|
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 April 10 2018 02:12 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 01:33 Plansix wrote:
If you are going to make arguments, make them yourself. Don’t complain when the lazy argument you made is undercut by pointing out the source is a conspiracy theorist with no credibility. It's a concise argument backed by proof. The person who posted the verifiable information is irrelevant, and your unwillingness to engage the argument is what is lazy here. If I posted the EXACT same clips from cspan or other sources you deemed credible, I wonder how you would have gone about dodging the argument. I'll make the argument myself if you insist, even though it is entirely unnecessary. Democrats have said that Trump's ideas on illegal immigration and a wall are stupid and cruel, yet they argued for the same things a few years ago. What changed since they made those statements? Why are those ideas bad ideas? Did everyone here consider them bad ideas when Obama, Hillary, and Schumer said them?
The libs aren't going to be honest about this but I will.
Democrats put a pence like politeness in front of their shitty policy. That's how you have P6 saying libs don't like hyper aggressive deportations, but wanted Hillary to carry on Obama's legacy, which included being the "deporter in chief" and deporting more people than than Bush or Trump.
Hillary a long time fan of a "barrier" instead of a wall, but effectively what congress would have had bipartisan support for and is essentially the logistically sane version of what Trump wants.
What changed is that Trump doesn't jump through the "what I'm doing totally isn't f**ked up, I'm phrasing it in a positive way" hoops that politicians typically do.
Yes, I considered them bad ideas then too.
|
I specifically asked for him to articulate the difference immigration stances within the Democratic party. There are a whole bunch of them. If he wanted to discuss Obama’s policies, from DACA to the deportations, we can do that. But unlike you GH, he was not specific about which policies he objected or approved of. He didn’t really seem to have a stance on any subject besides not really approving of any form of insurance.
|
On April 10 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:
I specifically asked for him to articulate the difference immigration stances within the Democratic party. There are a whole bunch of them. If he wanted to discuss Obama’s policies, from DACA to the deportations, we can do that. But unlike you GH, he was not specific about which policies he objected or approved of. He didn’t really seem to have a stance on any subject besides not really approving of any form of insurance.
I understand what he was arguing and even if he was being less than perfectly articulate about it, I'd rather focus on the substance of the critique (even if he did a poor job of presenting it) than try to undermine and dismiss it by attacking the presentation.
I understand for those that don't want to engage with the underlying substance, critiquing the presentation is the preferred path as I noted.
|
On April 10 2018 04:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:
I specifically asked for him to articulate the difference immigration stances within the Democratic party. There are a whole bunch of them. If he wanted to discuss Obama’s policies, from DACA to the deportations, we can do that. But unlike you GH, he was not specific about which policies he objected or approved of. He didn’t really seem to have a stance on any subject besides not really approving of any form of insurance. I understand what he was arguing and even if he was being less than perfectly articulate about it, I'd rather focus on the substance of the critique (even if he did a poor job of presenting it) than try to undermine and dismiss it by attacking the presentation. I understand for those that don't want to engage with the underlying substance, critiquing the presentation is the preferred path as I noted.
Again, I have no problem with discussing arguments that people put some level of effort into. But he posted a Youtube video as his argument, rather than express his own thoughts.
|
On April 10 2018 04:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:
I specifically asked for him to articulate the difference immigration stances within the Democratic party. There are a whole bunch of them. If he wanted to discuss Obama’s policies, from DACA to the deportations, we can do that. But unlike you GH, he was not specific about which policies he objected or approved of. He didn’t really seem to have a stance on any subject besides not really approving of any form of insurance. I understand what he was arguing and even if he was being less than perfectly articulate about it, I'd rather focus on the substance of the critique (even if he did a poor job of presenting it) than try to undermine and dismiss it by attacking the presentation. I understand for those that don't want to engage with the underlying substance, critiquing the presentation is the preferred path as I noted.
Not actually giving any specific substance is not a critique on presentation.
