So far there is no good evidence that the two Americans arrested in Venezuela had any connection with the US government
Besides the storied history of U.S coups in that part of the world and in the world generally, the numerous connections between the paramilitary groups leaders and the President, the statements of some of the green berets, and the U.S itself declaring the President illegitimate, you're right, there is no evidence that the U.S was in any way involved. It just takes, I don't know, a measure of historical literacy to add two and two together to make four. Some might think the United States is a bastion of freedom and democracy and would never do anything like play a part in overthrowing an elected government, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Past events are not evidence though. There's a reason why someone's past criminal record isn't used to establish guilt on an alleged crime. And you have no evidence for the other alleged connections.
The fact of the matter is, Chavistas in Venezuela are not afraid of voicing their opinions or of running for office, or anything like that. It is opponents of Chavismo that are. One side in Venezuela lives in fear of exercising any kind of political power in public! I mean it's weird to me, to have this super strident opinion and not even acknowledge, for a second, where the political violence in Venezuela is actually being directed. Not everything has to center around the US.
It's also really weird, to me, to be a Russia-skeptic about the 2016 election, and yet to have such a low standard of evidence for the "US-backed coup" here. It's certainly not a consistent approach.
The issue around Russia was subject to a years long investigation at the highest levels of a hostile government with the end result being that they were not even accused of the appearance of collusion or wrongdoing. It's still surprising to me that people bring this up as if they were proven right in the end.
The extent of the involvement of the U.S is certainly an open question, but with U.S armed forces being the lynchpin of the whole operation it's hard to say there was none at all. I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this. But I question the worth of any worldview that does not take the recent past of individuals or nations into account. If Donald Trump had a known and proven history of collusion with the Russian government, it would have shed a whole other light on the entire question as well as key events.
Keep whitewashing the Senate report regarding Russian interference if it makes you feel better, but continuously repeating that there was no wrongdoing every couple of months does not make it so.
So far there is no good evidence that the two Americans arrested in Venezuela had any connection with the US government
Besides the storied history of U.S coups in that part of the world and in the world generally, the numerous connections between the paramilitary groups leaders and the President, the statements of some of the green berets, and the U.S itself declaring the President illegitimate, you're right, there is no evidence that the U.S was in any way involved. It just takes, I don't know, a measure of historical literacy to add two and two together to make four. Some might think the United States is a bastion of freedom and democracy and would never do anything like play a part in overthrowing an elected government, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Past events are not evidence though. There's a reason why someone's past criminal record isn't used to establish guilt on an alleged crime. And you have no evidence for the other alleged connections.
The fact of the matter is, Chavistas in Venezuela are not afraid of voicing their opinions or of running for office, or anything like that. It is opponents of Chavismo that are. One side in Venezuela lives in fear of exercising any kind of political power in public! I mean it's weird to me, to have this super strident opinion and not even acknowledge, for a second, where the political violence in Venezuela is actually being directed. Not everything has to center around the US.
It's also really weird, to me, to be a Russia-skeptic about the 2016 election, and yet to have such a low standard of evidence for the "US-backed coup" here. It's certainly not a consistent approach.
The issue around Russia was subject to a years long investigation at the highest levels of a hostile government with the end result being that they were not even accused of the appearance of collusion or wrongdoing. It's still surprising to me that people bring this up as if they were proven right in the end.
The extent of the involvement of the U.S is certainly an open question, but with U.S armed forces being the lynchpin of the whole operation it's hard to say there was none at all. I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this. But I question the worth of any worldview that does not take the recent past of individuals or nations into account. If Donald Trump had a known and proven history of collusion with the Russian government, it would have shed a whole other light on the entire question as well as key events.
Keep whitewashing the Senate report regarding Russian interference if it makes you feel better, but continuously repeating that there was no wrongdoing every couple of months does not make it so.
The real issue is how quaint it seems compared to everything that came afterwards. The warning bells were going off from jump-street.
Interesting article on the black prohibition/temperance movement back in the late 19th/early 20th century. I knew about the link between women's suffrage and prohibition but I was not aware of the ties between the black equal rights movement and prohibition.
Interesting article on the black prohibition/temperance movement back in the late 19th/early 20th century. I knew about the link between women's suffrage and prohibition but I was not aware of the ties between the black equal rights movement and prohibition.
So far there is no good evidence that the two Americans arrested in Venezuela had any connection with the US government
Besides the storied history of U.S coups in that part of the world and in the world generally, the numerous connections between the paramilitary groups leaders and the President, the statements of some of the green berets, and the U.S itself declaring the President illegitimate, you're right, there is no evidence that the U.S was in any way involved. It just takes, I don't know, a measure of historical literacy to add two and two together to make four. Some might think the United States is a bastion of freedom and democracy and would never do anything like play a part in overthrowing an elected government, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Past events are not evidence though. There's a reason why someone's past criminal record isn't used to establish guilt on an alleged crime. And you have no evidence for the other alleged connections.
The fact of the matter is, Chavistas in Venezuela are not afraid of voicing their opinions or of running for office, or anything like that. It is opponents of Chavismo that are. One side in Venezuela lives in fear of exercising any kind of political power in public! I mean it's weird to me, to have this super strident opinion and not even acknowledge, for a second, where the political violence in Venezuela is actually being directed. Not everything has to center around the US.
It's also really weird, to me, to be a Russia-skeptic about the 2016 election, and yet to have such a low standard of evidence for the "US-backed coup" here. It's certainly not a consistent approach.
The issue around Russia was subject to a years long investigation at the highest levels of a hostile government with the end result being that they were not even accused of the appearance of collusion or wrongdoing. It's still surprising to me that people bring this up as if they were proven right in the end.
The extent of the involvement of the U.S is certainly an open question, but with U.S armed forces being the lynchpin of the whole operation it's hard to say there was none at all. I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this. But I question the worth of any worldview that does not take the recent past of individuals or nations into account. If Donald Trump had a known and proven history of collusion with the Russian government, it would have shed a whole other light on the entire question as well as key events.
Keep whitewashing the Senate report regarding Russian interference if it makes you feel better, but continuously repeating that there was no wrongdoing every couple of months does not make it so.
