Log in:  

Register

U.S. Politics

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Re: Re:

20 Mar 2017 21:06

ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Dan2016 wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
aphronesis wrote:Not sure why you need to fall on " you guys". It undercuts anything you may have said.More on point: your suggestion that economic doesn't hit juridical has zero basis. Zero.


I disagree completely. It isn't that economics plays no role in their constitutional philosophy, it's that it is merely a component of an overall constitutional philosophy on their role in shaping our country. If you read their writings, any of their writings, you will see a dedication to ethics that exists nowhere else in our government. That is the part that I don't think "you guys" are either heeding or giving any credence. You're all wrong. Period. They are not the politician who takes special interest money in order to further their career, and then mold their actual policies to facilitate continued access to that capital. They have no need for that, and that is the distinction I am making, and there is zero basis to believe otherwise. Zero. When I refer to "politically motivation," I am referring to the compromised ethic that substitutes genuine economic, social, or protective philosophy for graft and continuing the power of the position they hold.


It's interesting reading this debate. I've not followed it in full so my apologies in advance if I'm jumping in out of context. The bolded in your post above suggests you don't make the category distinction between a person's writing and their personal beliefs and actions. That can be problematic, though I fully acknowledge I may be misunderstanding your point. In the context of the judiciary, money, politics etc., I thought these articles were interesting and hopefully relevant, simply as a contribution to the discussion (I don't feel I know enough about this topic to have a strong personal opinion):

But others see the Blankenship controversy as a proverbial canary in the coal mine for what top judicial scholars – including Justice O'Connor -- are now calling an alarming political trend. The amount of money flowing into these contests, O'Connor told a group of Georgetown Law students last month, has become "a threat to judicial independence."

"If both sides unleash their campaign spending without restrictions," O'Connor said, it will "erode the impartiality of the judiciary."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/study-shows-money-flooding-campaigns-state-judgeships/story?id=10120048

and:
A study of rulings in 276,000 cases in Washington state by Carlos Berdejo of Loyola Law School and Noam Yuchtman of the University of California, Berkeley found that judges gave criminals sentences that were 10% longer when they were about to face re-election. Another study by the left-leaning Centre for American Progress found that races that cost over $3m led to more rulings favouring the prosecution. At a time when many states are concluding that harsh justice is expensive and counter-productive, elected judges may prove an obstacle to reform.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21613276-theyre-not-politicians-so-they-shouldnt-act-them-trouble-electing-judges


Slightly at a tangent, there was something you wrote previously that I found interesting, along the lines of, and forgive the paraphrasing, '''I am very protective of our judiciary because in every way they are the great hope for our democracy''. With respect, it could be fairly argued that this is a naive belief. Though I would add, in fairness, what does ''great hope for our democracy'' really mean? It's a nebulous phrase. Do you believe that the judiciary exists as a system of pure ethics, an entirely beneficent force? (that's not a loaded question, it's genuine, it just piqued my curiosity).

One last comment, and I hope it doesn't appear adversarial, it's just a polite suggestion to 'file away', so to speak; you wrote something previously along the lines of ''I actually work in the courts and you don't...you don't know what you're talking about''. This is an 'argument from authority' fallacy. It doesn't strengthen your argument. Neither does ''You're all wrong. Period''. In fact there's an old adage along the lines of ''whenever an argument from authority is trotted out the debate is lost''. An authority on a subject is required to present a credible argument like everyone else.

Take my post as a 'just popping my head in'. Hopefully a contribution in some way. It's not intended to support one side or the other or add to any 'fussin and fightin'.


You missed my point completely. I did not make a statement that covered any of the judges in the articles you posted. I also do not believe in electing judges. The articles you posted do advance that argument. Supreme Court Justices are not elected, and I confined my arguments almost exclusively toward them. Please read more carefully the arguments I posit if we are going to engage in a discussion, because I cannot debate points I didn't make.


