Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Christopher]

1 hour ago, Sociotard said:

Donald Trump vows to rebuild the FBI

 

Ousted FBI agent in Mueller probe softened language in Clinton email case

 

This is bad.  There really was partisanship in the FBI, and now the Republicans will feel completely justified forcing their own partisans into the agency "because they do it too".

Extreme Bias agaisnt Trump is not a mater of Partisanship, but of common sense and decency. Trump lies so often, we actually lost count of all the lies.

Since Trump said it was partisan, we can assume it is utterly fair and unbiased. Because we reached the point where it is SOP to assume the opposite of what Trump says is true.

 

 

No Public statement goes out without consensus. In particular as this was about a important mater. Literally someone could ahve gotten sued over it. Claiming "the entire agency is partisan" because one guy made a change that was not corrected by several coworkers (inlcuding the leader that read that Statement to the Senate) is right up there with conspiracy theories.

 

And why are we even still talking about hillaries Emails, 12 months after she has lost the election?

[Ternaugh]

1 minute ago, Christopher said:

And why are we even still talking about hillaries Emails, 12 months after she has lost the election?

 

Deflection. Because if we're talking about Hillary's transgressions, we aren't talking about Trump's.

 

[Sociotard]

 

Republicans are aware that government employees tend to be Democratic.  This isn't the first time this has come up.  Remember back when the IRS was targeting Tea-Party-oriented non-profits?  Sure, they also targeted liberal groups, but not at the same rate.

 

This matters because we need the country to think that the government works for them.  If a third of the country think it is merely a tool for the Other Tribe, we're in trouble.  Possibly terrorism.

 

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE "OTHER TRIBE" REALLY CONTROLS THE GOVERNMENT

 

Perception is everything. If I coat you in seal blood, sharks will bite you, even if you aren't a seal. If the government looks like a tool of their enemy, conservatives will try to destroy it.

 

[Christopher]

26 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

Okay, how exactly does that proof overwhelming partisan support?

- maybe the republicans did not donate to trump, because they understood how bad he would be for the country. Because they actually worked in areas he would mess up for no reason?

- maybe the republicans did not donate to trump, because he is appalling as a person?

- I can not even read the fine print mentioning the source, but I think I can make out that only donatiosn over 200$ were counted? What if we include those donations? What about donations to the Republican party?

- how did those diagramms looked when a Republican won?

 

You gave me a pie diagramm without a way to even read the notes, much less verify the source.

[Old Man]

The graph just echoes the fact that Democratic fundraising is grassroots while Republican donations come from corporations and superPACs. There are few ultra-wealthy sponsors working in government service, and if there were, the GOP would consider it a problem anyway. 

[Sociotard]

Your argument is valid. Here is the link to the original story on The Hill:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/302817-government-workers-shun-trump-give-big-money-to-clinton-campaign

 

The Hill is a conservative publication, but it is a reputable one. It is not Breitbart. 

 

This site compared the donations going back to the 90s.  It has always been lopsided

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php

[Christopher]

27 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

Your argument is valid. Here is the link to the original story on The Hill:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/302817-government-workers-shun-trump-give-big-money-to-clinton-campaign

 

The Hill is a conservative publication, but it is a reputable one. It is not Breitbart. 

Those are the people that are actually "on the ground". They are subject to people that actually will suffer from the abolishing of the Individual Mandate. That they do not support "we hate Obamacare" Republicans should be kind of self explaining, because those will literally make their life more miserable. On a daily basis.

 

27 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

This site compared the donations going back to the 90s.  It has always been lopsided

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php

On the individuals it is loopsided for Democrats. For this one year (2016). All otehrs it was loopsided for the Republicans.

On the whole it is loopsided for Republicans. Often 1:2 Ratio.

 

Once again there is a Conservative Argument that turned out to be the opposite of what was claimed, upon closer inspection. A expeted outcome.

[Sociotard]

*Checks*

 

Ah, I put the link in wrong. The above was taking you to  . . . AT&T employees.  Weird.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000304

 

Yes, Democrats always got more from federal employees than Republicans.

[Iuz the Evil]

2 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

Deflection. Because if we're talking about Hillary's transgressions, we aren't talking about Trump's.

 

And because there isn't another good topic for deflection that the POTUS can credibly point to in the subsequent time frame without looking (more) ridiculous. 

[Ragitsu]

3 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

Deflection. Because if we're talking about Hillary's transgressions, we aren't talking about Trump's.

 

 

Seeing this tactic used in the media is humorous. Seeing this tactic used by people you know in your day-to-day life is depressing.

[Ragitsu]

20 minutes ago, MSgtB said:

 

Because she broke the law?  That's a great reason to me.  Comey's exoneration speech simply floored a friend of mine, who was the Director of Investigations in the Georgia Bureau of Investigations.  He said that even that watered down listing of what occurred should have placed her before a court.  This from a man who is probably more knowledgeable about these matters than anyone on this forum.