Neither Senate Report even pretends to cast Russian collusion accusations at the Trump team, and even if they did, Senate Reports are of far less value in determining guilt or innocence than criminal investigations are. You know, it's why we decide things using trial by jury and not the whims of the Senate.
At some point you just have to accept when you are wrong.
So far there is no good evidence that the two Americans arrested in Venezuela had any connection with the US government
Besides the storied history of U.S coups in that part of the world and in the world generally, the numerous connections between the paramilitary groups leaders and the President, the statements of some of the green berets, and the U.S itself declaring the President illegitimate, you're right, there is no evidence that the U.S was in any way involved. It just takes, I don't know, a measure of historical literacy to add two and two together to make four. Some might think the United States is a bastion of freedom and democracy and would never do anything like play a part in overthrowing an elected government, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Past events are not evidence though. There's a reason why someone's past criminal record isn't used to establish guilt on an alleged crime. And you have no evidence for the other alleged connections.
The fact of the matter is, Chavistas in Venezuela are not afraid of voicing their opinions or of running for office, or anything like that. It is opponents of Chavismo that are. One side in Venezuela lives in fear of exercising any kind of political power in public! I mean it's weird to me, to have this super strident opinion and not even acknowledge, for a second, where the political violence in Venezuela is actually being directed. Not everything has to center around the US.
It's also really weird, to me, to be a Russia-skeptic about the 2016 election, and yet to have such a low standard of evidence for the "US-backed coup" here. It's certainly not a consistent approach.
The issue around Russia was subject to a years long investigation at the highest levels of a hostile government with the end result being that they were not even accused of the appearance of collusion or wrongdoing. It's still surprising to me that people bring this up as if they were proven right in the end.
The extent of the involvement of the U.S is certainly an open question, but with U.S armed forces being the lynchpin of the whole operation it's hard to say there was none at all. I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this. But I question the worth of any worldview that does not take the recent past of individuals or nations into account. If Donald Trump had a known and proven history of collusion with the Russian government, it would have shed a whole other light on the entire question as well as key events.
Keep whitewashing the Senate report regarding Russian interference if it makes you feel better, but continuously repeating that there was no wrongdoing every couple of months does not make it so.
Neither Senate Report even pretends to cast Russian collusion accusations at the Trump team, and even if they did, Senate Reports are of far less value in determining guilt or innocence than criminal investigations are. You know, it's why we decide things using trial by jury and not the whims of the Senate.
At some point you just have to accept when you are wrong.
Does the actual word 'collusion' really need to be in the report? The poison pill term that killed the investigation from the get go as there is no crime or legal term surrounding it. Something that was discussed ad nauseum in this thread at the time and yet there were 8(?) of Trump's team convicted because of it, mostly due to lying to the investigators to cover up 'the collusion' and 'wrong doing' knowing that if they do so, Trump would pardon them, which happened.
But go ahead, keep moving them goalposts and ignoring facts if it makes you feel like you're winning. I am tired of you rehashing the same debunked rightwing talking points every few months.
We've been over the report many times. I think if we dive back into it, it should be delving into a substantive piece of the issue, and ideally treading new ground. Returning to a common point makes sense every once in a while, but it hasn't been that long since we last talked about it.
Personally, I've lost interest in the report. Trump's obstruction of justice and the scattered acts of perjury and tax fraud by his associates are not as high priorities for me now that he's already out of office, and I don't think they'll become relevant until at leqst 2023.
Mostly I'm just anxious about the speed at which the Biden administration will be implementing new policies. The GOP barely interests me these days except insofar as it traffics in conspiracy theories and hints at civil war. The Democratic party is in power and appears to be willing to operate without GOP support, so mostly it will be a matter of what the Democratic party tries to do for the next couple years.
Mostly I'm just anxious about the speed at which the Biden administration will be implementing new policies. The GOP barely interests me these days except insofar as it traffics in conspiracy theories and hints at civil war. The Democratic party is in power and appears to be willing to operate without GOP support, so mostly it will be a matter of what the Democratic party tries to do for the next couple years.
Speaking as someone who is not from the U.S., I'm particularly interested in what their foreign policy will be. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a good track record in that department. Both sustained unnecessary wars overseas. I said it before, and I'll say it again: it is cynical to accept a Nobel Peace Prize if your country is engaged is in the middle of a war. Obama should have rejected that prize, just as Jean-Paul Sartre rejected the Nobel Prize in Literature many decades before. I didn't see Joe Biden say or do anything about that when he was vice president. I hope that now that he's president, he will have a different approach to foreign policy. Though, in all honesty, I'm completely skeptical in that regard.
So far there is no good evidence that the two Americans arrested in Venezuela had any connection with the US government
Besides the storied history of U.S coups in that part of the world and in the world generally, the numerous connections between the paramilitary groups leaders and the President, the statements of some of the green berets, and the U.S itself declaring the President illegitimate, you're right, there is no evidence that the U.S was in any way involved. It just takes, I don't know, a measure of historical literacy to add two and two together to make four. Some might think the United States is a bastion of freedom and democracy and would never do anything like play a part in overthrowing an elected government, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Past events are not evidence though. There's a reason why someone's past criminal record isn't used to establish guilt on an alleged crime. And you have no evidence for the other alleged connections.
The fact of the matter is, Chavistas in Venezuela are not afraid of voicing their opinions or of running for office, or anything like that. It is opponents of Chavismo that are. One side in Venezuela lives in fear of exercising any kind of political power in public! I mean it's weird to me, to have this super strident opinion and not even acknowledge, for a second, where the political violence in Venezuela is actually being directed. Not everything has to center around the US.
It's also really weird, to me, to be a Russia-skeptic about the 2016 election, and yet to have such a low standard of evidence for the "US-backed coup" here. It's certainly not a consistent approach.
The issue around Russia was subject to a years long investigation at the highest levels of a hostile government with the end result being that they were not even accused of the appearance of collusion or wrongdoing. It's still surprising to me that people bring this up as if they were proven right in the end.