My apologies. The error inherent in quick scan readings of posts. There have been exchanges on the topic of judges as well as justices and I missed the point you were making. Thanks for putting me straight and not just ignoring (which would've been justified). My questioning of your contention that they have a dedication to ethics that exist nowhere else in government still stands and was relevant, but was lost I think in my other irrelevancies.

Anyway, I'm interested in your definition of 'politically motivated', as used in the pejorative in the context of this discussion. It appears to be quite a narrow definition, though I obviously appreciate quick forum posts don't necessarily reflect your complete argument, nuances and so forth. But tying it to economic influence does seem narrow, and debatable both in definition and in practice. On a psychological basis I instinctively question your argument, in the context of the psychology and machinations of people in positions of power, the unconsciously biased, partial beliefs and actions, but I know my instinct is objectively meaningless, so I don't have a 'dog in the fight', I'm just interested. I think the article below is more relevant than my previous. It's a summary of a much more in depth piece, link embedded, which is a very interesting read, for me at least. It's not necessarily a rebuttal to anything you're saying (though it may be) it's just a point of discussion around supreme court political motivation and ethics. I'm more interested in understanding your argument than trying to disprove it:

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2014/05/tracking-supreme-court-justices-rulings-principles-law-or-politics


Tom Edsall used his blog at The New York Times early this week to return to what he called the “80-year-old debate between those who contend that the Supreme Court decides cases on the basis of abstract principles of law and those who argue that judicial rulings are based primarily on political and economic considerations.”

It’s a long substantive piece in which Edsall aggregates a number of recent scholarly takes on that issue, so don’t attempt it unless you care about that issue. Edsall doesn’t enunciate a big ultimate finding of his own, but it’s obvious that Edsall — who leans left but is relentlessly substantive — and the scholarly community have concluded that — on the biggest, most important, most controversial cases — most of the justices are ruling along ideological-bordering-on-partisan lines. Suffice to say, the headline on the piece is “Supreme Injustice.”

Stone found that many justices break ranks with their usual bloc on many cases, but almost never on the biggest, most important cases.

Of course, the fact that they tended to vote by familiar blocs doesn’t necessarily reflect bias. It could be that by their judicial philosophy liberal and conservative justices tend to look at things differently. So Stone tested that idea by examining the rationale cited by the two blocs to see whether they sort neatly into those in which the liberals engaged in “judicial activism — overturning precedent or ruling congressional actions unconstitutional (commonly associated with liberalism)” — and those in which conservatives engaged in “judicial restraint (commonly associated with conservatism).”

Stone is just one scholar. And his method surely leaves some room for his own beliefs to express themselves. But in the big conclusion of his study, Stone ruled that while the liberals do seem to be voting their philosophy, the conservatives are voting for their personal policy preferences, which tend to favor the wealthy. The pattern of their decisions cannot, he argued, be explained by either of the two major intellectual themes of conservative legal thinking, judicial restraint and originalism.
Dan2016
Junior Member
 
Posts: 285
Joined: 21 Jul 2016 15:36

20 Mar 2017 23:03

I remember back when every Republican candidate was crowing about how being under FBI investigation should disqualify someone from being President. An entirely understandable point of view.

Funny how it changed.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/28/rnc-fbi-re-opening-clinton-investigation-disqualifying/

You have to be a special kind of idiot to swallow what these clowns are selling.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,370
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re:

21 Mar 2017 00:29

red_flanders wrote:I remember back when every Republican candidate was crowing about how being under FBI investigation should disqualify someone from being President. An entirely understandable point of view.

