Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

What I don't understand is the renewed outrage every time Trump does something.  The same people that called him a fascist and a racist and a white supremecist are the same people who are like "TRUMP IS A FASCIST?  A RACIST?!?!  A WHITE SUPREMECIST?!?!" whenever he does something stupid.  He is what he is.  Blowing up online isn't going to have any impact on anything.

I'm also confused on what people want the GOP to do.  I think they're doing exactly what the Democrats are doing....letting him implode.  If impeachment is going to ever happen, it's going to have to be bi-partisan, and it's going to have to be offered up by the Democrats.  No matter what happens, the president's own party is not going to set up impeachment, and it's ridiculous to assume they will.

The problem is that the president is an idiot, the GOP is playing politics, and the DNC can't get out of their own way.  The only Democrat who's even speaking out is Bernie, and he's not even a Democrat.  I don't know if the DNC is just hiding in the woods, if they're in a coma, or if they've been ordered to stand quietly until Hillary comes back.  Whatever it is, I feel like they're as complicit as the Republicans.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

There won't be an impeachment. Despite the media reports, Trump isn't actually doing anything evil or even strange for a President. Hell, there are past Presidents who probably would have posted even worse stuff on Twitter if it existed when they were in office. The problem is that people are putting those labels on Trump, but he isn't a racist or a fascist or a white supremacist. Even if he does stuff that people legitimately disagree with, those legit concerns will be buried because they don't reach the level of all the false accusations.

I'm convinced that the people throwing around those labels simply have no clue what they're talking about, and they want an excuse for their violence.

I've had real, legitimate points of disagreement when it comes to Trump, but I'm not prepared to jump to every extreme because of it. There is no legitimate reason to discuss impeachment, except people don't like him and want him out. If that's all it took, no President would stay in office. And constantly talking about this fantasy impeachment is keeping people from discussing the actual issues... Which is fine with most people, because they don't actually know anything about politics.

The racial tension was there when Obama was in office. It gives people an excuse to do bad things and feel righteous for it, so it would have been around now no matter who won the election. This atmosphere is not Trump's creation and he is not the one feeding that monster. The part that I find funny is that Trump is being blamed for everything wrong in the world (including the inherent racism of the eclipse) by the same people who insist that we can't blame Obama for anything that happened while he was in office. Apparently it will take 50 years to see the impact of Obama, but Trump's influence picks up right after Bush left office.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Racial tension has been present in the US from day one.

Trump isn't evil, he's just incompetent.  He also lacks any real conviction about his political beliefs, which is why he's pulled a 180 on so many of the things he ran on (NATO is obsolete, or not.  China is a master currency manipulator, or not.  A federal hiring freeze is needed, or not.  We need to withdraw from NAFTA, or not.  DACA should be eliminated immediately, or not.  We should pull out of Afghanistan, or not.  And so on...)

He'll never be impeached, but he might resign.  In any event, there's not much chance of him seeking a second term.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm not worried about whether it will happen or not...I'm talking about prominent Democrats who seem to think that the Republicans should be the one to impeach Trump.  That'd just never ever happen (for either party).

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm considering reading Hillary's new book, Journey Into Senility (aka, What Happened).

I need better hobbies.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Y'know, I am no Trump lover, but the man is interesting. People think that they're being defiant by taking a knee in protest of Trump (which is really the reason at this point, rather than blm and all that), but they're helping him more than hurting him. Every time someone misquotes him or takes a quote out of context, even people who don't necessarily like Trump are forced to say "well, not exactly..." So people are now getting into the habit of "defending" Trump (really just pointing out inaccuracies about him) so often that by the time 2020 rolls around, people will be accustomed to rallying behind him on a regular basis.

None of these protests are hurting him in the least. And he knows exactly what he's doing with his "sloppy" comments.

Dude is a jerk, but he knows how to play the game that republicans usually suck at and liberals usually win.


On another topic, I watched this today!
https://youtu.be/BSAoitd1BTQ

So a gay classically liberal man interviewing a black woman who considered herself a liberal until about a year ago... It is an interesting story, because they represent stories that I've been hearing a lot lately. This woman never would have been "red pilled" if she hadn't been attacked by the extreme left. And he still consideration himself a liberal because of his beliefs, but he finds conservatives more open to his beliefs than the far left (who label him "alt-right" because... Well, they do that to everyone).

