It's worth noting that this video was made almost a full year ago.
This video doesn't critique anything. Rather, it plays off both the privileged dude and anti-oppression woman as caricatures. I watched the whole thing and didn't really get a message from it other than "extremists are bad" and "whoever made the video had a rather mild idea of what constitutes extremism."
I mean, like it or not, it is possible to divide people into groups, and it is possible to identify that some groups are better off than other groups - for example, that black people have a fraction of the wealth that white people do. That is by far not the only possible division and people can also be grouped according to multiple traits (like cisgender straight white middle class dude, who might also be disabled).
Manafort and Flynn, who anyone with their eyes open has been screaming about for months upon months. His campaign chairman up to and through the convention and his most trusted advisor for the duration of the campaign. "Muh Russia" indeed.
So ya, I feel a little better about the Comey firing now that Mueller is taking over. I am also pleased with this quote:
“I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authorities and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,” Mr. Rosenstein said in a statement. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination.”
Although, I can't shake this scene from my head for some reason:
This leads us to the more general topic: who is telling the truth these days? Which tweets are real and which ones are fake? Which news stories are real and which ones are fake? Since most of us are not privy to the meetings taking place in Washington, D. C. and we don't have access to classified intelligence briefings that leaves us with two clear choices: believe everything which is reported or believe none of it. Believing everything you are told without proof is the idiotic choice for obvious reasons so our only real option is to believe nothing we read until someone can prove it.
It actually reminds me quite a bit of the old "Bush did 9/11!" from the old days. Bush was intelligent enough to collude a massive attack on his own country yet was so incompetent and dumb he couldn't blurt out a coherent speech and was found out by forums users on the internet.
I do not think for a minute that Bush could do 9/11. Now, Cheney, on the other hand...
As well, I used to think that conspiracy theories about it were crazy and never bothered to look into them. But then I saw a video on thermite experiments with regard to plausible uses in 9/11, back in, oh, 2012 or so. Pretty sure it's this one. Now, I've played with various thermites in chemistry club, and I've read lots on it, so I'm already approaching it with a reasonable expectation that it can cut and weld steel. But I never thought about it being used so ingeniously by the guy in this video to do things such as cutting vertical steel sections both vertically and horizontally, which I also would have thought impossible to do. I mean it's a dense 5000+ degree liquid, whose "power" is because it's so damned hot. It's going to be hard to channel into effective use because it generally melts or burns everything it touches.
Now, I'm not saying that Cheney did it. I frankly don't know which to believe, whether it was terrorists or "an inside job". Or both, an inside job using terrorists for cover.
I am not willing to dismiss what I find compelling video evidence for the benefit of the doubt of the previous administration. But neither am I going to throw out accusations BECAUSE of them. Because the videos just provide evidence of plausible uses of thermite in 9/11. It accomplishes, at best, discrediting the official story. It doesn't really do anything like say who could have placed specialized thermite demolition instruments (or how, it wouldn't exactly have been easy to hide), or at whose bidding. You know, things that would need to be actionable to do things like congressional hearings.
I did say, months ago, that Trump would be a one-termer. I still don't think he'll be impeached but there is no way he wins another general election, presuming he even gets the nomination from the RNC.
Just as there was no way he would win the last election?
His voters voted for him because he is the way he is. I've repeatedly said that.
If you think that he will not win a second term that would mean that less people would vote for him in the next election. Why would they do that?
Because of the current developments? You may see that as the reason to note vote for him. His supporters would vote for him all the more BECAUSE of the current developments!
Everything that may be shocking about Trump is what his voters love about him. And if there is indeed something his voters don't like then you gotta blame the democrats for it.
Unfortunately, this is rather true. Hillary lost partly because more people came out to vote for Trump, but also because people didn't come out to vote for her.
In 2020, I suspect that the number of people who would vote for Trump would be slightly smaller, but not too much smaller. Perhaps 5% less? He's burned off all the wafflers and idealists, but there's still a sizable core that would be with him just because of party affiliation and because they're terrible human beings.
I could be wrong though, and perhaps more people than I think are disillusioned with Trump being "an outsider". After all, he can't claim that in 2020 though. Well, I guess he could, it'd just be more lying.