Funny how it changed.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/28/rnc-fbi-re-opening-clinton-investigation-disqualifying/

You have to be a special kind of idiot to swallow what these clowns are selling.

just woke up. but you are an idiot.
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,122
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re: U.S. Politics

21 Mar 2017 00:36

Bustedknuckle wrote:Director of FBI and NSA both just testified that don is FOS, about wire tape. Shocking.
trump is a liar and this session shows that. Can't wait for adolf's twitter tantrum.

lets go dig up SF86's? I doubt you had a submission but if you did I would put mine against yours all day long because you are a (should not have called you that.)
Last edited by Semper Fidelis on 21 Mar 2017 16:54, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,122
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re: Re:

21 Mar 2017 00:38

ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
aphronesis wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:Anytime. I think. Although other than slamming me you didn't really have a point.

Dershowitz as well as many others have a problem when legislating from the bench occurs even when it produces an outcome he prefers. There's a term for that.


When you filter what Republican "constitutional scholars" consider this to be, AND you filter it through Marbury v. Madison,..well, pretty much every decision by the Court is "legislating from the bench."...or it isn't. I go with the latter, but you experts seem to disagree...not every position is equally correct...


I thought you said judges weren't political?


I did/am...though I will admit that sentiment is a little more compromised at the lower federal levels. SCOTUS, not, Scott started this by sullying one Supreme Court Justice, and then another, both of whom just happen to have a more liberal constitutional interpretation. I don't find them political, nor do I find Roberts, Alito, or even Thomas (though his wife is a freaking hack) political in their interpretations either. They hold a more conservative constitutional philosophy, but I don't find them to be political in nature as it relates to rulings. There is a difference, that being that truly political views are economically motivated over and above any philosophical position. That is the province of congress and the executive, but not justices of the Supreme Court, nor most of the judges sitting on the federal bench.

But you guys can decry every facet of our constitutional system of you want. It is particularly important for people like Scott to do so.

Political football?
Last edited by Semper Fidelis on 21 Mar 2017 16:53, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,122
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re: Re:

21 Mar 2017 00:39

Dan2016 wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Dan2016 wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
aphronesis wrote:Not sure why you need to fall on " you guys". It undercuts anything you may have said.More on point: your suggestion that economic doesn't hit juridical has zero basis. Zero.


I disagree completely. It isn't that economics plays no role in their constitutional philosophy, it's that it is merely a component of an overall constitutional philosophy on their role in shaping our country. If you read their writings, any of their writings, you will see a dedication to ethics that exists nowhere else in our government. That is the part that I don't think "you guys" are either heeding or giving any credence. You're all wrong. Period. They are not the politician who takes special interest money in order to further their career, and then mold their actual policies to facilitate continued access to that capital. They have no need for that, and that is the distinction I am making, and there is zero basis to believe otherwise. Zero. When I refer to "politically motivation," I am referring to the compromised ethic that substitutes genuine economic, social, or protective philosophy for graft and continuing the power of the position they hold.


It's interesting reading this debate. I've not followed it in full so my apologies in advance if I'm jumping in out of context. The bolded in your post above suggests you don't make the category distinction between a person's writing and their personal beliefs and actions. That can be problematic, though I fully acknowledge I may be misunderstanding your point. In the context of the judiciary, money, politics etc., I thought these articles were interesting and hopefully relevant, simply as a contribution to the discussion (I don't feel I know enough about this topic to have a strong personal opinion):

But others see the Blankenship controversy as a proverbial canary in the coal mine for what top judicial scholars – including Justice O'Connor -- are now calling an alarming political trend. The amount of money flowing into these contests, O'Connor told a group of Georgetown Law students last month, has become "a threat to judicial independence."