You can;t address underlying substance the other person isn't willing to bring to the table. Particularly when someone's track record is basically a conspiracy-theory-esque video, it's not worth arguing particulars they don't know about.
|
I get his argument was crap, that's easy, low-hanging fruit. But I guess I'm just clairvoyant or something because his point was pretty clear to me (even if he gets there in a poor way).
So fine, take the easy points, but then go ahead and engage with the underlying argument. Which conceding for the moment wasn't presented acceptably, it's here now. Let's not bicker about what got us to a discussion worth having.
|
Interesting to see that the FBI is involved in the stormy Daniels deal. This is certainly something that Michael Cohen deserved, though.
Interestingly, Trump claims he did not know about a contract that allegedly bears his signature.
|
holy shit.
I know I have thought to myself "this is huge" before, but this is really huge. This is in a post-purge FBI, right? This is encouraging and shows that FBI is resilient in the face of partisan bullshit. Stay strong, FBI!
|
On April 10 2018 05:06 Mohdoo wrote:holy shit. I know I have thought to myself "this is huge" before, but this is really huge. This is in a post-purge FBI, right? This is encouraging and shows that FBI is resilient in the face of partisan bullshit. Stay strong, FBI!
*pukes in mouth a little*
You guys see how similar this particular aspect is to the whole Monica thing right?
|
On April 10 2018 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:06 Mohdoo wrote:holy shit. I know I have thought to myself "this is huge" before, but this is really huge. This is in a post-purge FBI, right? This is encouraging and shows that FBI is resilient in the face of partisan bullshit. Stay strong, FBI! *pukes in mouth a little* You guys see how similar this particular aspect is to the whole Monica thing right?
Can you open up a bit more on this? I personally think its different, it's a paid sex act vs mutual encounter republicans decided to blow up. As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky never tried to bring charges to Bill after.
|
On April 10 2018 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:06 Mohdoo wrote:holy shit. I know I have thought to myself "this is huge" before, but this is really huge. This is in a post-purge FBI, right? This is encouraging and shows that FBI is resilient in the face of partisan bullshit. Stay strong, FBI! *pukes in mouth a little* You guys see how similar this particular aspect is to the whole Monica thing right?
I fully support the whole Monica thing too. Anything and everything that can possibly happen to intrude on the lives of elected officials is a strong yes from me. I want them to be under as many microscopes as possible for every possible component of their lives. Accountability rarely exists without fear. I want elected officials to fear the FBI.
Edit: As I have said before, I would strongly support any effort to make Mueller's office a permanent component of our government. Even without prompt or reason, I would like the FBI to routinely be auditing as many aspects of the executive branch as possible.
Hell, add more offices for congress and senate too. I am a strong believer in the idea that public service means sacrificing privacy.
|
I wish I knew more about legal procedures. I was under the impression that any communications between a lawyer and client was considered confidential, what circumstances have to exist for the FBI to be allowed to retrieve them?
|
On April 10 2018 05:16 plasmidghost wrote:I wish I knew more about legal procedures. I was under the impression that any communications between a lawyer and client was considered confidential, what circumstances have to exist for the FBI to be allowed to retrieve them?
My understanding is that if the FBI has evidence the attorney is doing something illegal, they are allowed to toss that shit out the window.
|
On April 10 2018 05:16 plasmidghost wrote:I wish I knew more about legal procedures. I was under the impression that any communications between a lawyer and client was considered confidential, what circumstances have to exist for the FBI to be allowed to retrieve them?
When they have probable cause. I know a lawyer that works in the same office with my wife (not same firm), straight up hit and run a girl, left her for dead, and tried to cover up his tracks.
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Attorney-Arrested-in-December-Fatal-Miami-Lakes-Hit-and-Run-478116783.html
He literally walked around free for 3 months before the police had enough to come into the office and seize everything.
|
Attorney misconduct is one of the ways to dissolve the attorney-client privilege, but the bar for establishing that misconduct outside reference to the privileged materials is fairly high.
|
I thought President Dennison didn't actually sign the NDA? It was one of the arguments for why it is a voided agreement iirc.