I think that the far left (Antifa activist types, but also celebrities and politicians) have gone so far to the left that they're alienating normal liberals who simply don't believe that voting for a republican makes you a Nazi. I've seen Rubin discussing issues with all kinds of conservatives that I'm sure liberals hate, but what's interesting is that despite having very, very different beliefs, those conversations tend to be really civil exchanges of ideas. There is no presumption that anyone is an evil Nazi who wants to eat babies.

I wonder if the extreme, pretty absurd left is reaching a point where the bubble will burst and the crazies will go home, and the normal, rational liberals will take their place.

Probably not. There's a lot of money to be made by keeping hate burning. But at least there are some interesting discussion taking place.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It's amazing how many high-level politicians base their gun control arguments on James Bond movies. I'm sure that many people use disinformation to spread fear and outrage because a lot of people aren't actually familiar with guns and scaring them wins politicians some easy points. However, to anyone who is even a little bit familiar with these things, it makes a lot of these people sound ridiculous.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

this sort of stuff sickens me so much
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/25/tex … execution/

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I humbly request Informant grace us with his take on the Michael Flynn plea and James O'Keefe's recent effort to trick the Washington Post. I'm sure I won't agree? But no one could ever accuse Informant of not being interesting.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Honestly, I am not fully versed on either story, and I don't want to speak without knowing where I stand. I have vague ideas of opinions, but I have so busy lately that I've barely had time for headlines, much less actual news stories. I'm sure you believe that I would defend James O'Keefe to the death, whether I knew what I was talking about or not, but that's not really the case.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I believe that you know what you're talking about when you do give opinions even if the conclusions aren't the ones I'd make when facing the same facts. On the Nazis in CRISIS --

Informant wrote:

Such as Alex's  "punch a Nazi" comment, which has led to people being physically assaulted in the real world, despite the fact that they have nothing to do with Nazis? I agree. I find it disappointing that you're willing to take a bold stance against my condemnation of that call to violence, but you're silent on the call itself.

I don't know that my opinion of Alex's remarks and my opinions of the real world are the same thing. I'm going to defer to Mark Evanier, Jack Kirby's assistant and biographer, who was regularly asked: "Where would Jack Kirby, co-creator of Captain America, stand on punching Nazis?" Evanier's response: Kirby, as the artist on Captain America's comics, was regularly harassed during World War II by Nazi sympathizers. At one point, Kirby got a phone call from a Nazi saying that if Kirby dared come to the ground floor of Marvel's office building, Kirby would get his face smashed in. Kirby replied that he would come downstairs immediately. He emerged from the stairwell with two angry fists. The lobby was empty.

Kirby later joined the US Army and accepted the job of killing Nazis and proved highly proficient at the job. One assumes that if he were willing to gun down Nazis (and go down several flights of stairs to meet them), he was willing to punch them.

However, that was a time of all-out honest-to-God war and once the war was over, Kirby was not known to assault anybody, Nazi or not. In all likelihood, were Kirby to encounter Nazis on the street in peacetime, he would go home and draw some comics to express his anger and disgust and hope for a better world. https://www.newsfromme.com/2017/01/25/punching-nazis/

I would say that a Nazi battalion from Earth-X dropping a strike force into the middle of Central City to attack a wedding would qualify as a time of all-out honest-to-God war and these Nazis getting punched and arrowed to death were invading soldiers, not social workers. I don't see how that could apply in the real world where we're not (presently) at war with the Third Reich or its remnants.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Perhaps you aren't aware of certain events in this political climate, which make it hard for me to see that line as anything so innocent.

For the past couple of years, it has become the norm for certain people to label anyone that they disagree with or don't like as "Literally Nazis" or even "Literally Hitler". While this label is often (and baselessly) applied to Donald Trump, it has been applied to many other people as well. There are political activist websites who will take fairly benign political commentators and label them as Nazis, right along with actual white supremacists. At this point, anyone who owns a MAGA hat is labeled a Nazi by some of these sites.