"If both sides unleash their campaign spending without restrictions," O'Connor said, it will "erode the impartiality of the judiciary."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/study-shows-money-flooding-campaigns-state-judgeships/story?id=10120048

and:
A study of rulings in 276,000 cases in Washington state by Carlos Berdejo of Loyola Law School and Noam Yuchtman of the University of California, Berkeley found that judges gave criminals sentences that were 10% longer when they were about to face re-election. Another study by the left-leaning Centre for American Progress found that races that cost over $3m led to more rulings favouring the prosecution. At a time when many states are concluding that harsh justice is expensive and counter-productive, elected judges may prove an obstacle to reform.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21613276-theyre-not-politicians-so-they-shouldnt-act-them-trouble-electing-judges


Slightly at a tangent, there was something you wrote previously that I found interesting, along the lines of, and forgive the paraphrasing, '''I am very protective of our judiciary because in every way they are the great hope for our democracy''. With respect, it could be fairly argued that this is a naive belief. Though I would add, in fairness, what does ''great hope for our democracy'' really mean? It's a nebulous phrase. Do you believe that the judiciary exists as a system of pure ethics, an entirely beneficent force? (that's not a loaded question, it's genuine, it just piqued my curiosity).

One last comment, and I hope it doesn't appear adversarial, it's just a polite suggestion to 'file away', so to speak; you wrote something previously along the lines of ''I actually work in the courts and you don't...you don't know what you're talking about''. This is an 'argument from authority' fallacy. It doesn't strengthen your argument. Neither does ''You're all wrong. Period''. In fact there's an old adage along the lines of ''whenever an argument from authority is trotted out the debate is lost''. An authority on a subject is required to present a credible argument like everyone else.

Take my post as a 'just popping my head in'. Hopefully a contribution in some way. It's not intended to support one side or the other or add to any 'fussin and fightin'.


You missed my point completely. I did not make a statement that covered any of the judges in the articles you posted. I also do not believe in electing judges. The articles you posted do advance that argument. Supreme Court Justices are not elected, and I confined my arguments almost exclusively toward them. Please read more carefully the arguments I posit if we are going to engage in a discussion, because I cannot debate points I didn't make.


My apologies. The error inherent in quick scan readings of posts. There have been exchanges on the topic of judges as well as justices and I missed the point you were making. Thanks for putting me straight and not just ignoring (which would've been justified). My questioning of your contention that they have a dedication to ethics that exist nowhere else in government still stands and was relevant, but was lost I think in my other irrelevancies.

Anyway, I'm interested in your definition of 'politically motivated', as used in the pejorative in the context of this discussion. It appears to be quite a narrow definition, though I obviously appreciate quick forum posts don't necessarily reflect your complete argument, nuances and so forth. But tying it to economic influence does seem narrow, and debatable both in definition and in practice. On a psychological basis I instinctively question your argument, in the context of the psychology and machinations of people in positions of power, the unconsciously biased, partial beliefs and actions, but I know my instinct is objectively meaningless, so I don't have a 'dog in the fight', I'm just interested. I think the article below is more relevant than my previous. It's a summary of a much more in depth piece, link embedded, which is a very interesting read, for me at least. It's not necessarily a rebuttal to anything you're saying (though it may be) it's just a point of discussion around supreme court political motivation and ethics. I'm more interested in understanding your argument than trying to disprove it:

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2014/05/tracking-supreme-court-justices-rulings-principles-law-or-politics


Tom Edsall used his blog at The New York Times early this week to return to what he called the “80-year-old debate between those who contend that the Supreme Court decides cases on the basis of abstract principles of law and those who argue that judicial rulings are based primarily on political and economic considerations.”

It’s a long substantive piece in which Edsall aggregates a number of recent scholarly takes on that issue, so don’t attempt it unless you care about that issue. Edsall doesn’t enunciate a big ultimate finding of his own, but it’s obvious that Edsall — who leans left but is relentlessly substantive — and the scholarly community have concluded that — on the biggest, most important, most controversial cases — most of the justices are ruling along ideological-bordering-on-partisan lines. Suffice to say, the headline on the piece is “Supreme Injustice.”

Stone found that many justices break ranks with their usual bloc on many cases, but almost never on the biggest, most important cases.