Still, 'David' denying knowledge seems bad for Cohen since he made a payment regarding a case which could lead to litigation without his client's knowledge.
The question is if he is willing to go down for DD.
|
On April 10 2018 05:13 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:06 Mohdoo wrote:holy shit. I know I have thought to myself "this is huge" before, but this is really huge. This is in a post-purge FBI, right? This is encouraging and shows that FBI is resilient in the face of partisan bullshit. Stay strong, FBI! *pukes in mouth a little* You guys see how similar this particular aspect is to the whole Monica thing right? Can you open up a bit more on this? I personally think its different, it's a paid sex act vs mutual encounter republicans decided to blow up. As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky never tried to bring charges to Bill after.
It's trying to undermine his presidency for something unrelated to his presidency and comes off as petty and a terrible work around.
Moodoh's elaboration reinforces this. He sees the FBI investigating congress as a good thing, like they aren't collaborators and the FBI isn't known to commit heinous crimes against US citizens without consequence.
It's both nauseating and scary.
|
Cool, thanks for the replies. One more question, is (in this case) the FBI only allowed to get documents relating to specific cases (like just Stormy Daniels) or can they get whatever communications they believe had misconduct?
|
On April 10 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:13 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 10 2018 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:06 Mohdoo wrote:holy shit. I know I have thought to myself "this is huge" before, but this is really huge. This is in a post-purge FBI, right? This is encouraging and shows that FBI is resilient in the face of partisan bullshit. Stay strong, FBI! *pukes in mouth a little* You guys see how similar this particular aspect is to the whole Monica thing right? Can you open up a bit more on this? I personally think its different, it's a paid sex act vs mutual encounter republicans decided to blow up. As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky never tried to bring charges to Bill after. It's trying to undermine his presidency for something unrelated to his presidency and comes off as petty and a terrible work around. Moodoh's elaboration reinforces this. He sees the FBI investigating congress as a good thing, like they aren't collaborators and the FBI isn't known to commit heinous crimes against US citizens without consequence. It's both nauseating and scary.
I don't see any other functional mechanism for accountability and oversight. Nothing else works. Until I see something else that works, I am comfortable with things going beyond what is reasonable. I consider politician accountability and oversight a top, top priority and even if it is done for partisan reasons, so long as bad stuff is uncovered, it was justified. Kinda like Clinton's email server. The Benghazi investigation was a good thing for the wrong reasons. Without the investigation, the whole private server thing wouldn't have ever been uncovered.
|
On April 10 2018 05:30 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:13 ShoCkeyy wrote:On April 10 2018 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:06 Mohdoo wrote:holy shit. I know I have thought to myself "this is huge" before, but this is really huge. This is in a post-purge FBI, right? This is encouraging and shows that FBI is resilient in the face of partisan bullshit. Stay strong, FBI! *pukes in mouth a little* You guys see how similar this particular aspect is to the whole Monica thing right? Can you open up a bit more on this? I personally think its different, it's a paid sex act vs mutual encounter republicans decided to blow up. As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky never tried to bring charges to Bill after. It's trying to undermine his presidency for something unrelated to his presidency and comes off as petty and a terrible work around. Moodoh's elaboration reinforces this. He sees the FBI investigating congress as a good thing, like they aren't collaborators and the FBI isn't known to commit heinous crimes against US citizens without consequence. It's both nauseating and scary. I don't see any other functional mechanism for accountability and oversight. Nothing else works. Until I see something else that works, I am comfortable with things going beyond what is reasonable. I consider politician accountability and oversight a top, top priority and even if it is done for partisan reasons, so long as bad stuff is uncovered, it was justified. Kinda like Clinton's email server. The Benghazi investigation was a good thing for the wrong reasons. Without the investigation, the whole private server thing wouldn't have ever been uncovered.
Empowering the FBI to blackmail congress is working backwards, not forwards on the accountability track. I'm at a loss for how you even get to this kind of thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