Putting aside the question of whether thermite could take down a building, I do find it exceptionally plausible that a plane flying at 500 miles an hour could take down a building, especially when we have video footage of the event actually happening in real time.
About the anonymous sources thing: the reason why journalists keep their sources anonymous in certain cases is because the source could be punished for giving embarrassing information to the press. Anonymous sources have the freedom to speak frankly without fear of retribution.
If journalists did not allow government officials to remain anonymous, the administration would have a total stranglehold on all information about their activities, because the people at the top could punish anyone who said anything they didn't like.
I would not give that much unchecked power to any administration.
Nobody serious argues that journalists shouldn't be able to use anonymous sources.
But there is a lot of reason for concern at how often they use them, and the reasoning for using them.
A source may be anonymous because of a danger to live or livelihood if their identity is revealed, and that is a fair reason. But a source may also be anonymous simply because they want the information out there without their name attached to it, and that is a terrible reason. Many "anonymous sources" are merely leaking information that is beneficial to the government, the DNC, various lobbying groups, US intelligence, and so forth. There should be names to attach to this information so questions may be asked. Otherwise reporters are simply being deputised to give press releases instead of receiving them.
In addition, anonymous sources should never be the only/primary source for a story. They should be confirmation, or if they contain new information at all, it should be relatively small and thoroughly vetted. Some mid-level Washington bureaucrat who does not want to be named is not a credible primary source for an entire story on the Flynn investigation.
Anonymous sources are so overused, and so often used to support those in power rather than undermine them (on both sides of the political fence!), that it's almost become farcical and is corrosive to American journalism and democracy.
(And more people really need to read All the President's Men.)
Putting aside the question of whether thermite could take down a building, I do find it exceptionally plausible that a plane flying at 500 miles an hour could take down a building, especially when we have video footage of the event actually happening in real time.
I don't have (and have never had) much tolerance for 9/11 conspiracy theories. You never had to make such an assertion to attack the Bush Administration. Hitting them for being wholly incompetent and ignoring months of warnings over that entire summer was more than damning enough. To this day, they get a pass for 9/11, as if the day exists in some sort of fairy bubble outside the normal political time and space. It happened on their watch, and was wholly preventable.
To this day, I can't even begin to imagine just how badly the Republicans would have savaged Al Gore and torn him to pieces if it had happened under his Administration. Then again, there is a strong chance it never would have happened in the first place. Much like 2016, the 2000 election, where the man with less votes won (not even discussing the Florida nonsense) had utterly devastating consequences.
I mean....what in the hell?? The National Security Adviser, the guy telling the President what the best course of action would be in the most important and risky scenarios imaginable.....and THIS is who you hire?? Again, this just begs the question.....why?? What is the motivation behind keeping a guy who is clearly a stooge for both Putin AND Erdogan in this kind of position?? This guy was in a position to influence policy regarding Turkey. And this is well before Sally Yates warned them about the blackmail threat, which they sat on for ANOTHER 18 days and only acted at that point because of media reports. What is it that Michael Flynn knows or was in charge of that would cause any sane person to keep someone this compromised so close to them?? I mean, it goes WELL beyond that even. Trump was willing to open himself up to charges of obstruction of justice and fire the FBI director for THIS guy?? Who is, at the very least, a paid agent of the Turkish government to the tune of half a million dollars?? What the hell is going on here?? This also makes the idea that Mike Pence was in the dark about this the whole time HIGHLY suspect. Pence was deeply involved in the transition (correction: he was the HEAD of the transition). So the entire narrative about being fired for "lying to the Vice President" is looking awfully thin right now. Awfully thin.
Further, damning reporting. At this point I'm not sure Flynn doesn't turn out to just be a flat-out spy for one or more foreign governments, literally sitting at the President's right-hand:
But moreover, if Trump asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn, SPECIFICALLY, we don't have to pretend anymore. It is flat-out obstruction of justice. If Comey has half of what I expect he does on Donald Trump, his clock just started ticking.