Of course, the fact that they tended to vote by familiar blocs doesn’t necessarily reflect bias. It could be that by their judicial philosophy liberal and conservative justices tend to look at things differently. So Stone tested that idea by examining the rationale cited by the two blocs to see whether they sort neatly into those in which the liberals engaged in “judicial activism — overturning precedent or ruling congressional actions unconstitutional (commonly associated with liberalism)” — and those in which conservatives engaged in “judicial restraint (commonly associated with conservatism).”

Stone is just one scholar. And his method surely leaves some room for his own beliefs to express themselves. But in the big conclusion of his study, Stone ruled that while the liberals do seem to be voting their philosophy, the conservatives are voting for their personal policy preferences, which tend to favor the wealthy. The pattern of their decisions cannot, he argued, be explained by either of the two major intellectual themes of conservative legal thinking, judicial restraint and originalism.

In your own words? ???? stuff
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,122
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re: Re:

21 Mar 2017 00:47

Semper Fidelis wrote:
red_flanders wrote:I remember back when every Republican candidate was crowing about how being under FBI investigation should disqualify someone from being President. An entirely understandable point of view.

Funny how it changed.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/28/rnc-fbi-re-opening-clinton-investigation-disqualifying/

You have to be a special kind of idiot to swallow what these clowns are selling.

just woke up. but you are an idiot.


Good post. Convincing.

Meanwhile the Trump campaign continues to be under and FBI investigation into collusion with or being manipulated by (as the intelligence services already have stated) a hostile foreign government. One would think that would be of major concern. One might actually find that shocking.


Perfectly on point:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/03/why-what-about-ism?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/whythewhataboutismjamescomeysaysthefbiisinvestigatingpossiblelinksbetweentrumpandrussia

Mr Rooney and Mr Gowdy are not Russian propagandists, so why all the what-about-ism? The line of questioning only makes sense in a world where the most important topic of the moment is not what the precise relationship was between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but the treasonous attacks on Donald Trump from within the deep state, a world where no matter what the question, the answer is always criminal behaviour by President Obama and his cronies. It would be comforting to think this was born of the ordinary variety of political cynicism, or of a desire to please the president. The more frightening conclusion, which remains a real possibility, is that they actually believe it. On this evidence America doesn’t need any foreign interference to subvert its democracy. It is perfectly capable of doing that alone.


Not to worry, they don't believe it for a second. I find the former much more frightening, that they're willing to sell out the country to save the nutjob in the White House. Funny how the law and order types don't like the law (FBI) so much when it's digging in their front yard. Then it's all "Deep State" boogeymen. Except it's not. It's people possibly doing their job.

Unlike the Republican congress.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,370
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

21 Mar 2017 00:57

red_flanders wrote:
Semper Fidelis wrote:
red_flanders wrote:I remember back when every Republican candidate was crowing about how being under FBI investigation should disqualify someone from being President. An entirely understandable point of view.

Funny how it changed.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/28/rnc-fbi-re-opening-clinton-investigation-disqualifying/

You have to be a special kind of idiot to swallow what these clowns are selling.

just woke up. but you are an idiot.


Good post. Convincing.

Meanwhile the Trump campaign continues to be under and FBI investigation into collusion with or being manipulated by (as the intelligence services already have stated) a hostile foreign government. One would think that would be of major concern. One might actually find that shocking.


Perfectly on point:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/03/why-what-about-ism?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/whythewhataboutismjamescomeysaysthefbiisinvestigatingpossiblelinksbetweentrumpandrussia

Mr Rooney and Mr Gowdy are not Russian propagandists, so why all the what-about-ism? The line of questioning only makes sense in a world where the most important topic of the moment is not what the precise relationship was between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but the treasonous attacks on Donald Trump from within the deep state, a world where no matter what the question, the answer is always criminal behaviour by President Obama and his cronies. It would be comforting to think this was born of the ordinary variety of political cynicism, or of a desire to please the president. The more frightening conclusion, which remains a real possibility, is that they actually believe it. On this evidence America doesn’t need any foreign interference to subvert its democracy. It is perfectly capable of doing that alone.