At the same time that this has been happening, the "punch a Nazi" movement has been pushed on websites and social media. Basically, everyone wants to punch a Nazi, so go ahead and punch a Nazi... Which now includes random YouTube bloggers who have earned the title because they don't support Planned Parenthood or whatever. They have created an actual call to action, wherein it is acceptable to assault someone whose politics you disagree with, and as a result, real people have been injured.

Nazis, and Hitler, were very real evils in this world. Responsible for unthinkable brutality, and the deaths of millions of innocent people. "Nazi" and "Hitler" should never become generic insults that are thrown around carelessly, because that reduces the true nature of their evil. A throw-away line that links Trump to Nazis might seem innocent to you, but as someone who has been paying attention to this hostile climate, I see it as dangerous.

And I'm sorry, but Alex saying "punch a Nazi" wasn't a reference to comic book history. It was a reference to the movement that I mentioned above, in the real world. This is why she didn't say "kicking Nazi ass is as fulfilling as I thought it'd be". The term "punch a Nazi" is very specific.

Again, I have to point out that Donald Trump doesn't even exist within the Arrowverse. How are these references possibly to be taken as anything but real-world commentary (and call to action) from the writers?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

My view on Trump is simple.  Theres's zero reason to compare him, or examine his ideology, or any of that.  He has NO ideology.  He's not a Republican.  He's not truly conservative.  He's certainly an atheist.  He's fat.  He's unhealthy.  He's selfish.  He's a compulsive liar.  He has no use for the Constitution.  He has no loyalty to anyone beyond his family, and probably none there either.  He's wreckless, and on most subjects, incredibly uneducated, ignorant, and flat out stupid.  He has no loyalty to the office or to the people of the United States.

He's only concerned by his own ego.  Unfortunately, he has followers, and those followers would eat shit from a toilet if he told them to.  They immediately call any criticism of him to be politically biased, even if it comes from the right, which in and of itself makes no sense.  He's their messiah.  Too bad he's far more Joseph Smith than J.H.C.

I would hope he resigns, or is impeached, or has a heart attack from 6 Big Mac's a day, but I suppose I won't be that lucky.  His presence has done ZERO good for the country or the world.  At this point I'd take just about any politician instead, for one simple reason.....The Cult of Trump needs to end and it needs to end NOW.  Politics driven by hate, fear, and worst of all, LIES simply has to end.  It was bad before Trump, it's just not feasible now.  We cannot exist as a civilization if the truth means absolutely nothing.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

See, that type of opinion is something that I have no problem with. I don't 100% agree, nor do I 100% disagree. On the other hand, I absolutely find the Nazi/Hitler thing to be stupid and insane, and won't even pretend to respect it as a legitimate viewpoint. The people who believe that are just uneducated about Nazis and uneducated about Trump. It is factually untrue, for so many reasons. It's like saying that he is an elephant... It's not something that can be a matter of opinion. It's either true or it's not, and in this case, it's not.

815 (edited by Grizzlor 2017-12-03 23:33:54)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The Nazi stuff is completely pointless.  The man is an utter buffoon and leading the free world down the drain, and there's plenty of non-fake news reporting that has proven that. 

In the meantime....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/8d86d66c-1 … e-who.html

http://www.newsweek.com/republican-orri … ift-729712

By the way, slip of the tongue or not, we have ol' Chuck Grassley who, like Orrin Hatch, both drank some truth serum and admitted that if you're not inheriting millions, you're basically a lazy, perverted, drunk.  And Hatch, who claims the country can't afford to provide healthcare for children since the children are "can't lift a finger to help themselves."  Yes, ladies and gentles, the Republican Party.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

On Trump, I'm still shocked that basically no one from the Democratic Party has come out to be the face of the anti-Trump movement.  Bernie is leading a charge, but the Party can't stand him and will not allow him to be the candidate (and he's too old, I think).

All the people who were supposed to be the frontrunners: Booker, Warren, Kaine, Kamala Harris, O'Malley, Murphy....silent, for the most part.  They come out here and there, but no one is stepping up and going out of their way to be the anti-Trump voice.