IF I'm not mistaken though, if Trump really did obstruct Comey's investigation, the latter would've been REQUIRED by law to report it to the DoJ - meaning that if Comey didn't make any such report to the DoJ, any claim of obstruction would likely land him in just as much hot water, and probably be used to discredit those claims.
But moreover, if Trump asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn, SPECIFICALLY, we don't have to pretend anymore. It is flat-out obstruction of justice. If Comey has half of what I expect he does on Donald Trump, his clock just started ticking.
IF I'm not mistaken though, if Trump really did obstruct Comey's investigation, the latter would've been REQUIRED by law to report it to the DoJ - meaning that if Comey didn't make any such report to the DoJ, any claim of obstruction would likely land him in just as much hot water, and probably be used to discredit those claims.
Who was he supposed to report it to?? Jeff Sessions, who has ended up having to recuse himself and lied under oath in his confirmation hearings?? And how can you discredit something he essentially made a memorandum of the day it happened, well before the current firestorm?? Maybe there is some legal liability for him in all this, but if there is, Comey and those close to him certainly don't seem concerned about it.
An embattled Donald Trump complained today that no US leader had been treated "more unfairly" than he has. Poor guy treated unfairly, can't run the country like a dictator. Nobody buys his BS when he's president like they did when he was selling real estate, steaks, and fake degrees. So unfair.
Right. I recall all those times Bill O'Reilly, Alex Jones and other right wingers praised Obama oh wait no, never happened. Trump's such a "snowflake".
An embattled Donald Trump complained today that no US leader had been treated "more unfairly" than he has. Poor guy treated unfairly, can't run the country like a dictator. Nobody buys his BS when he's president like they did when he was selling real estate, steaks, and fake degrees. So unfair.
Right. I recall all those times Bill O'Reilly, Alex Jones and other right wingers praised Obama oh wait no, never happened. Trump's such a "snowflake".
Speaking of Alex Jones, in addition to the debacle that is his child custody case (revealing him to be a fraud, albeit a legit nutcase), today he had to settle a case with the yogurt company Chobani for making false claims about them on his show. I think he is legitimately disturbed, but I will give no quarter to a man who continues to claim the children who were the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre didn't actually die. Imagine being the parent of a slain 6-year old and watching your child get turned into a conspiracy punchline for this man and his millions of followers.
But moreover, if Trump asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn, SPECIFICALLY, we don't have to pretend anymore. It is flat-out obstruction of justice. If Comey has half of what I expect he does on Donald Trump, his clock just started ticking.
IF I'm not mistaken though, if Trump really did obstruct Comey's investigation, the latter would've been REQUIRED by law to report it to the DoJ - meaning that if Comey didn't make any such report to the DoJ, any claim of obstruction would likely land him in just as much hot water, and probably be used to discredit those claims.
Who was he supposed to report it to?? Jeff Sessions, who has ended up having to recuse himself and lied under oath in his confirmation hearings?? And how can you discredit something he essentially made a memorandum of the day it happened, well before the current firestorm?? Maybe there is some legal liability for him in all this, but if there is, Comey and those close to him certainly don't seem concerned about it.
1. If he's required to report it, he's required to report it.
2. His failure to report any obstruction at the time could be argued as proof that he did not actually perceive a serious intent to obstruct - which would be necessary for it to be considered a crime.
3. What has Comey actually said since the story broke? Last I read, he was silent on the issue, and had not yet responded to invitations to testify.
"Trump says Russia probe will reveal no collusion with his campaign"
WASHINGTON, May 17 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Wednesday said a special counsel's probe of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election would show there was "no collusion" between his campaign and a foreign power.
"As I have stated many times, a thorough investigation will confirm what we already know –- there was no collusion between my campaign and any foreign entity," he said in a statement released by the White House.
"I look forward to this matter concluding quickly. In the meantime, I will never stop fighting for the people and the issues that matter most to the future of our country."
Earlier the U.S. Justice Department appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate possible links between Trump's 2016 campaign team and Russia as well as alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election.
Do you notice that other bit? Many of his own people also use anonymity.