The extent of the involvement of the U.S is certainly an open question, but with U.S armed forces being the lynchpin of the whole operation it's hard to say there was none at all. I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this. But I question the worth of any worldview that does not take the recent past of individuals or nations into account. If Donald Trump had a known and proven history of collusion with the Russian government, it would have shed a whole other light on the entire question as well as key events.
Keep whitewashing the Senate report regarding Russian interference if it makes you feel better, but continuously repeating that there was no wrongdoing every couple of months does not make it so.
Neither Senate Report even pretends to cast Russian collusion accusations at the Trump team, and even if they did, Senate Reports are of far less value in determining guilt or innocence than criminal investigations are. You know, it's why we decide things using trial by jury and not the whims of the Senate.
At some point you just have to accept when you are wrong.
Does the actual word 'collusion' really need to be in the report? The poison pill term that killed the investigation from the get go as there is no crime or legal term surrounding it. Something that was discussed ad nauseum in this thread at the time and yet there were 8(?) of Trump's team convicted because of it, mostly due to lying to the investigators to cover up 'the collusion' and 'wrong doing' knowing that if they do so, Trump would pardon them, which happened.
But go ahead, keep moving them goalposts and ignoring facts if it makes you feel like you're winning. I am tired of you rehashing the same debunked rightwing talking points every few months.
No, the actual word collusion does not need to be in the report, nor does it need to be in the investigation. It is simply shorthand to describe any form of criminal conspiracy of any sort. Formal or informal, directly expressed or a silent agreement. I feel like the Mueller Report lays this out well, so i'll just quote it:
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted
a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing,
the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting
Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has
frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific
offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal
criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability
was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the
factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]”—a term that appears
in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion,
“coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood
coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the
Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking
actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term
coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the
Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
So I don't think it was a poison pill term that killed anything, they applied the concept of collusion to the law as best they could, which comes out to criminal conspiracy.
It's really not about winning or losing, but I do feel like if anything at all should settle a matter a very lengthy investigation at the highest levels of power should be the thing that does it. But I'm sorry if I came off as rude, for what it's worth.
We've been over the report many times. I think if we dive back into it, it should be delving into a substantive piece of the issue, and ideally treading new ground. Returning to a common point makes sense every once in a while, but it hasn't been that long since we last talked about it.
In the waning days of his Presidency, Trump issued the final pardons, which means that literally EVERYONE who lied for him, and was convicted of doing so, was granted clemency. One of them (Flynn) was advising Trump he should declare martial law and have the military hold another election in certain swing states. Another (Stone) was hanging out with the Oathkeepers a few hours before they were involved in the storming of the Capitol.
So I think it's quite relevant that two of the people central to the Russia investigation, who were convicted and later pardoned, were also on the front lines of a movement in the waning days to literally destroy American democracy once and forever. It is not a coincidence. It's simply more evidence that we have one party that, though deeply flawed, is interested in some form of governance, and the other party is basically nothing more than an anti-democratic authoritarian cult.
As you mention in your next post, there is really no reason to consult with Republicans on matters of governance in Washington at the moment because they have no interest in taking part in it. Being an opposition party shooting spitballs from the bleachers is all they have ever been any good at in my lifetime. And within 14 days, they've already gone back to the well that contains stuff like "the Democrats don't insist we say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings".
So far there is no good evidence that the two Americans arrested in Venezuela had any connection with the US government
Besides the storied history of U.S coups in that part of the world and in the world generally, the numerous connections between the paramilitary groups leaders and the President, the statements of some of the green berets, and the U.S itself declaring the President illegitimate, you're right, there is no evidence that the U.S was in any way involved. It just takes, I don't know, a measure of historical literacy to add two and two together to make four. Some might think the United States is a bastion of freedom and democracy and would never do anything like play a part in overthrowing an elected government, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Past events are not evidence though. There's a reason why someone's past criminal record isn't used to establish guilt on an alleged crime. And you have no evidence for the other alleged connections.
The fact of the matter is, Chavistas in Venezuela are not afraid of voicing their opinions or of running for office, or anything like that. It is opponents of Chavismo that are. One side in Venezuela lives in fear of exercising any kind of political power in public! I mean it's weird to me, to have this super strident opinion and not even acknowledge, for a second, where the political violence in Venezuela is actually being directed. Not everything has to center around the US.
It's also really weird, to me, to be a Russia-skeptic about the 2016 election, and yet to have such a low standard of evidence for the "US-backed coup" here. It's certainly not a consistent approach.
The issue around Russia was subject to a years long investigation at the highest levels of a hostile government with the end result being that they were not even accused of the appearance of collusion or wrongdoing. It's still surprising to me that people bring this up as if they were proven right in the end.
The extent of the involvement of the U.S is certainly an open question, but with U.S armed forces being the lynchpin of the whole operation it's hard to say there was none at all. I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this. But I question the worth of any worldview that does not take the recent past of individuals or nations into account. If Donald Trump had a known and proven history of collusion with the Russian government, it would have shed a whole other light on the entire question as well as key events.
US armed forces were not the "lynchpin" of the operation. There were no active-duty US forces involved. There were two former US service members, acting in a private capacity. Again, you don't have evidence for the initial, very strong claim here.
Let's keep in the mind the real facts here. There were about 60 total guys involved in this attack. Venezuela is almost 30 million people. Even calling this thing an "operation" with "US armed forces" is an absurd characterization. There were literally just two Americans, armed with nothing better than rifles. Instead the operation is exactly what it looks it -- an absurd attempt by a pair of gung-ho ex-military guys who took advantage of a bunch of disaffected Venezuela expats in Colombia, and got themselves killed or captured.
This is gonna seem like I'm just repeating myself over and over here, but as soon as the GOP stops making full-on frontal assaults on democracy, I'll stop posting about it:
Notarized signatures (which are only really used for power of attorney, wills, and custody arrangements), reducing polling locations by up to 85%, and, just straight-up suggesting a provision that the State Legislature can just decide the vote totals don't count. I defy anyone to explain to me, in good faith, how these attempts aren't exactly what they look like.