Even the Democrats on social media aren't really pleading for their own party leaders to do anything.  Whenever you see someone asking for Trump to be impeached, they're directing it at Republican leaders.  If anything, the most popular person in the Democratic Party is Robert Mueller.  Maybe he'll run, but the complete lack of a voice from the Democratic Party still makes me think what I've thought all along....they're all still taking their orders from Hillary Clinton, and she'll be the nominee in 2020 with little-to-no opposition again.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The problem with the democrats is that anyone who comes out to be the face of anti-Trump is going to have to deal with being slammed by Trump for years, and there really aren't many of them who could hold up to that. Bernie is a crazy old man who can't have a serious conversation on any issue without looking like a bumbling fool.

So the democrats have anointed the media as their leader of the anti-Trump movement. Late night talk shows that used to be hosted by comedians are now propaganda commercials, making crap up and acting as though it's the truth. Kimmel even waves a baby around these days, because anyone who would dare ask questions while looking at a baby (who is in no way related to the topic that he's talking about while holding said baby) is a monster. It's ridiculous... but at least it's interesting.

I keep seeing actors or directors talking about their "timely and topical" projects that involve crazy neo-Nazis, as though we are dealing with a surge of neo-Nazis 2017. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen many of them running around.

I think the democrats are going to wait a while, and pick their man closer to the election, to limit the amount of time that Trump can tweet about him/her/ze/whatever fun new word pops up before 2020. Is this a good idea? I doubt it. They will have to pick someone like Hillary, who doesn't require much foundation building. The problem is that they will be stuck with someone like Hillary. They're banking on someone like that looking better when compared to Trump, but honestly... I'd still happily vote for Trump over Hillary.

818 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2017-12-14 10:27:28)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, Hillary would be a disaster...not only because polling still strongly implies that people still don't like her, but she'd embody the secret civil war going on between Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters.  Bernie supporters hate Hillary so much that they'd happily vote for the next Jill Stein or sit out again.

What's scary for Democrats is that the Bernie Bro skews young and the Hillary Bot skews old.  And if they aren't careful, they could disenfranchise an entire generation of people who are actually pretty active and interested in politics.

It'll be Hillary vs. whoever the Republicans run in 2020 (I'm not convinced Trump will be the nominee, either because he's resigned, because he chooses not to run, or someone else beats him in the primary).  And unless the Democrats get their act together, the Republicans are positioned to win again.  Which, if you're a Democrat, has to be maddening....because the map is positioned to make a Democratic president *so much* easier than a Republican one.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It'll be interesting to see if Trump runs again. I admit, I find his presidency fascinating. I do enjoy watching him and his people burn the press and expose them for what they are. I do like seeing a president call out the republicans who aren't really republicans and don't want to do anything that they promised the people who voted for them. I don't think Trump has been a total mistake or a total failure, as much as I don't like him. It's interesting.

But do I want him for a second term? I guess we'll see, but I'd still be happy to see Cruz in office.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Half of the internet is going crazy because this tax plan will only help the rich. Meanwhile, everyone I know is talking about how much money they're saving and all of the bonuses that they're getting.

For the record, I don't know any rich people.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It seems unlikely that a tax cut that hasn't been signed yet and won't take effect until next year is affecting this year's bonuses.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I wouldn't expect it either, but...

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/tax-ref … oyees.html

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I call bullshit.  Companies like that budget months ahead.  I wouldn't be 100% convinced it would affect next year's bonuses.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

You can call bullshit, but I know someone who works there and it's happening. I've seen reports from other companies as well, but I don't have any personal connections that I can use to confirm those. And these bonuses are on top of the bonuses that they were already planning on.

Lowering the taxes on these companies to rates comparable to the rest of the world is a huge deal for them, and that is going to be a huge deal for a lot of people down the line.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Paying these bonuses this year means they had the spare cash to do so under the old tax rate and chose not to until they could make political hay out of it.  There's no way a tax bill which still hasn't been signed into law yet could affect this year's bottom line.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, the bonuses won't come until the bill is signed, so if that doesn't happen by Christmas, I'm sure that the bonuses won't come before Christmas.

I don't know how the companies are doing it, but they could have money budgeted for taxes, which would be freed up. Or they could just put the bonuses into their budget going forward.