Do you remember when he would go on and on about the leakers, and how they needed to be found and dealt with? And then there's the threat to Comey that he better not leak! Yea, Trump's really concerned about leakers. Not. And look! He's at it again, and doth protest too much. Yesterday he even had one of his GOP cronies preach basically the same thing - even going so far as to call them traitors (for maximum effect). Traitors.
I could see this coming from a mile away.
Trump is the leak. And the information? False. This accomplishes three things - and all three are absolutely devastating as they pertain to the preservation of our republic. You see, when Comey, who had been loyal to Trump long before Trump came right out and asked for such loyalty, will testify. And he'll tell the truth...that there was no such memo. And if there are any other so-called "leaks", they will be shot down, too.
1. Press credibility = Destroyed. 2. Credibility of any future leaks (such as those exposing some kind of horrible activity) = Destroyed. 3. His own credibility = complete validation.
Don't let the little charade with Bannon being forced to live in the proverbial doghouse fool you. What's about to hit this country has Bannon's fingerprints all over it. A media man himself, he works from the shadows, and working to delegitmize anything and everything that will ultimately get in the way of our eventual, and inevitable, "transition".
The shit is going down in DC.
I've been wondering about this possibility myself.
Keep in mind that Trump also loves distractions - i.e.: the persistent claims of Obama's wiretappings that were used to derail focus away from Jeff Sessions' apparent perjury. He could be using this whole narrative to distract from another story that should really be getting more attention, i.e.: the passing of a (potentially crappy) new healthcare law.
The current problem in a deeply divided United States:
There are two kinds of pro-Trumpers, and there are two kinds of anti-Trumpers.
Anti-Trumpers:
1. Those that trust the media implicitly and without reservation. Anything the media says, they gobble it up - even to the point of hating the President. Indeed, they may very well hate the President based solely on their exposure to MSM.
2. People who see what the media is doing. They see the media lies, media exaggerations, the media spin; they see the effect the media has on the gullible; they see the power the media has over the country. And they don't care. Why? Because fuck Donald Trump.
Pro-Trumpers:
1. They trust Donald Trump implicitly and without reservation. Anything Trump says, they gobble it up - even to the point of hating their fellow citizens. Indeed, they may very well hate their fellow citizens based solely on their exposure to the Trump propaganda machine.
2. People who see what Trump is doing. They see the lies, exaggeration, and spin. They see the effect it has on poor white trash and rural working people. And they don't care. Why? Because fuck the left.
And then you have reasonable people, a significant minority, caught in the middle. They see what is becoming of their country, their government, and the free press. And it makes them very, very angry.
And then you have reasonable people, a significant minority, caught in the middle. They see what is becoming of their country, their government, and the free press. And it makes them very, very angry.
I like the notion that anyone who likes or dislikes Trump is automatically unreasonable and possibly an extremist. There's no way that's a logical fallacy at all.
I mean that just saves you the trouble of actually addressing anyone's points, on either side.
This evaluation does not look reasonable to me. First off, it's not as if it's the media against Trump - even though this is how he likes to spin it.
Fox is a very major media outlet that was solidly pro-Trump, not to even address all the local radio stations that are the main news sources for many Trump supporters. Even from more mainstream media (e.g. CNN) Trump got significant positive coverage both on his joint address to congress and the Syria bombings.
If the media had a flaw prior to the election it is that they tried too much to present both sides as reasonable. All the current critical coverage of Trump is well supported. Conservatives railing against the liberal media goes back to Nixon.
The United States seem deeply divided. But the reason is that a large part no longer has a fact-based world view. And while the media plays a role in this, it is Fox News and other right-wing outlets. Unfortunately, the saying "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" has become very true, which is sad. A sane conservative party would help provide some needed balance, but Republicans are no longer able to fulfill that function.
So, David Clarke reports that he has been given a position within Homeland Security.
Just as a reminder, Clarke has
called for the suspension of habeas corpus in the US
pins objects on his uniform that look like medals at first glance, but are not real medals
invited members of the Fellowship of Christian Centurions to proselytize at several mandatory employee meetings
let a prisoner die of dehydration after water was withheld from him for six days
shackles pregnant women in his custody, even when giving birth. One baby has died
The guy belongs in jail, not in public service. Giving him this position might not be on Trump directly, but it would be on the Trump administration. Hopefully, he is lying. Department has not confirmed so far.