Not to worry, they don't believe it for a second. I find the former much more frightening, that they're willing to sell out the country to save the nutjob in the White House. Funny how the law and order types don't like the law (FBI) so much when it's digging in their front yard. Then it's all "Deep State" boogeymen. Except it's not. It's people possibly doing their job.

Unlike the Republican congress.

In your own words really.
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,122
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

21 Mar 2017 00:58

hey if you like your doctor you can keep him. or errrr.

all hail the muslim and american unification errr immmm. nobel peace and all. F U.
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,122
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re: Re:

21 Mar 2017 00:59

red_flanders wrote:
Semper Fidelis wrote:
red_flanders wrote:I remember back when every Republican candidate was crowing about how being under FBI investigation should disqualify someone from being President. An entirely understandable point of view.

Funny how it changed.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/28/rnc-fbi-re-opening-clinton-investigation-disqualifying/

You have to be a special kind of idiot to swallow what these clowns are selling.

just woke up. but you are an idiot.


Good post. Convincing.
call back to your mod team friends like or much like the wonder twins.
Meanwhile the Trump campaign continues to be under and FBI investigation into collusion with or being manipulated by (as the intelligence services already have stated) a hostile foreign government. One would think that would be of major concern. One might actually find that shocking.


Perfectly on point:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/03/why-what-about-ism?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/whythewhataboutismjamescomeysaysthefbiisinvestigatingpossiblelinksbetweentrumpandrussia

Mr Rooney and Mr Gowdy are not Russian propagandists, so why all the what-about-ism? The line of questioning only makes sense in a world where the most important topic of the moment is not what the precise relationship was between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but the treasonous attacks on Donald Trump from within the deep state, a world where no matter what the question, the answer is always criminal behaviour by President Obama and his cronies. It would be comforting to think this was born of the ordinary variety of political cynicism, or of a desire to please the president. The more frightening conclusion, which remains a real possibility, is that they actually believe it. On this evidence America doesn’t need any foreign interference to subvert its democracy. It is perfectly capable of doing that alone.


Not to worry, they don't believe it for a second. I find the former much more frightening, that they're willing to sell out the country to save the nutjob in the White House. Funny how the law and order types don't like the law (FBI) so much when it's digging in their front yard. Then it's all "Deep State" boogeymen. Except it's not. It's people possibly doing their job.

Unlike the Republican congress.
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,122
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

21 Mar 2017 01:06

since we have been attacked by Russia. We should declare war now! right now. because obviously this hacking is an act of war. lets. go
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,122
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re: U.S. Politics

21 Mar 2017 01:14

A special prosecutor with subpoena powers will suffice. Maybe we can let him or her run around for 5 years or so until they find something important. Like lying about a hummer. Or treason. Whichever.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,370
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

21 Mar 2017 01:26

red_flanders wrote:
Semper Fidelis wrote:
red_flanders wrote:I remember back when every Republican candidate was crowing about how being under FBI investigation should disqualify someone from being President. An entirely understandable point of view.

Funny how it changed.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/28/rnc-fbi-re-opening-clinton-investigation-disqualifying/

You have to be a special kind of idiot to swallow what these clowns are selling.

just woke up. but you are an idiot.


Good post. Convincing.

Meanwhile the Trump campaign continues to be under and FBI investigation into collusion with or being manipulated by (as the intelligence services already have stated) a hostile foreign government. One would think that would be of major concern. One might actually find that shocking.


Perfectly on point:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/03/why-what-about-ism?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/whythewhataboutismjamescomeysaysthefbiisinvestigatingpossiblelinksbetweentrumpandrussia

Mr Rooney and Mr Gowdy are not Russian propagandists, so why all the what-about-ism? The line of questioning only makes sense in a world where the most important topic of the moment is not what the precise relationship was between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but the treasonous attacks on Donald Trump from within the deep state, a world where no matter what the question, the answer is always criminal behaviour by President Obama and his cronies. It would be comforting to think this was born of the ordinary variety of political cynicism, or of a desire to please the president. The more frightening conclusion, which remains a real possibility, is that they actually believe it. On this evidence America doesn’t need any foreign interference to subvert its democracy. It is perfectly capable of doing that alone.