Do I think that the companies benefit from this tax cut? Yes. Of course. Everyone benefits. But I don't think it is some sort of political conspiracy on their part.

827 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2017-12-21 09:00:08)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I worked in the compensation department for a Fortune 500 company.  If the CEO of a company wants something, it can happen - it basically just becomes a fire drill for the people who do the grunt work (read: us).  I know from people that work compensation at retail places that, when Target announced they were taking all their employees to $15, all of them were met the following morning with "I need you to model what this would cost to implement ASAP."  It didn't matter what the cost would be - they had to keep up and they had to keep up immediately.

Unexpected costs happen all the time, and this wasn't even that unexpected.  AT&T, possibly even with help from the Republicans writing the bill, have known about their potential tax savings for a while.  It would just be a matter of doing some simple math and throwing some things on a spreadsheet.  If it could be easily incorporated into an existing budget (a fire drill for the finance folks), then it wouldn't be that much of a problem.

Even if this was dropped on AT&T yesterday and couldn't fit in the budget, it's still possible.  It'd just be a giant headache for finance/tax/FP&A/compensation and a few other departments.  But AT&T's CEO probably doesn't care - he gets goodwill from his employees, the media, shareholders, and the party in power (since he is being used as evidence that the tax bill is doing what they said it'd do).  Even if it hurts the bottom line, it's a $200 million move for a $250 billion company.  A drop in the water.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

There is almost zero chance the bill gets signed before January because of the PayGo rules.  If they don't pass a waiver (which the Dems would surely filibuster) the tax bill would cause massive cuts in medicare and other programs.  Despite GOP rhetoric, they're not actually interested in cutting spending.  That's why the bill hasn't actually been enrolled yet, let alone signed.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It's been signed now. It's surprising that it happened, but I guess it surprises me whenever Republicans actually do something.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The bill does provide tax savings for EVERYONE.  That is not the primary argument.  The issue is that corporations get permanent massive tax slashing, while individuals do not.  Simply cutting taxes just doesn't trickle down very much, and got news for you, most people don't work in jobs that give bonuses.  Companies are simply going to keep these savings away from employees and customers.  What's worse, the bill does nothing to tackle student loan debt, health care costs, 21st century jobs, and more.  Instead, it will add well over a trillion to the deficit.  The wealthy/corporations did not need this tax cut, and that's what most folks pretty much agree on.  They didn't need it, and they won't pass much of it down to the rest of us.  This was a huge giveaway to the financial donors of the GOP, that's it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

https://pics.me.me/the-kraken-says-unknown-punster-2018-releasethememo-it-could-be-30574908.png


But seriously, this memo isn’t going to change anything.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I think this whole issue was settled months ago, whichever side you come down on. The memo either confirms what you already believe, or it doesn't exist.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I should clarify and say that I think that the memo *should* mean something big. It's a pretty huge deal, and not just in terms of the Russia investigation. I just don't think that most people are going to change their opinion at this point, and people will dismiss the memo without a second thought.

834 (edited by Grizzlor 2018-02-04 12:05:54)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I was NOT a big deal, it was in fact pretty run of the mill stuff that happens all the time.  All the memo showed was that the government applied for FISA warrants due to being suspicious about Carter Page, and that the Austalians warned about Papadopoulos.  There was nothing inappropriate about any of that.  Nobody's rights were violated.  In fact, FISA warrants were granted before the infamous Christopher Steele report even came about.  Steele, btw, is not some quack, he's a highly respected intelligence officer of the British government.  You know, our former allies, not the Russians.  His investigation on Trump's Russian ties was not simply partisan, it was a warning to the US intelligence apparatus that Donald Trump could very much be manipulated by Russia.  Furthermore, they have tried to argue that the FBI investigator with the love texts was biased.  Well, that didn't work either because he's the same guy that wrote the report that reopened the Hillary email mess in 2016. 