Sometimes when people disagree with you, it is because they have a reason.
Hell, sometimes when people are loud and angry, it is because they have a reason.
It might not be a good reason, but no one in this world is motivated by "stupid."
@semetigod When that person with a reason is ignored or belittled, with no effort to try to understand from their point of view WHY they feel that way, people get angry and the cycle continues and often gets worse. Unfortunately, this is one way violence and terrorism can often begin, they FEEL there IS no other choice, often made with a rational argument (from their point of view).
And then you have reasonable people, a significant minority, caught in the middle. They see what is becoming of their country, their government, and the free press. And it makes them very, very angry.
I like the notion that anyone who likes or dislikes Trump is automatically unreasonable and possibly an extremist. There's no way that's a logical fallacy at all.
I mean that just saves you the trouble of actually addressing anyone's points, on either side.
@BelleSorciere Nicely put. I have seen and worked with many that just don't bother. Yes it's their right not to bother if they so choose, but sometimes, esp. in business, there are consequences.
@Ammar Reality and a liberal bias, however slight or strong it may be, does seem to be the way of things sometimes doesn't it. It almost seems like too many folks are becoming one-sided (in many areas and topics) in the country and cannot even halfway listen to other points of view because they are too busy holding on to their own (on all sides).
The whole darn country could benefit from some conflict management training (I gotta toot my own horn here just a little) Still, I most certainly don't have as many answers as I would like to, not even close.
The moderation team is getting constant reports on comments in this thread. We respect and support the wish to discuss politics. But as it has been stated several times before, this thread is a subject to the Site rules, like all other threads on this forum. And the forum's rating is "Teen".
According to ESRB, "Teen" means that content is generally suitable for ages 13 and up. May contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling and/or infrequent use of strong language.
This is why the Site Rules forbid excessive profanity, not profanity entirely. It's not okay when one comment contains several uses of the F*word (this case), or when a comment consists nearly of the F*word only.
Please remember, that even in those situations when your comments with the F*word are okay according to the Site rules, other users reading this forum may find the use of that word offending and completely unneeded. Even if you feel yourself angry at something happening in the politics, take a deep breath before posting in this thread and re-read what you have written before clicking the "Post Comment" button.
To clarify, it is certainly important to understand why Trump supporters support him and engage them in a dialogue whenever possible.
However, this does not mean that they are any less wrong to support him.
And one personal problem is that they are hard to engage in a meaningful discussion. They rely on obscure and fake sources - for example, how do you have a valid discussion with someone who believes in Pizzagate and constantly engages in whataboutism? See how often "but Hillary" pops up in this thread.
I try to avoid attacks on the personal level, but I am not willing to hide that I consider typical opinions of Trump supporters to be a danger to human rights, democracy and the general welfare of the public.
EDIT: I wrote this post before seeing the moderator comment above. Since I do not believe that my post as it stands is against the guidelines, I will leave it as it is but keep the comment in mind for the future.
In breaking news before work here, Roger Ailes has died. The man was undeniably a genius, a destructive force in American politics, who created FOX News pretty much for the sole reason of avoiding another Watergate by creating an alternate reality. I firmly believe that if FOX News had existed then, Nixon would have skated and never left office.
but no one in this world is motivated by "stupid."
Unfortunately, I must disagree with you here. Have you taken a close look at many of your fellow human beings lately? There are many people whose primary reason for taking a particular course of action is "stupidity", as evidenced by the multitude of "fail" videos available online.
What does it mean that the president, who has been informed about the status of the governments case by Devin Nunes and others, knows that the government has a weak case? "stay strong" what's that mean don't accept a plea deal?
Does it mean don't worry even if you go to jail the president will pardon you?
Does it mean don't cooperate with the subpoena the Senate has given for documents? He hasn't complied so far-
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) told reporters Thursday that Flynn’s lawyers have yet to turn over any documents, although there “may be a day or two left” for them to do so.
“Michael Flynn has not cooperated with the committee up to this point,” Burr said, adding, however, that he has not received a “definitive answer” on whether Flynn and his lawyers will comply.