The response to 2020 was never going to be to moderate or engage in self-reflection. The move was ALWAYS going to be do return to the state level where they still wield power and attempt to rig the game to the point that they want to literally just be able to flip the table over if it doesn't go their way and declare that a win. This reminds me of the time I went up 14 points on my friend in the 1st quarter of a game of Madden in college and he just got up and shut the console off.
It is so, so goddamn clear from the video and audio evidence presented today that:
1.) This mob was WAY more coordinated than we have ever been led to believe by those trying to dismiss it.
2.) They were absolutely there with the express purpose of not hypothetically or rhetorically, but ACTUALLY stopping the certification of Biden.
3.) These people would have absolutely assassinated Pence, Pelosi and AOC if they'd gotten their hand on them. These three people in particular were clear targets. This was about 90 seconds away from a purge of elected officials.
Unless the majority of Republican Senators reject this as a legitimate tactic, then I can't ever view the GOP as anything other than a party whose CENTRAL AIM is the destruction of American democracy. 6 people jumping ship ain't gonna cut it. And reports seem to be that the other 44 Republicans Senators are hardly paying attention to what is being presented at all.
You are going to be told by all the usual suspects, from all different perspectives and angles, that this wasn't as bad as it seemed, that we should move on, and pretend it never happened. Don't reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. And don't ever forget they have decided to die on the hill of an attempted authoritarian takeover.
It is so, so goddamn clear from the video and audio evidence presented today that:
1.) This mob was WAY more coordinated than we have ever been led to believe by those trying to dismiss it.
2.) They were absolutely there with the express purpose of not hypothetically or rhetorically, but ACTUALLY stopping the certification of Biden.
3.) These people would have absolutely assassinated Pence, Pelosi and AOC if they'd gotten their hand on them. These three people in particular were clear targets. This was about 90 seconds away from a purge of elected officials.
I was coming here to discuss this a bit too. The video evidence is just so damning. The idea that these people were "patriots" and "peaceful protesters" is just outrageous. That has aged unbelievably poorly. It was pretty obvious on January 6th, and it is WAY more obvious now.
If our Democracy was sane and well functioning, Trump would be convinced and barred from ever holding office again. The fact that there's a 95% chance that only a few Republicans will vote to convict is incredibly damning of the GOP and our broken institutions that keep pushing the GOP further and further right when conventional political theory has that losing the popular every 4 years for the last 32 except in 2004 would cause them to move to the center.
It is so, so goddamn clear from the video and audio evidence presented today that:
1.) This mob was WAY more coordinated than we have ever been led to believe by those trying to dismiss it.
2.) They were absolutely there with the express purpose of not hypothetically or rhetorically, but ACTUALLY stopping the certification of Biden.
3.) These people would have absolutely assassinated Pence, Pelosi and AOC if they'd gotten their hand on them. These three people in particular were clear targets. This was about 90 seconds away from a purge of elected officials.
I was coming here to discuss this a bit too. The video evidence is just so damning. The idea that these people were "patriots" and "peaceful protesters" is just outrageous. That has aged unbelievably poorly. It was pretty obvious on January 6th, and it is WAY more obvious now.
If our Democracy was sane and well functioning, Trump would be convinced and barred from ever holding office again. The fact that there's a 95% chance that only a few Republicans will vote to convict is incredibly damning of the GOP and our broken institutions that keep pushing the GOP further and further right when conventional political theory has that losing the popular every 4 years for the last 32 except in 2004 would cause them to move to the center.
In this scenario, "turning further and further right" has absolutely nothing to do with domestic or foreign policy. The turn is defined by how far they will go before sane and rational observers have no choice but to conclude that, eventually, given the right circumstances and opportunity, they will just burn the entire thing to the ground to stay in power. Because they almost did already. And they don't really see any problem with it. What am I supposed to reasonably expect about the long-term prospects of election results mattering in 20 years time if THIS is the stated position of one of the two major parties??
It is so, so goddamn clear from the video and audio evidence presented today that:
1.) This mob was WAY more coordinated than we have ever been led to believe by those trying to dismiss it.
2.) They were absolutely there with the express purpose of not hypothetically or rhetorically, but ACTUALLY stopping the certification of Biden.
3.) These people would have absolutely assassinated Pence, Pelosi and AOC if they'd gotten their hand on them. These three people in particular were clear targets. This was about 90 seconds away from a purge of elected officials.
I was coming here to discuss this a bit too. The video evidence is just so damning. The idea that these people were "patriots" and "peaceful protesters" is just outrageous. That has aged unbelievably poorly. It was pretty obvious on January 6th, and it is WAY more obvious now.
If our Democracy was sane and well functioning, Trump would be convinced and barred from ever holding office again. The fact that there's a 95% chance that only a few Republicans will vote to convict is incredibly damning of the GOP and our broken institutions that keep pushing the GOP further and further right when conventional political theory has that losing the popular every 4 years for the last 32 except in 2004 would cause them to move to the center.
In this scenario, "turning further and further right" has absolutely nothing to do with domestic or foreign policy. The turn is defined by how far they will go before sane and rational observers have no choice but to conclude that, eventually, given the right circumstances and opportunity, they will just burn the entire thing to the ground to stay in power. Because they almost did already. And they don't really see any problem with it. What am I supposed to reasonably expect about the long-term prospects of election results mattering in 20 years time if THIS is the stated position of one of the two major parties??
Yep. Ultimately the problem with the modern GOP isn't a problem of ideology, economic philosophy, or other issue stances. It's a deleterious attack on principles of democracy. And it's something we've seen in several other parts of the world: Russia, Turkey, Hungary, the Philippines and Venezuela. Not a comprehensive list. Really fundamental stuff like: rule of law, treating the opposition as legitimate, ensuring equal voting rights.
Included in this, and in common with those other countries, is an incessant assault on independent sources of information: universities, the press, international orgs, intellectuals.
It's a cult of personality more than anything. They follow with their dear leader and hope to get rich and obtain power.
They will lie, cheat, steal, rig elections, commit crimes, and do anything to that end. Liars and pedophiles in the party, no sweat!