The Trump backers will believe anything he tells them, they will see conspiracies 24/7.  They are completely off their rockers.  I'm sorry, but this guy is nothing more than a Mafia-backed money launderer with a big mouth.  That's it.  He's been involved in criminal enterprises for 40+ years.  To have roughly 35% of Americans simply ignore that, and his constant lying, is really sad, but these people really would rather vote for Charles Manson than someone who doesn't jive with their politics, so I'm not surprised.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Okay, let's not pretend that it's just run of the mill nothingness. If that were the case, the democrats wouldn't have been calling its release dangerous or treasonous. They would have been like "Yeah, sure. Do that." Because the thing hardly reveals any matters of national security that could get us all killed. Especially if you think that it doesn't contain anything damning.

So, let's check out some actual bits from the memo. The whole thing can be found here : 
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … ocument/p2

I just don't feel like copying and pasting the entire thing, though I think it's worth reading. It's only four pages long.


1)

The dossier- compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an
essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who
was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie
and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump's ties
to Russia.

You don't believe that it's relevant to include information on where this dossier came from, especially when that information was bought and paid for by Donald Trump's political opponent? That information was deliberately left out of the application for a reason.

I highly, *highly* doubt that you would be cool with a dossier created by the Trump campaign as evidence against Hillary Clinton, for all of her many crimes. And I highly doubt that you would shrug off the omission of that information from a FISA application as being irrelevant to the investigation. Let's not pretend that you would.


The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by- Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow.

- This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News.


So we have people leaking information to the media, and then using the reporting of those leaks as evidence to be used on a FISA application, and again, you see absolutely nothing wrong with this?


a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations- an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David
Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September- before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October-but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about
those contacts.

b) Steele?s numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling- maintaining confidentiality- and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.

Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce 0hr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the
election, the FBI began interviewing 0hr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to 0hr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get
elected and was passionate about him not, being president." This clear evidence of Steele's bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files- but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.

You're saying that Steele is a highly respected intelligence officer, but the evidence isn't supporting that at all. He has a clearly stated objectives and biases. He is being paid to deliver damning intelligence by Trump's political opponents. He is speaking with the press, leaving information. How can you possibly argue that he is too highly regarded to be questioned or criticized in this situation?


a) During this same time period, Ohr's wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife's opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs' relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.

According to the head of the counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its "infancy" at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was- according to his June 2017 testimony- "salacious and unverified." While the FISA application relied on Steele's past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.

5) The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel's Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, Whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an "insurance" policy against President Trump?s election.


Yeah, I said I wasn't going to copy the whole thing, and I very nearly copied everything anyway. It's just hard not to, because there's no part of it that isn't damning. We're talking about agents within our government working with one political candidate to deliver damning intelligence regarding their political opponent, with the clear intention of swaying the outcome of the election. Leaking to the press. Omitting vital information from FISA applications. Basing an entire investigation on evidence that they manufactured themselves!

You want the definition of the word "conspiracy"? This is it. And if you can look at that and not have some very serious concerns, you're just proving what I said initially. Facts don't matter. Evidence doesn't matter. Reality doesn't matter. You picked your team and you'll cheer for them until the end of the world.


You're criticizing Trump's supporters for ignoring his misdeeds (and I agree that there are some who are way too fanboyish, and need to revisit reality at some point), but how are you not doing the same thing now? If there's evidence against Trump, I'm all for putting it out there and holding him accountable for whatever he has done. However, that's not where the evidence (or lack thereof) is leading us right now. Do you want an honest investigation, or do you simply want Trump gone at any cost?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I would like to thank Informant for his sterling service in using the Nunes memo to indicate the validity of the Nunes memo by citing the different sections of the Nunes memo that support the assertions of the Nunes memo.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

I would like to thank Informant for his sterling service in using the Nunes memo to indicate the validity of the Nunes memo by citing the different sections of the Nunes memo that support the assertions of the Nunes memo.

There’s more to it than that!  The memo is not a two dimensional construct - look!

https://youtu.be/HgPSUer1ujM

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

As opposed to the great and thorough evidence that has been used to verify the ties between Trump and the Russians? And if you have some argument to debunk the validity of the claims made in the memo, I'd love to hear it. The reason why I copied so much of the memo is because Grizzlor didn't seem to be responding to the contents of the memo at all, and it hardly seems productive to comment on a document without bringing that document into the conversation.


Let me ask you this question... What exactly do you believe transpired between Trump and the Russians? What collusion do you believe took place? And once we have that answer, explain to me what evidence you have to support that claim.