I think it is a combination of "don't squeal on me" and "I've got your back". I suspect pardon papers are already drafted and they are just waiting to fill in the blanks based on whatever charges might be filed.
Comments
I mean, like it or not, it is possible to divide people into groups, and it is possible to identify that some groups are better off than other groups - for example, that black people have a fraction of the wealth that white people do. That is by far not the only possible division and people can also be grouped according to multiple traits (like cisgender straight white middle class dude, who might also be disabled).
Manafort and Flynn, who anyone with their eyes open has been screaming about for months upon months. His campaign chairman up to and through the convention and his most trusted advisor for the duration of the campaign. "Muh Russia" indeed.
And:
Predictably, going with the stock excuse of the Alt-right: It was all a joke and words don't matter. Paul Ryan is a craven bastard.
“I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authorities and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,” Mr. Rosenstein said in a statement. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination.”
Although, I can't shake this scene from my head for some reason:
critical thinking.
plausibility.
credibility. I do not think for a minute that Bush could do 9/11. Now, Cheney, on the other hand...
As well, I used to think that conspiracy theories about it were crazy and never bothered to look into them. But then I saw a video on thermite experiments with regard to plausible uses in 9/11, back in, oh, 2012 or so. Pretty sure it's this one. Now, I've played with various thermites in chemistry club, and I've read lots on it, so I'm already approaching it with a reasonable expectation that it can cut and weld steel. But I never thought about it being used so ingeniously by the guy in this video to do things such as cutting vertical steel sections both vertically and horizontally, which I also would have thought impossible to do. I mean it's a dense 5000+ degree liquid, whose "power" is because it's so damned hot. It's going to be hard to channel into effective use because it generally melts or burns everything it touches.
Now, I'm not saying that Cheney did it. I frankly don't know which to believe, whether it was terrorists or "an inside job". Or both, an inside job using terrorists for cover.
I am not willing to dismiss what I find compelling video evidence for the benefit of the doubt of the previous administration. But neither am I going to throw out accusations BECAUSE of them. Because the videos just provide evidence of plausible uses of thermite in 9/11. It accomplishes, at best, discrediting the official story. It doesn't really do anything like say who could have placed specialized thermite demolition instruments (or how, it wouldn't exactly have been easy to hide), or at whose bidding. You know, things that would need to be actionable to do things like congressional hearings. Unfortunately, this is rather true. Hillary lost partly because more people came out to vote for Trump, but also because people didn't come out to vote for her.
In 2020, I suspect that the number of people who would vote for Trump would be slightly smaller, but not too much smaller. Perhaps 5% less? He's burned off all the wafflers and idealists, but there's still a sizable core that would be with him just because of party affiliation and because they're terrible human beings.
I could be wrong though, and perhaps more people than I think are disillusioned with Trump being "an outsider". After all, he can't claim that in 2020 though. Well, I guess he could, it'd just be more lying.
But there is a lot of reason for concern at how often they use them, and the reasoning for using them.
A source may be anonymous because of a danger to live or livelihood if their identity is revealed, and that is a fair reason. But a source may also be anonymous simply because they want the information out there without their name attached to it, and that is a terrible reason. Many "anonymous sources" are merely leaking information that is beneficial to the government, the DNC, various lobbying groups, US intelligence, and so forth. There should be names to attach to this information so questions may be asked. Otherwise reporters are simply being deputised to give press releases instead of receiving them.
In addition, anonymous sources should never be the only/primary source for a story. They should be confirmation, or if they contain new information at all, it should be relatively small and thoroughly vetted. Some mid-level Washington bureaucrat who does not want to be named is not a credible primary source for an entire story on the Flynn investigation.
Anonymous sources are so overused, and so often used to support those in power rather than undermine them (on both sides of the political fence!), that it's almost become farcical and is corrosive to American journalism and democracy.
(And more people really need to read All the President's Men.)
To this day, I can't even begin to imagine just how badly the Republicans would have savaged Al Gore and torn him to pieces if it had happened under his Administration. Then again, there is a strong chance it never would have happened in the first place. Much like 2016, the 2000 election, where the man with less votes won (not even discussing the Florida nonsense) had utterly devastating consequences.