Not to worry, they don't believe it for a second. I find the former much more frightening, that they're willing to sell out the country to save the nutjob in the White House. Funny how the law and order types don't like the law (FBI) so much when it's digging in their front yard. Then it's all "Deep State" boogeymen. Except it's not. It's people possibly doing their job.

Unlike the Republican congress.



So what do we now know? The leaks involving Flynn were criminal. The leaks involving Trump's phone conversations with foreign leaders were criminal. The leaks divulging classified info were criminal. Those actually happened.

The investigation into Russian meddling are ongoing, have been for 8 months and as recently as last week have produced exactly nothing wrt Trump campaign colluding with the Russians, which is only part of the inquiry. No evidence whatsoever. Nada. Zip.

Maybe that has something to do with the posture of messers Rooney and Gowdy, eh?

Oh I forgot, all you need is serious accusations. Don't be concerned with evidence, it's the nature of the accusation.

Alas, get your hopes up again. It's like you want to lose the election over and over and over and over. This is the D strategy. Get this admin bogged down in BS and he gets tossed by his own.

Everybody paying attention understands what's going on. If you get that nagging feeling like you guys are overplaying your hand it's because, well, you know.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,139
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: U.S. Politics

21 Mar 2017 01:28

red_flanders wrote:A special prosecutor with subpoena powers will suffice. Maybe we can let him or her run around for 5 years or so until they find something important. Like lying about a hummer. Or treason. Whichever.


The source of the felony leaks, the Russians did it or what we now know thanks to wikileaks? What are we investigating?
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,139
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re:

21 Mar 2017 01:30

Semper Fidelis wrote:since we have been attacked by Russia. We should declare war now! right now. because obviously this hacking is an act of war. lets. go


More than one D elected official has suggested this very thing. Neocons on steroids.

D party in such a hurry to bury Trump via Putin they don't care what other damage happens. Don't care, doesn't matter, they'll have more flexibility after the election.

BTW, why was Obama never investigated?

As he was leaning toward Medvedev in Seoul, Obama was overheard asking for time — “particularly with missile defense” — until he is in a better position politically to resolve such issues.

“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.

“This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.

“I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure.

The exchange, parts of it inaudible, was monitored by a White House pool of television journalists as well as Russian reporters listening live from their press center.



This was before 2012. We know the Russians were meddling then. How did Obama know he would win? Who helped him? Medvedev? Putin? Was Crimea part of the deal?

I'd like to get to the bottom of this.
Last edited by Scott SoCal on 21 Mar 2017 01:35, edited 1 time in total.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,139
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: U.S. Politics

21 Mar 2017 01:32

red_flanders wrote:A special prosecutor with subpoena powers will suffice. Maybe we can let him or her run around for 5 years or so until they find something important. Like lying about a hummer. Or treason. Whichever.

hurts like a biach tooooooooo bad.

hang on the merikans are a voting


to bad for u and the rest. lets declare war beach? or pussies?
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,122
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

21 Mar 2017 01:39

This is a hell of a read:

http://observer.com/2017/03/donald-trump-wiretapping-kremlin-disinformation/

The previous administration ignored this rising problem, shuttering a tiny State Department effort to counter Russian propaganda only months before the Kremlin lie machine went into overdrive against President Obama’s own party. As I’ve pointed out, Obama and his White House bear part of the blame for the Russian havoc wrought last year on Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, thanks to their abject unwillingness to confront Vladimir Putin. By refusing to seriously confront Kremlin disinformation and deception, President Obama got more of both.
Now this problem, which shows no signs of going away, has become even more dangerous, since the new administration has taken to parroting Russian disinformation when it suits their political needs. A propaganda loop has emerged with Kremlin lies emerging on Putin regime outlets like RT and Sputnik, then being pushed by far-right conspiracy websites such as Breitbart and InfoWars, and finally winding up on Fox News where they receive a mass audience.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,370
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re:

21 Mar 2017 01:43

red_flanders wrote:This is a hell of a read:

http://observer.com/2017/03/donald-trump-wiretapping-kremlin-disinformation/

The previous administration ignored this rising problem, shuttering a tiny State Department effort to counter Russian propaganda only months before the Kremlin lie machine went into overdrive against President Obama’s own party. As I’ve pointed out, Obama and his White House bear part of the blame for the Russian havoc wrought last year on Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, thanks to their abject unwillingness to confront Vladimir Putin. By refusing to seriously confront Kremlin disinformation and deception, President Obama got more of both.
Now this problem, which shows no signs of going away, has become even more dangerous, since the new administration has taken to parroting Russian disinformation when it suits their political needs. A propaganda loop has emerged with Kremlin lies emerging on Putin regime outlets like RT and Sputnik, then being pushed by far-right conspiracy websites such as Breitbart and InfoWars, and finally winding up on Fox News where they receive a mass audience.

declare war now. shock and awe

any who. I'm getting out of here because you guys and gals are a bunch of soft pussies. not going to debate u fcks
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,122
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re:

21 Mar 2017 02:07

red_flanders wrote:This is a hell of a read:

http://observer.com/2017/03/donald-trump-wiretapping-kremlin-disinformation/

The previous administration ignored this rising problem, shuttering a tiny State Department effort to counter Russian propaganda only months before the Kremlin lie machine went into overdrive against President Obama’s own party. As I’ve pointed out, Obama and his White House bear part of the blame for the Russian havoc wrought last year on Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, thanks to their abject unwillingness to confront Vladimir Putin. By refusing to seriously confront Kremlin disinformation and deception, President Obama got more of both.
Now this problem, which shows no signs of going away, has become even more dangerous, since the new administration has taken to parroting Russian disinformation when it suits their political needs. A propaganda loop has emerged with Kremlin lies emerging on Putin regime outlets like RT and Sputnik, then being pushed by far-right conspiracy websites such as Breitbart and InfoWars, and finally winding up on Fox News where they receive a mass audience.


Propaganda talking about propaganda. Brilliant.
BullsFan22
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,258
Joined: 22 Jun 2010 21:19

Re: Re:

21 Mar 2017 06:37

BullsFan22 wrote:
red_flanders wrote:This is a hell of a read:

http://observer.com/2017/03/donald-trump-wiretapping-kremlin-disinformation/

The previous administration ignored this rising problem, shuttering a tiny State Department effort to counter Russian propaganda only months before the Kremlin lie machine went into overdrive against President Obama’s own party. As I’ve pointed out, Obama and his White House bear part of the blame for the Russian havoc wrought last year on Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, thanks to their abject unwillingness to confront Vladimir Putin. By refusing to seriously confront Kremlin disinformation and deception, President Obama got more of both.
Now this problem, which shows no signs of going away, has become even more dangerous, since the new administration has taken to parroting Russian disinformation when it suits their political needs. A propaganda loop has emerged with Kremlin lies emerging on Putin regime outlets like RT and Sputnik, then being pushed by far-right conspiracy websites such as Breitbart and InfoWars, and finally winding up on Fox News where they receive a mass audience.


Propaganda talking about propaganda. Brilliant.


Right? The article only misses one loop, where the Trump suppoters come on various Internet forums and add the final loop to the Kremlin's disinformation campaign, verbatim. It's deeply troubling to me. The only thing to do is watch and drink in the nearly perfect irony of right wing foot soldiers doing the bidding of the Kremlin.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,370
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Back to top