Or do these things even matter anymore?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm not an Olympics kind of guy, so I'm not really paying attention to that. However, I have seen a lot of comments about the chick from North Korea and how she's "winning", or referring to her as their answer to Ivanka Trump. And I think that all of this BS glorifying of this monstrous dictatorship for the sake of siding against Trump is absolutely insane. The same people who are like "Trump is literally Hitler" are now acting as though this woman and her brother aren't the people slaughtering people and feeding them to dogs.

Seriously, these people are *monsters* and people are acting like they're just someone that we don't get along with.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Sorry for the delayed response on some of these items.

I have no interest in debates over whether or not the alt-right qualify as Nazis or if white nationalist Richard Spencer should be considered one when he claims he doesn't identify as such. He calls for ethnic cleansing and for racial extermination and was punched in the face; I wouldn't have punched him, but I wouldn't shed a tear for his pain given his rhetoric. I can't say I'm all that concerned with getting to grips with how Informant categorizes different hate groups.

I'm also not terribly interested in explanations on how Trump bragging about sexual assault doesn't count as a confession and how he hasn't professed racist views -- except to say that people are free to offer their views but have no business declaring that those who disagree are mentally ill.

My view: the 2016 election was subjected to an unprecedented level of hacking from Russian agents. The FBI is investigating whether or not these agents coordinated and collaborated with the Trump campaign, a worthwhile avenue of inquiry. Christopher Steele's distaste for Trump is not a disqualifying factor in his information being used to open an investigation as espionage and law enforcement constantly rely on informants biased against the party on whom they're reporting and such information is not treated as proof in itself, but as information that must be corroborated or disproven in the course of an investigation. A biased informant is a given in any investigation as such parties tend not to be neutral.

In addition, Trump's denials of collusion have been matched with (a) firing James Comey which Trump confessed on TV was to interfere with the investigation (b) being unable to keep his story straight on why he fired Comey and (c) seeking to fire Mueller for the same reasons. Nobody goes to this level of effort if they're not scared of what will be discovered.

Devin Nunes misrepresents law enforcement (and now espionage) to stir phony outrage and Nunes' claim that Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia (to sabotage her own campaign?!) is unbelievably stupid. Nunes is another person to add to the list of dubious alt-right white nationalists, Birthers, Men's Right Activists, Sarah Palin, Cassie Jaye, James O'Keefe, Paul Elam, Roy Moore and other peculiarities in the current political climate.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

I have no interest in debates over whether or not the alt-right qualify as Nazis or if white nationalist Richard Spencer should be considered one when he claims he doesn't identify as such. He calls for ethnic cleansing and for racial extermination and was punched in the face; I wouldn't have punched him, but I wouldn't shed a tear for his pain given his rhetoric. I can't say I'm all that concerned with getting to grips with how Informant categorizes different hate groups.

Wait, is this going back to the Arrowverse crossover, and Alex's "punch a Nazi" comment? Because I couldn't care less if Richard Spencer is punched in the face, however,you are ignoring a much larger movement, which has taken to labeling anyone that isn't extreme-left as a "Nazi" and then pushing the "punch a Nazi" idea as a way of justifying violence against anyone that you don't agree with. I've seen liberals labeled "alt-right" (a term which pretty much has no meaning at this point). I've seen Jews labeled "Nazi". I've seen non-white people labeled white nationalists. These aren't legitimate claims. These are excuses for calls to violence, or the destruction of peoples' lives based on their political views (which are sometimes pretty liberal).

In this case, I'm just classifying one hate group: The far left. They are a hateful, violent bunch of bigots.

I'm also not terribly interested in explanations on how Trump bragging about sexual assault doesn't count as a confession and how he hasn't professed racist views -- except to say that people are free to offer their views but have no business declaring that those who disagree are mentally ill.

Trump once said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay?... It's, like, incredible."

Do you believe that Trump should be arrested for shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue?