And then it's all washed away. Everything they're done wrong just gets washed away as if Jesus Christ himself forgave their sins. How? They just distract their voters by saying that Democrats don't want to say Merry Christmas or whatever. And it works, how pathetic is that. They're a little culture war crap is all it takes to turn their followers around and get them to ignore their misdeeds. Works every time.
It's a cult of personality more than anything. They follow with their dear leader and hope to get rich and obtain power.
They will lie, cheat, steal, rig elections, commit crimes, and do anything to that end. Liars and pedophiles in the party, no sweat!
And then it's all washed away. Everything they're done wrong just gets washed away as if Jesus Christ himself forgave their sins. How? They just distract their voters by saying that Democrats don't want to say Merry Christmas or whatever. And it works, how pathetic is that. They're a little culture war crap is all it takes to turn their followers around and get them to ignore their misdeeds. Works every time.
The fact that the same people who have been crowing for 8 years about how oversensitive liberals are are going RIGHT back to pretending to be apoplectic about an NBA team not playing the national anthem before games is as predictable as the sun rising in the East. Same playbook for 40 years now. The "free speech" and "cancel culture" cudgel of the last 4 years was always disingenuous bullshit. In the end, they always fall back on faux-patriotism, while, at a bare minimum, tacitly supporting a violent insurrection that sought to invalidate the votes of 81 million people.
It's worth mentioning (yet again) that conservatives are ALWAYS the ones introducing ACTUAL legislation to limit free speech, which is an ACTUAL First Amendment issue and not just philosophical wankery about who is allowed to get a book deal or prime-time TV show:
This guy is probably the most prominent American radio personality behind Limbaugh and Hannity. His financial advice is followed by millions of people. He mentions DOZENS of times each show that one of the first steps to being financially stable is having a $1000.00 emergency fund. And he opposes a bill that would literally give EVERY PERSON IN THE COUNTRY the equivalent amount of the emergency fund he has been crowing about on his radio show for the last 20 years. What an absolute charlatan:
Understand, this guy's plan for financial stability includes seven "baby steps". The most important step in any plan is completing the first one. As I mentioned, this check, at a bare minimum, gives everyone the OPTION to complete his first step. He regularly advocates selling possessions and living off (essentially) rice and beans to accomplish it. But not a check?? This is when I start to seriously question motives. He believes the suffering is as important as the end-goal. The guy's ENTIRE philosophy is ridding yourself of debt. But ONLY on his very specific moralistic terms.
This guy is probably the most prominent American radio personality behind Limbaugh and Hannity. His financial advice is followed by millions of people. He mentions DOZENS of times each show that one of the first steps to being financially stable is having a $1000.00 emergency fund. And he opposes a bill that would literally give EVERY PERSON IN THE COUNTRY the equivalent amount of the emergency fund he has been crowing about on his radio show for the last 20 years. What an absolute charlatan:
Understand, this guy's plan for financial stability includes seven "baby steps". The most important step in any plan is completing the first one. As I mentioned, this check, at a bare minimum, gives everyone the OPTION to complete his first step. He regularly advocates selling possessions and living off (essentially) rice and beans to accomplish it. But not a check?? This is when I start to seriously question motives. He believes the suffering is as important as the end-goal. The guy's ENTIRE philosophy is ridding yourself of debt. But ONLY on his very specific moralistic terms.
I hate to quibble, well not really, but saving $1000 and being given $1000 are not the same thing. There is sacrifice in saving. There is no sacrifice in a hand-out. One requires discipline, the other does not. Learning that discipline is the first step in financial freedom.
None of this means that dude isn't a jackass, but just thought I'd put that out there...
This guy is probably the most prominent American radio personality behind Limbaugh and Hannity. His financial advice is followed by millions of people. He mentions DOZENS of times each show that one of the first steps to being financially stable is having a $1000.00 emergency fund. And he opposes a bill that would literally give EVERY PERSON IN THE COUNTRY the equivalent amount of the emergency fund he has been crowing about on his radio show for the last 20 years. What an absolute charlatan:
Understand, this guy's plan for financial stability includes seven "baby steps". The most important step in any plan is completing the first one. As I mentioned, this check, at a bare minimum, gives everyone the OPTION to complete his first step. He regularly advocates selling possessions and living off (essentially) rice and beans to accomplish it. But not a check?? This is when I start to seriously question motives. He believes the suffering is as important as the end-goal. The guy's ENTIRE philosophy is ridding yourself of debt. But ONLY on his very specific moralistic terms.
I hate to quibble, well not really, but saving $1000 and being given $1000 are not the same thing. There is sacrifice in saving. There is no sacrifice in a hand-out. One requires discipline, the other does not. Learning that discipline is the first step in financial freedom.
None of this means that dude isn't a jackass, but just thought I'd put that out there...
I mean, I've listened to this guy for hundreds of hours on commutes back in the day. He's never had a problem giving advice to people about money they inherited or "came into" before. The idea that, in our current situation, $2000.00 being life-changing means your are possibly mentally ill or have a "career problem" is just repugnant.
He says that amount of money shouldn't be life-changing. But his own system insists that putting $1000.00 in a emergency fund IS the first step to changing your life. But only if you pawn possessions and eat gruel to accomplish it. Sounds more like religious dogma than caring about people's actual situation.
This guy is probably the most prominent American radio personality behind Limbaugh and Hannity. His financial advice is followed by millions of people. He mentions DOZENS of times each show that one of the first steps to being financially stable is having a $1000.00 emergency fund. And he opposes a bill that would literally give EVERY PERSON IN THE COUNTRY the equivalent amount of the emergency fund he has been crowing about on his radio show for the last 20 years. What an absolute charlatan:
Understand, this guy's plan for financial stability includes seven "baby steps". The most important step in any plan is completing the first one. As I mentioned, this check, at a bare minimum, gives everyone the OPTION to complete his first step. He regularly advocates selling possessions and living off (essentially) rice and beans to accomplish it. But not a check?? This is when I start to seriously question motives. He believes the suffering is as important as the end-goal. The guy's ENTIRE philosophy is ridding yourself of debt. But ONLY on his very specific moralistic terms.
