works beacuse the same process that made the covid vaccine that worked so well is the one that made the cancer shots work. Trying to play footsie with what exactly you're cutting research dollars to is meaningless when the money for cancer Mrna research isn't being increased. The Machines and process's to make covid shots is the same as making cancer shots, beacuse its the same technology.
The government literally can't fund simple research. It has to fund the obscure and theoretical in order to create the foundations for everything that comes next. Private companies aren't going to handle the logistics of getting every single strain of a plant, cataloging them, and testing all their properties. Cargill comes at the end where they say "hey this strain is good lets make tons of these". Dwarf wheat didn't cost a half a billion, getting to where they can discover it cost half a billion.
Oil is not gasoline, there are tons of process's and fuels needed to power the transision between oil and all the products that come from it. Solar energy is really cheap to use in space, so you would be able to use the kinds of high energy process's needed to convert materials into other materials to make the energy on earth. Do you know how heavy or how much nuclear fuel goes into an actual nuclear reactor? Spending money researching higher physics and new energy sources is how we got solar panals. This inane idea that any money spent learning new things is a waste is madness. How do you think anything you are useing right now was created? Do you think that private industry made the internet? Do you think the people who invented the smartphone didn't have gigantic ammounts of state funded research that they had to base all their creations off of? How do you think the world works?
The government made a choice, they could have made other choices. We were researching covid/SARS for a while before this, which is why we knew it could be done if we just threw tons of cash. Do you think someone walked into Trumps office and just convicned everyone to throw all that money into a random ass science experiment beacuse they just assumed it was going to work?
You try to trash someone else for appealing to authority when you think the brain worm guy is the expert we should be trusting? The guy who sawed off a fish head, and then tied it to his cars roof? The guy who was going to eat a bear cub before just dumping it in the middle of a park? The guy fired the people who made the decision to go with 500 million and those 22 programs. We were literally listening to them when that was made, now we've got a guy who said no I sure know better and seed oils are bad somehow.
|
props for Introvert for being the trooper and enduring a needling.
the validity of the arguments is another matter entirely, though also not surprising given mainstream talking points which are ranging from kinda stupid to outrageous. and you know, opinions and descriptions on events may differ naturally anyway.
in essence he is leaving his usual bubble to come here and trying to "diversify" the existing one and orthodoxy here.
and (ab)using the open borders of TL and enjoying this sanctuary city, people should be thrilled  )
|
United States42713 Posts
And you argued it in the most absurdly "how are you even writing this without realizing what you're saying" way.
Just hit us with "of course he needs to fill the FBI with his men, it should be obvious to everyone why he needs to do that, if they're not personally loyal to him then they could one day investigate him which would be crazy for him to let happen".
As if we didn't understand why he's doing it, as if our problem was a lack of understanding rather than that it's fucking batshit.
|
On August 10 2025 04:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 04:51 micronesia wrote:On August 10 2025 04:35 Introvert wrote:
B) there is no oopsies clause with classified documents. The idea that Biden had them by accident or didn't know was absurd, many of them were from his days in the senate, he wasn't allowed to walk out of the safe room with them.
I realize the conversation is spiraling in multiple directions, and there's no way you could fairly field all discussions at once, but this general topic is close to me and I don't get what your point is here. The primary difference between Biden's classified documents case and Trump's is that team Biden, when the problem was self-identified, cooperated and corrected the issue where classified documents were mishandled. Trump did the opposite. It's 100x worse when that happens. If I accidentally brought classified documents home (which is surprisingly easy to do depending on the nature of your job, contrary to what you're implying), I'd self-report it and, as long as there's not a pattern of gross negligence, get off with an inquiry and a slap on the wrist. If I was caught lying about it or trying to hide it, I'd lose my security clearance and maybe face criminal consequences, depending on the severity. In light of that, what's your real point? I always said the docs case was the one that had the most legs. It's hard to believe Biden had stuff, and let his biographer see, without know he shouldn't have had it. I understand that a lot of stuff is classified as a precaution, but it's hard to see how Biden "accidentally" walked off with stuff as a senator. Is it the crime of the century? No. edit: appears unclear how much of the stuff the biographer saw.
So the oppsie clause is justified, you don't know for sure what he knew and didn't know he should or shouldn't have, and you don't know what the biographer saw or how classified it was. did the biographer have a security clearance? Did they have the level of security clearance or no or did Joe know or no or did joe think they did but they had a different one and the document they thought was at the level of the biographer but wasn't actualy or the level changed over time?
So instead of trying to figure that out in court every single time we have the oppsie clause and just have people go with the autority we trust to keep track of this.
|
On August 10 2025 05:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 04:56 Introvert wrote:On August 10 2025 04:51 KwarK wrote:
If I’m following this exchange correctly it opened with Introvert arguing that law enforcement should protect the President from prosecution and cover up any of his crimes and Introvert is now explaining that it’s actually us who wants that because of how strongly we’re objecting to it. The people who say the support it don’t and the people who say it’s wrong support it.
I’m not sure he’s arguing in good faith here guys. We've reached the point where KwarK just starts making stuff up. You literally argued that he needed to stack the FBI with loyalists because if he didn't then they might investigate him.
I have been explaining it and bemoaning the circumstances that brought us here e.g.
"I don't like Trump (although I obviously like more of what he does than others do) but I don't have to pretend that what's happening wasn't avoidable."
"This is why having the neutrality of these organizations be undermined by the organizations themselves is so damaging."
Hardly a ringing endorsement.