I also think it is pointless to dwell on it +15 years later.
I mean....what in the hell?? The National Security Adviser, the guy telling the President what the best course of action would be in the most important and risky scenarios imaginable.....and THIS is who you hire?? Again, this just begs the question.....why?? What is the motivation behind keeping a guy who is clearly a stooge for both Putin AND Erdogan in this kind of position?? This guy was in a position to influence policy regarding Turkey. And this is well before Sally Yates warned them about the blackmail threat, which they sat on for ANOTHER 18 days and only acted at that point because of media reports. What is it that Michael Flynn knows or was in charge of that would cause any sane person to keep someone this compromised so close to them?? I mean, it goes WELL beyond that even. Trump was willing to open himself up to charges of obstruction of justice and fire the FBI director for THIS guy?? Who is, at the very least, a paid agent of the Turkish government to the tune of half a million dollars?? What the hell is going on here?? This also makes the idea that Mike Pence was in the dark about this the whole time HIGHLY suspect. Pence was deeply involved in the transition (correction: he was the HEAD of the transition). So the entire narrative about being fired for "lying to the Vice President" is looking awfully thin right now. Awfully thin.
Further, damning reporting. At this point I'm not sure Flynn doesn't turn out to just be a flat-out spy for one or more foreign governments, literally sitting at the President's right-hand:
Right. I recall all those times Bill O'Reilly, Alex Jones and other right wingers praised Obama oh wait no, never happened. Trump's such a "snowflake".
He might though soon though.
2. His failure to report any obstruction at the time could be argued as proof that he did not actually perceive a serious intent to obstruct - which would be necessary for it to be considered a crime.
3. What has Comey actually said since the story broke? Last I read, he was silent on the issue, and had not yet responded to invitations to testify.
Looks like the battle lines have been drawn. Time to sit back and see how it all plays out.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-russia-probe-will-reveal-no-collusion-with-his-campaign/ar-BBBfkQa?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout
"Trump says Russia probe will reveal no collusion with his campaign"
WASHINGTON, May 17 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Wednesday said a special counsel's probe of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election would show there was "no collusion" between his campaign and a foreign power.
"As I have stated many times, a thorough investigation will confirm what we already know –- there was no collusion between my campaign and any foreign entity," he said in a statement released by the White House.
"I look forward to this matter concluding quickly. In the meantime, I will never stop fighting for the people and the issues that matter most to the future of our country."
Earlier the U.S. Justice Department appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate possible links between Trump's 2016 campaign team and Russia as well as alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election.
Keep in mind that Trump also loves distractions - i.e.: the persistent claims of Obama's wiretappings that were used to derail focus away from Jeff Sessions' apparent perjury. He could be using this whole narrative to distract from another story that should really be getting more attention, i.e.: the passing of a (potentially crappy) new healthcare law.
Like I said, time to wait and see what unfolds.
There are two kinds of pro-Trumpers, and there are two kinds of anti-Trumpers.
Anti-Trumpers:
1. Those that trust the media implicitly and without reservation. Anything the media says, they gobble it up - even to the point of hating the President. Indeed, they may very well hate the President based solely on their exposure to MSM.
2. People who see what the media is doing. They see the media lies, media exaggerations, the media spin; they see the effect the media has on the gullible; they see the power the media has over the country. And they don't care. Why? Because fuck Donald Trump.
Pro-Trumpers:
1. They trust Donald Trump implicitly and without reservation. Anything Trump says, they gobble it up - even to the point of hating their fellow citizens. Indeed, they may very well hate their fellow citizens based solely on their exposure to the Trump propaganda machine.
2. People who see what Trump is doing. They see the lies, exaggeration, and spin. They see the effect it has on poor white trash and rural working people. And they don't care. Why? Because fuck the left.
And then you have reasonable people, a significant minority, caught in the middle. They see what is becoming of their country, their government, and the free press. And it makes them very, very angry.
I mean that just saves you the trouble of actually addressing anyone's points, on either side.