I hate to quibble, well not really, but saving $1000 and being given $1000 are not the same thing. There is sacrifice in saving. There is no sacrifice in a hand-out. One requires discipline, the other does not. Learning that discipline is the first step in financial freedom.
None of this means that dude isn't a jackass, but just thought I'd put that out there...
I mean, I've listened to this guy for hundreds of hours on commutes back in the day. He's never had a problem giving advice to people about money they inherited or "came into" before. The idea that, in our current situation, $2000.00 being life-changing means your are possibly mentally ill or have a "career problem" is just repugnant.
It could be life-changing if you're in a specific situation I guess. If a person still has income and can use that money as a vehicle to begin investing (like some people did with Gamestop for example) that could be a jumpstart to saving for the future. The people who really need that money won't be investing it though. They'll be using it to survive. I guess I just figured it as survival money more or less. I have no problem with that in the current f'ed up Covid scenario.
This guy is probably the most prominent American radio personality behind Limbaugh and Hannity. His financial advice is followed by millions of people. He mentions DOZENS of times each show that one of the first steps to being financially stable is having a $1000.00 emergency fund. And he opposes a bill that would literally give EVERY PERSON IN THE COUNTRY the equivalent amount of the emergency fund he has been crowing about on his radio show for the last 20 years. What an absolute charlatan:
Understand, this guy's plan for financial stability includes seven "baby steps". The most important step in any plan is completing the first one. As I mentioned, this check, at a bare minimum, gives everyone the OPTION to complete his first step. He regularly advocates selling possessions and living off (essentially) rice and beans to accomplish it. But not a check?? This is when I start to seriously question motives. He believes the suffering is as important as the end-goal. The guy's ENTIRE philosophy is ridding yourself of debt. But ONLY on his very specific moralistic terms.
I hate to quibble, well not really, but saving $1000 and being given $1000 are not the same thing. There is sacrifice in saving. There is no sacrifice in a hand-out. One requires discipline, the other does not. Learning that discipline is the first step in financial freedom.
None of this means that dude isn't a jackass, but just thought I'd put that out there...
I mean, I've listened to this guy for hundreds of hours on commutes back in the day. He's never had a problem giving advice to people about money they inherited or "came into" before. The idea that, in our current situation, $2000.00 being life-changing means your are possibly mentally ill or have a "career problem" is just repugnant.
It could be life-changing if you're in a specific situation I guess. If a person still has income and can use that money as a vehicle to begin investing (like some people did with Gamestop for example) that could be a jumpstart to saving for the future. The people who really need that money won't be investing it though. They'll be using it to survive. I guess I just figured it as survival money more or less. I have no problem with that in the current f'ed up Covid scenario.
It seems to me that whatever populist bent on the right that was on the ascent during the Trump-era has gone right back to "the only solution to getting someone out of poverty is to inflict as much pain as possible to motivate them" theory. No one would be on FOX making this argument if Trump was going to be the one signing the bill. I mean, most other Western nations have just been paying 80% of the salary of people who lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic.
This guy is probably the most prominent American radio personality behind Limbaugh and Hannity. His financial advice is followed by millions of people. He mentions DOZENS of times each show that one of the first steps to being financially stable is having a $1000.00 emergency fund. And he opposes a bill that would literally give EVERY PERSON IN THE COUNTRY the equivalent amount of the emergency fund he has been crowing about on his radio show for the last 20 years. What an absolute charlatan:
Understand, this guy's plan for financial stability includes seven "baby steps". The most important step in any plan is completing the first one. As I mentioned, this check, at a bare minimum, gives everyone the OPTION to complete his first step. He regularly advocates selling possessions and living off (essentially) rice and beans to accomplish it. But not a check?? This is when I start to seriously question motives. He believes the suffering is as important as the end-goal. The guy's ENTIRE philosophy is ridding yourself of debt. But ONLY on his very specific moralistic terms.
I hate to quibble, well not really, but saving $1000 and being given $1000 are not the same thing. There is sacrifice in saving. There is no sacrifice in a hand-out. One requires discipline, the other does not. Learning that discipline is the first step in financial freedom.
None of this means that dude isn't a jackass, but just thought I'd put that out there...
I mean, I've listened to this guy for hundreds of hours on commutes back in the day. He's never had a problem giving advice to people about money they inherited or "came into" before. The idea that, in our current situation, $2000.00 being life-changing means your are possibly mentally ill or have a "career problem" is just repugnant.
It could be life-changing if you're in a specific situation I guess. If a person still has income and can use that money as a vehicle to begin investing (like some people did with Gamestop for example) that could be a jumpstart to saving for the future. The people who really need that money won't be investing it though. They'll be using it to survive. I guess I just figured it as survival money more or less. I have no problem with that in the current f'ed up Covid scenario.
It seems to me that whatever populist bent on the right that was on the ascent during the Trump-era has gone right back to "the only solution to getting someone out of poverty is to inflict as much pain as possible to motivate them" theory. No one would be on FOX making this argument if Trump was going to be the one signing the bill.
Yeah, rightwing radio is desperately trying to turn the dial back to 2016. The talking points have miraculously morphed into the same pre-Trump bullshit and they're hoping their listeners are still as stupid as they were back then. I, for one, am tired of that crap and want to hear some real ideas instead of just more of the same. Rumor has it that if the Senate doesn't vote to impeach there's talk of starting a center-right party. I'm game for that and sending the Trump whacko Q'Anoners a message...
It used to be so easy to be a conservative, just believe in what you believe in. There were many in the government that represented your views. Those days are so gone. I am not sure there are any in the government that support my views anymore.The right is so perverted beyond what I knew 20 years ago and I don't know if it will ever come back. The fact that everyone belives that the orange man will be acquitted speaks volumes. They don't care about issues, they don't care about right or wrong, they are just looking toward the next election. They no longer represent my ideals, they just represent themselves. I will no longer support them or call myself a conservative. They exited from reality and no longer deserve my respect or vote.