Edit: the thing is, there will be no fixing it unless the people responsible for it and supporting it change their behavior. As long as you justify the gross double standard applied there will be war over these departments and we are all worse off.
On August 10 2025 05:10 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 04:56 Introvert wrote:On August 10 2025 04:51 micronesia wrote:On August 10 2025 04:35 Introvert wrote:
B) there is no oopsies clause with classified documents. The idea that Biden had them by accident or didn't know was absurd, many of them were from his days in the senate, he wasn't allowed to walk out of the safe room with them.
I realize the conversation is spiraling in multiple directions, and there's no way you could fairly field all discussions at once, but this general topic is close to me and I don't get what your point is here. The primary difference between Biden's classified documents case and Trump's is that team Biden, when the problem was self-identified, cooperated and corrected the issue where classified documents were mishandled. Trump did the opposite. It's 100x worse when that happens. If I accidentally brought classified documents home (which is surprisingly easy to do depending on the nature of your job, contrary to what you're implying), I'd self-report it and, as long as there's not a pattern of gross negligence, get off with an inquiry and a slap on the wrist. If I was caught lying about it or trying to hide it, I'd lose my security clearance and maybe face criminal consequences, depending on the severity. In light of that, what's your real point? I always said the docs case was the one that had the most legs. It's hard to believe Biden had stuff, and let his biographer see, without know he shouldn't have had it. I understand that a lot of stuff is classified as a precaution, but it's hard to see how Biden "accidentally" walked off with stuff as a senator. Is it the crime of the century? No. edit: appears unclear how much of the stuff the biographer saw. So the oppsie clause is justified, you don't know for sure what he knew and didn't know he should or shouldn't have, and you don't know what the biographer saw or how classified it was. did the biographer have a security clearance? Did they have the level of security clearance or no or did Joe know or no or did joe think they did but they had a different one and the document they thought was at the level of the biographer but wasn't actualy or the level changed over time? So instead of trying to figure that out in court every single time we have the oppsie clause and just have people go with the autority we trust to keep track of this.
There is no oopsies clause, instead there's prosecution discretion. It would have been entirely legal to indict Biden at any point after taking the documents either before or after he was president.
|
On August 10 2025 05:31 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 05:01 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2025 04:56 Introvert wrote:On August 10 2025 04:51 KwarK wrote:
If I’m following this exchange correctly it opened with Introvert arguing that law enforcement should protect the President from prosecution and cover up any of his crimes and Introvert is now explaining that it’s actually us who wants that because of how strongly we’re objecting to it. The people who say the support it don’t and the people who say it’s wrong support it.
I’m not sure he’s arguing in good faith here guys. We've reached the point where KwarK just starts making stuff up. You literally argued that he needed to stack the FBI with loyalists because if he didn't then they might investigate him. I have been explaining it and bemoaning the circumstances that brought us here e.g. "I don't like Trump (although I obviously like more of what he does than others do) but I don't have to pretend that what's happening wasn't avoidable." "This is why having the neutrality of these organizations be undermined by the organizations themselves is so damaging." Edit: the thing is, there will be no fixing it unless the people responsible for it and supporting it change their behavior. As long as you justify the gross double standard applied there will be war over these departments and we are all worse off. But again you are incapable of reading what I wrote any other way than what you said above because you are incapable of considering another perspective. Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 05:10 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 04:56 Introvert wrote:On August 10 2025 04:51 micronesia wrote:On August 10 2025 04:35 Introvert wrote:
B) there is no oopsies clause with classified documents. The idea that Biden had them by accident or didn't know was absurd, many of them were from his days in the senate, he wasn't allowed to walk out of the safe room with them.
I realize the conversation is spiraling in multiple directions, and there's no way you could fairly field all discussions at once, but this general topic is close to me and I don't get what your point is here. The primary difference between Biden's classified documents case and Trump's is that team Biden, when the problem was self-identified, cooperated and corrected the issue where classified documents were mishandled. Trump did the opposite. It's 100x worse when that happens. If I accidentally brought classified documents home (which is surprisingly easy to do depending on the nature of your job, contrary to what you're implying), I'd self-report it and, as long as there's not a pattern of gross negligence, get off with an inquiry and a slap on the wrist. If I was caught lying about it or trying to hide it, I'd lose my security clearance and maybe face criminal consequences, depending on the severity. In light of that, what's your real point? I always said the docs case was the one that had the most legs. It's hard to believe Biden had stuff, and let his biographer see, without know he shouldn't have had it. I understand that a lot of stuff is classified as a precaution, but it's hard to see how Biden "accidentally" walked off with stuff as a senator. Is it the crime of the century? No. edit: appears unclear how much of the stuff the biographer saw. So the oppsie clause is justified, you don't know for sure what he knew and didn't know he should or shouldn't have, and you don't know what the biographer saw or how classified it was. did the biographer have a security clearance? Did they have the level of security clearance or no or did Joe know or no or did joe think they did but they had a different one and the document they thought was at the level of the biographer but wasn't actualy or the level changed over time? So instead of trying to figure that out in court every single time we have the oppsie clause and just have people go with the autority we trust to keep track of this. There is no oopsies clause, instead there's prosecution discretion. It would have been entirely legal to indict Biden at any point after taking the documents either before or after he was president.
It would have been legal yes, but malpractice due to the inherent very reasonable issues with prosecuting it that would have gotten them disbarred. Instead they created a mechanism to seperate the good actors and bad actors. that process was what Biden followed and Trump didn't.
It seperates the people who "legitmatly" made an oppsie with the ones who willfully are making the oppsie by created a legal standard and marker for when the person would be responsible for knowing if they made a mistake or no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