My view: the 2016 election was subjected to an unprecedented level of hacking from Russian agents. The FBI is investigating whether or not these agents coordinated and collaborated with the Trump campaign, a worthwhile avenue of inquiry. Christopher Steele's distaste for Trump is not a disqualifying factor in his information being used to open an investigation as espionage and law enforcement constantly rely on informants biased against the party on whom they're reporting and such information is not treated as proof in itself, but as information that must be corroborated or disproven in the course of an investigation. A biased informant is a given in any investigation as such parties tend not to be neutral.

In addition, Trump's denials of collusion have been matched with (a) firing James Comey which Trump confessed on TV was to interfere with the investigation (b) being unable to keep his story straight on why he fired Comey and (c) seeking to fire Mueller for the same reasons. Nobody goes to this level of effort if they're not scared of what will be discovered.

Did you notice that you didn't actually say what the Russians are supposed to have done with Trump, aside from mentioning that it's completely unprecedented? Do you know what the actual accusations are? Do you know what any of the evidence is? Or do you just have such blind faith that those pesky little details don't matter?


Devin Nunes misrepresents law enforcement (and now espionage) to stir phony outrage and Nunes' claim that Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia (to sabotage her own campaign?!) is unbelievably stupid. Nunes is another person to add to the list of dubious alt-right white nationalists, Birthers, Men's Right Activists, Sarah Palin, Cassie Jaye, James O'Keefe, Paul Elam, Roy Moore and other peculiarities in the current political climate.


You can't honestly believe that the suggestion here is that Hillary was sabotaging her own campaign.


And how can you put Cassie Jaye on any of your lists? You've made it abundantly clear that you are unwilling to listen to a word she says, or watch her film (much less the many other videos made up of interviews that didn't fit into her film, which she's put on YouTube). How can you even comment on the woman despite refusing to acknowledge any information regarding her?



Look, it's fine if you don't want to waste your time listening to every point of view, or reading every piece of information about these big issues. That's cool. Not everyone is into it. But if that's the case, I think that you should stop posting grand comments about those supposed crimes, supposed racism, supposed hate groups and supposed alt-righters that you're not interested in reading about or listening to. You're blindly swinging a bat, hoping to hit a pinata, but you keep hitting the wrong target. I don't think you're full of hatred or malice. I don't think you're stupid. But these are large issues, and it doesn't help anyone if we're basing arguments on headlines, tweets and general impressions. If there's not a legitimate conversation to be had here, then let's just stop pretending that we're having one.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I remember back...I guess 20 years ago at this point, the big push against smoking began.  Smoking was bad for you.  It ruined kids lives.  It killed people.  Commercials began to appear on tv.  Fictional characters across all medium had smoking habits toned down or eliminated.

Now we’re at today.  Guns are bad for you.  They ruin people’s lives.  They kill people.  But yet we’re still inundated with fictional characters shooting them off like rock stars.

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t blame the gun or even the cigarette; people make their own  choices and people must be held accountable for them.  But I do find it interesting that theses stars preach against guns when they spend all day making them look cool.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

What I think is funny is there are people who will make fun of "thoughts and prayers" and then post some hashtag like #BanAssaultRifles to Facebook.  They're making fun of the worthless gesture and then making a worthless gesture themselves.

I don't like guns.  If there were a vote, I'd happily vote to ban gun sales or guns or whatever.  But at the same time, I also see the problem as being way bigger than most people think.  I think there are a lot of angry people, and I think there'd still be mass shootings if all guns magically disappeared.  We should be working on guns, but we also need to work on ourselves.

But what's funny is that people on the left talk about the NRA as being this big juggernaut, and it isn't.  The only weapon the NRA has is the same weapon that everyone on the other side has.  The big difference is that the NRA.....has much smaller numbers than the anti-gun people. 

NRA voters are single-issue voters.  They only vote on gun-related things.  If they were another organization, they'd be considered a bastion of American democracy.  They're active.  They vote.  They rally.  They contact their government.  They do everything that American citizens are supposed to do.

The anti-gun chunk of society has all the tools they need to run the NRA into the ground.  If they actually got up and called their congressmen and women, if they actually went out and voted, if they actually rallied, then they'd be fine.  Some do.  There are gonna be huge rallies regarding the stuff in Florida.  But the NRA does it *every day*.  The anti-gun people can't match the NRA's intensity, and that's why the NRA wins.