It used to be so easy to be a conservative, just believe in what you believe in. There were many in the government that represented your views. Those days are so gone. I am not sure there are any in the government that support my views anymore.The right is so perverted beyond what I knew 20 years ago and I don't know if it will ever come back. The fact that everyone belives that the orange man will be acquitted speaks volumes. They don't care about issues, they don't care about right or wrong, they are just looking toward the next election. They no longer represent my ideals, they just represent themselves. I will no longer support them or call myself a conservative. They exited from reality and no longer deserve my respect or vote.
I'll still call myself a conservative, but I'm even less inclined than I used to be to call myself a Republican. They don't care about my vote anyway. That's quite apparent...
The problem with a 2 party system is that it is often a 50-50 division. But you cannot break one party apart because then you always have the majority on the other side. Meaning, a split will never get traction.
The problem with a 20-25 party system hereabouts is that it is difficult to get alignment and concessions between the different allies. You can vote for the ideal party more or less but you never know what concessions they will make.
Comments
Keep whitewashing the Senate report regarding Russian interference if it makes you feel better, but continuously repeating that there was no wrongdoing every couple of months does not make it so.
The real issue is how quaint it seems compared to everything that came afterwards. The warning bells were going off from jump-street.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/06/forgotten-black-history-prohibition-temperance-movement-461215
I would imagine any Native American leaders anyone cared to listen to at the time were probably advocating the same thing.
Neither Senate Report even pretends to cast Russian collusion accusations at the Trump team, and even if they did, Senate Reports are of far less value in determining guilt or innocence than criminal investigations are. You know, it's why we decide things using trial by jury and not the whims of the Senate.
At some point you just have to accept when you are wrong.
Does the actual word 'collusion' really need to be in the report? The poison pill term that killed the investigation from the get go as there is no crime or legal term surrounding it. Something that was discussed ad nauseum in this thread at the time and yet there were 8(?) of Trump's team convicted because of it, mostly due to lying to the investigators to cover up 'the collusion' and 'wrong doing' knowing that if they do so, Trump would pardon them, which happened.
But go ahead, keep moving them goalposts and ignoring facts if it makes you feel like you're winning. I am tired of you rehashing the same debunked rightwing talking points every few months.
Mostly I'm just anxious about the speed at which the Biden administration will be implementing new policies. The GOP barely interests me these days except insofar as it traffics in conspiracy theories and hints at civil war. The Democratic party is in power and appears to be willing to operate without GOP support, so mostly it will be a matter of what the Democratic party tries to do for the next couple years.
Speaking as someone who is not from the U.S., I'm particularly interested in what their foreign policy will be. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a good track record in that department. Both sustained unnecessary wars overseas. I said it before, and I'll say it again: it is cynical to accept a Nobel Peace Prize if your country is engaged is in the middle of a war. Obama should have rejected that prize, just as Jean-Paul Sartre rejected the Nobel Prize in Literature many decades before. I didn't see Joe Biden say or do anything about that when he was vice president. I hope that now that he's president, he will have a different approach to foreign policy. Though, in all honesty, I'm completely skeptical in that regard.
No, the actual word collusion does not need to be in the report, nor does it need to be in the investigation. It is simply shorthand to describe any form of criminal conspiracy of any sort. Formal or informal, directly expressed or a silent agreement. I feel like the Mueller Report lays this out well, so i'll just quote it:
So I don't think it was a poison pill term that killed anything, they applied the concept of collusion to the law as best they could, which comes out to criminal conspiracy.
It's really not about winning or losing, but I do feel like if anything at all should settle a matter a very lengthy investigation at the highest levels of power should be the thing that does it. But I'm sorry if I came off as rude, for what it's worth.
In the waning days of his Presidency, Trump issued the final pardons, which means that literally EVERYONE who lied for him, and was convicted of doing so, was granted clemency. One of them (Flynn) was advising Trump he should declare martial law and have the military hold another election in certain swing states. Another (Stone) was hanging out with the Oathkeepers a few hours before they were involved in the storming of the Capitol.
So I think it's quite relevant that two of the people central to the Russia investigation, who were convicted and later pardoned, were also on the front lines of a movement in the waning days to literally destroy American democracy once and forever. It is not a coincidence. It's simply more evidence that we have one party that, though deeply flawed, is interested in some form of governance, and the other party is basically nothing more than an anti-democratic authoritarian cult.
As you mention in your next post, there is really no reason to consult with Republicans on matters of governance in Washington at the moment because they have no interest in taking part in it. Being an opposition party shooting spitballs from the bleachers is all they have ever been any good at in my lifetime. And within 14 days, they've already gone back to the well that contains stuff like "the Democrats don't insist we say the Pledge of Allegiance before committee hearings".
US armed forces were not the "lynchpin" of the operation. There were no active-duty US forces involved. There were two former US service members, acting in a private capacity. Again, you don't have evidence for the initial, very strong claim here.
Let's keep in the mind the real facts here. There were about 60 total guys involved in this attack. Venezuela is almost 30 million people. Even calling this thing an "operation" with "US armed forces" is an absurd characterization. There were literally just two Americans, armed with nothing better than rifles. Instead the operation is exactly what it looks it -- an absurd attempt by a pair of gung-ho ex-military guys who took advantage of a bunch of disaffected Venezuela expats in Colombia, and got themselves killed or captured.
Notarized signatures (which are only really used for power of attorney, wills, and custody arrangements), reducing polling locations by up to 85%, and, just straight-up suggesting a provision that the State Legislature can just decide the vote totals don't count. I defy anyone to explain to me, in good faith, how these attempts aren't exactly what they look like.
The response to 2020 was never going to be to moderate or engage in self-reflection. The move was ALWAYS going to be do return to the state level where they still wield power and attempt to rig the game to the point that they want to literally just be able to flip the table over if it doesn't go their way and declare that a win. This reminds me of the time I went up 14 points on my friend in the 1st quarter of a game of Madden in college and he just got up and shut the console off.
1.) This mob was WAY more coordinated than we have ever been led to believe by those trying to dismiss it.
2.) They were absolutely there with the express purpose of not hypothetically or rhetorically, but ACTUALLY stopping the certification of Biden.
3.) These people would have absolutely assassinated Pence, Pelosi and AOC if they'd gotten their hand on them. These three people in particular were clear targets. This was about 90 seconds away from a purge of elected officials.