Fox is a very major media outlet that was solidly pro-Trump, not to even address all the local radio stations that are the main news sources for many Trump supporters. Even from more mainstream media (e.g. CNN) Trump got significant positive coverage both on his joint address to congress and the Syria bombings.
If the media had a flaw prior to the election it is that they tried too much to present both sides as reasonable. All the current critical coverage of Trump is well supported. Conservatives railing against the liberal media goes back to Nixon.
The United States seem deeply divided. But the reason is that a large part no longer has a fact-based world view. And while the media plays a role in this, it is Fox News and other right-wing outlets. Unfortunately, the saying "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" has become very true, which is sad. A sane conservative party would help provide some needed balance, but Republicans are no longer able to fulfill that function.
Sometimes when people disagree with you, it is because they have a reason.
Hell, sometimes when people are loud and angry, it is because they have a reason.
It might not be a good reason, but no one in this world is motivated by "stupid."
Just as a reminder, Clarke has
- called for the suspension of habeas corpus in the US
- pins objects on his uniform that look like medals at first glance, but are not real medals
- invited members of the Fellowship of Christian Centurions to proselytize at several mandatory employee meetings
- let a prisoner die of dehydration after water was withheld from him for six days
- shackles pregnant women in his custody, even when giving birth. One baby has died
The guy belongs in jail, not in public service. Giving him this position might not be on Trump directly, but it would be on the Trump administration. Hopefully, he is lying. Department has not confirmed so far.@Ammar Reality and a liberal bias, however slight or strong it may be, does seem to be the way of things sometimes doesn't it. It almost seems like too many folks are becoming one-sided (in many areas and topics) in the country and cannot even halfway listen to other points of view because they are too busy holding on to their own (on all sides).
The whole darn country could benefit from some conflict management training (I gotta toot my own horn here just a little)
The moderation team is getting constant reports on comments in this thread. We respect and support the wish to discuss politics. But as it has been stated several times before, this thread is a subject to the Site rules, like all other threads on this forum. And the forum's rating is "Teen".
According to ESRB, "Teen" means that content is generally suitable for ages 13 and up. May contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling and/or infrequent use of strong language.
This is why the Site Rules forbid excessive profanity, not profanity entirely. It's not okay when one comment contains several uses of the F*word (this case), or when a comment consists nearly of the F*word only.
Please remember, that even in those situations when your comments with the F*word are okay according to the Site rules, other users reading this forum may find the use of that word offending and completely unneeded. Even if you feel yourself angry at something happening in the politics, take a deep breath before posting in this thread and re-read what you have written before clicking the "Post Comment" button.
However, this does not mean that they are any less wrong to support him.
And one personal problem is that they are hard to engage in a meaningful discussion. They rely on obscure and fake sources - for example, how do you have a valid discussion with someone who believes in Pizzagate and constantly engages in whataboutism? See how often "but Hillary" pops up in this thread.
I try to avoid attacks on the personal level, but I am not willing to hide that I consider typical opinions of Trump supporters to be a danger to human rights, democracy and the general welfare of the public.
EDIT: I wrote this post before seeing the moderator comment above. Since I do not believe that my post as it stands is against the guidelines, I will leave it as it is but keep the comment in mind for the future.
And a lovely, lovely Time Magazine cover that will grace every super-market checkout line in America:
In breaking news before work here, Roger Ailes has died. The man was undeniably a genius, a destructive force in American politics, who created FOX News pretty much for the sole reason of avoiding another Watergate by creating an alternate reality. I firmly believe that if FOX News had existed then, Nixon would have skated and never left office.
Idiot the 45th is privately contacting the subject of a major counter-intelligence investigation. Even his lawyers have no control over him.
Does it mean don't worry even if you go to jail the president will pardon you?
Does it mean don't cooperate with the subpoena the Senate has given for documents? He hasn't complied so far-
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) told reporters Thursday that Flynn’s lawyers have yet to turn over any documents, although there “may be a day or two left” for them to do so.
“Michael Flynn has not cooperated with the committee up to this point,” Burr said, adding, however, that he has not received a “definitive answer” on whether Flynn and his lawyers will comply.