Unless the majority of Republican Senators reject this as a legitimate tactic, then I can't ever view the GOP as anything other than a party whose CENTRAL AIM is the destruction of American democracy. 6 people jumping ship ain't gonna cut it. And reports seem to be that the other 44 Republicans Senators are hardly paying attention to what is being presented at all.
You are going to be told by all the usual suspects, from all different perspectives and angles, that this wasn't as bad as it seemed, that we should move on, and pretend it never happened. Don't reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. And don't ever forget they have decided to die on the hill of an attempted authoritarian takeover.
I was coming here to discuss this a bit too. The video evidence is just so damning. The idea that these people were "patriots" and "peaceful protesters" is just outrageous. That has aged unbelievably poorly. It was pretty obvious on January 6th, and it is WAY more obvious now.
If our Democracy was sane and well functioning, Trump would be convinced and barred from ever holding office again. The fact that there's a 95% chance that only a few Republicans will vote to convict is incredibly damning of the GOP and our broken institutions that keep pushing the GOP further and further right when conventional political theory has that losing the popular every 4 years for the last 32 except in 2004 would cause them to move to the center.
In this scenario, "turning further and further right" has absolutely nothing to do with domestic or foreign policy. The turn is defined by how far they will go before sane and rational observers have no choice but to conclude that, eventually, given the right circumstances and opportunity, they will just burn the entire thing to the ground to stay in power. Because they almost did already. And they don't really see any problem with it. What am I supposed to reasonably expect about the long-term prospects of election results mattering in 20 years time if THIS is the stated position of one of the two major parties??
Yep. Ultimately the problem with the modern GOP isn't a problem of ideology, economic philosophy, or other issue stances. It's a deleterious attack on principles of democracy. And it's something we've seen in several other parts of the world: Russia, Turkey, Hungary, the Philippines and Venezuela. Not a comprehensive list. Really fundamental stuff like: rule of law, treating the opposition as legitimate, ensuring equal voting rights.
Included in this, and in common with those other countries, is an incessant assault on independent sources of information: universities, the press, international orgs, intellectuals.
They will lie, cheat, steal, rig elections, commit crimes, and do anything to that end. Liars and pedophiles in the party, no sweat!
And then it's all washed away. Everything they're done wrong just gets washed away as if Jesus Christ himself forgave their sins. How? They just distract their voters by saying that Democrats don't want to say Merry Christmas or whatever. And it works, how pathetic is that. They're a little culture war crap is all it takes to turn their followers around and get them to ignore their misdeeds. Works every time.
The fact that the same people who have been crowing for 8 years about how oversensitive liberals are are going RIGHT back to pretending to be apoplectic about an NBA team not playing the national anthem before games is as predictable as the sun rising in the East. Same playbook for 40 years now. The "free speech" and "cancel culture" cudgel of the last 4 years was always disingenuous bullshit. In the end, they always fall back on faux-patriotism, while, at a bare minimum, tacitly supporting a violent insurrection that sought to invalidate the votes of 81 million people.
It's worth mentioning (yet again) that conservatives are ALWAYS the ones introducing ACTUAL legislation to limit free speech, which is an ACTUAL First Amendment issue and not just philosophical wankery about who is allowed to get a book deal or prime-time TV show:
Here is a fun fact: the anthem with the oldest text and music is that of the Netherlands written in 1572, however it was only made official in 1932.
The majority of the country knows only the first 2 lines of the first verse. Each verse has 4 lines and there are in total 15 verses.
Understand, this guy's plan for financial stability includes seven "baby steps". The most important step in any plan is completing the first one. As I mentioned, this check, at a bare minimum, gives everyone the OPTION to complete his first step. He regularly advocates selling possessions and living off (essentially) rice and beans to accomplish it. But not a check?? This is when I start to seriously question motives. He believes the suffering is as important as the end-goal. The guy's ENTIRE philosophy is ridding yourself of debt. But ONLY on his very specific moralistic terms.
I hate to quibble, well not really, but saving $1000 and being given $1000 are not the same thing. There is sacrifice in saving. There is no sacrifice in a hand-out. One requires discipline, the other does not. Learning that discipline is the first step in financial freedom.
None of this means that dude isn't a jackass, but just thought I'd put that out there...
I mean, I've listened to this guy for hundreds of hours on commutes back in the day. He's never had a problem giving advice to people about money they inherited or "came into" before. The idea that, in our current situation, $2000.00 being life-changing means your are possibly mentally ill or have a "career problem" is just repugnant.
He says that amount of money shouldn't be life-changing. But his own system insists that putting $1000.00 in a emergency fund IS the first step to changing your life. But only if you pawn possessions and eat gruel to accomplish it. Sounds more like religious dogma than caring about people's actual situation.
It could be life-changing if you're in a specific situation I guess. If a person still has income and can use that money as a vehicle to begin investing (like some people did with Gamestop for example) that could be a jumpstart to saving for the future. The people who really need that money won't be investing it though. They'll be using it to survive. I guess I just figured it as survival money more or less. I have no problem with that in the current f'ed up Covid scenario.
It seems to me that whatever populist bent on the right that was on the ascent during the Trump-era has gone right back to "the only solution to getting someone out of poverty is to inflict as much pain as possible to motivate them" theory. No one would be on FOX making this argument if Trump was going to be the one signing the bill. I mean, most other Western nations have just been paying 80% of the salary of people who lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic.
Yeah, rightwing radio is desperately trying to turn the dial back to 2016. The talking points have miraculously morphed into the same pre-Trump bullshit and they're hoping their listeners are still as stupid as they were back then. I, for one, am tired of that crap and want to hear some real ideas instead of just more of the same. Rumor has it that if the Senate doesn't vote to impeach there's talk of starting a center-right party. I'm game for that and sending the Trump whacko Q'Anoners a message...
I'll still call myself a conservative, but I'm even less inclined than I used to be to call myself a Republican. They don't care about my vote anyway. That's quite apparent...
The problem with a 20-25 party system hereabouts is that it is difficult to get alignment and concessions between the different allies. You can vote for the ideal party more or less but you never know what concessions they will make.