 

Equal justice under the law is a foundational principle in this country.  If, during my military career, I'd treated classified materials as cavalierly as Hilary Clinton, I'd have been before a court martial, convicted, and be in Leavenworth.  It undermines everyone's faith in government to see those in positions of power get away with flouting the law.

 

That is why we're still talking about it.

 

Thing of it is, people annoyed by this tactic usually aren't opposed to discussing Hillary Clinton's crimes any more than any other corrupt politician. The annoyance stems from the fact that it is often brought up as a means of diversion whenever criticism against our current Commander-in-Chief is being laid out ("WutaboutHilary?!").

[Iuz the Evil]

12 minutes ago, Ragitsu said:

 

Thing of it is, people annoyed by this tactic usually aren't opposed to discussing Hillary Clinton's crimes any more than any other corrupt politician. The annoyance stems from the fact that it is often brought up as a means of diversion whenever criticism against our current Commander-in-Chief is being laid out ("WutaboutHilary?!").

Exactly this. 

 

Who cares. Go ahead and prosecute if you've got the evidence. So, back to that whole Russia/emoulments/false-equivalency for Naziism/so many other items they are all starting to blend together for the guy actually in office right now....

 

Edit: here's a link to the Wikipedia entry for "Trump controversies 2017" currently clocking at 36 pages. I can't even reasonably list them anymore, so just providing a link. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trump_administration_controversies

 

By comparison "Obama controversies" with no time limit is 51 pages. Donald Trump is doing work. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Obama_administration_controversies

[death tribble]

To those outside the United States the whole Hilary Clinton e-mails thing looks so flawed and so much of a put up job that it just is not worth talking about.

[Tech priest support]

55 minutes ago, MSgtB said:

 

Because she broke the law?  That's a great reason to me.  Comey's exoneration speech simply floored a friend of mine, who was the Director of Investigations in the Georgia Bureau of Investigations.  He said that even that watered down listing of what occurred should have placed her before a court.  This from a man who is probably more knowledgeable about these matters than anyone on this forum.

 

Equal justice under the law is a foundational principle in this country.  If, during my military career, I'd treated classified materials as cavalierly as Hilary Clinton, I'd have been before a court martial, convicted, and be in Leavenworth.  It undermines everyone's faith in government to see those in positions of power get away with flouting the law.

 

That is why we're still talking about it.

Oh please. Hillary has been accused of one crime after another since she came into politics. It started with whitewater. She was accused and investigated and nothing came of it.

 

Then she was accused of murdering vince foster. Again, nothing was ever proven. But again the people who want to believe it swear she was guilty but got away with it.

 

Then Ben ghazi, where she was accused of willfully causing the death of american ambassadors in Libia because.....???, despite a couple inconvenient facts, like far right christian minister terry Jones releasing a video insulting Mohammed just before the election hoping to start trouble to make Obama look like a weak preosdent and the fact the republican dominated congress cut funding for embassy security. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/world/middleeast/anger-over-film-fuels-anti-american-attacks-in-libya-and-egypt.html

 

Massive repeated hearings which by a republican's own admission were meant to harm Hillary's standing innate polls revealed nothing but still trey gowdy was convinced she was guilty and another republican dramatically tore up a piece paper to show what be claimed to be Hillary's attitude towards the embassy staff..(And what motive would she have for wanting american embassy personnel killed? I have never heard her accusers provide one. Nor have I heard any Republican voters ask for one.)

 

Now she's accused of a crime for using a private email server by people who use private email servers.

 

 One manufactured accusation after another. Hearing after hearing, investigation after investigation Total proof of any actual crimes: ZERO.

 

I suppose if NASA ever discovers intelligent alien life someone will accuse Hillary of being one of their agents in human disguise. I can't wait.

[Tech priest support]

Oh speaking of crimes, scandals, outrages, etc, we have someone in the oval office talking about creating a personal intelligence force answerable only to him personally. https://theintercept.com/2017/12/04/trump-white-house-weighing-plans-for-private-spies-to-counter-deep-state-enemies/

 

We have a situation where someone innate white house may fire the man investigating him at any time. http://www.newsweek.com/mueller-trump-fire-fbi-bias-740094

 

And we have a situation where the man in the white house may be using the department of justice to persecute a news agency he dislikes. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/11/trump-justice-department-cnn/545393/

 

Can you imagine if these situations involved someone in the white house named Clinton or Obama?  

 

The people outraged over Benghazi and the emails seem to be very selective in what they choose to consider a serious matter.

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, MSgtB said:

 

Because she broke the law?  That's a great reason to me.  Comey's exoneration speech simply floored a friend of mine, who was the Director of Investigations in the Georgia Bureau of Investigations.  He said that even that watered down listing of what occurred should have placed her before a court.  This from a man who is probably more knowledgeable about these matters than anyone on this forum.

 

I'd be interested in hearing which law your friend thinks she actually broke.  As an IT security professional who has held a security clearance, Clinton's email practices were pathetic and sloppy and broke State Department guidelines, but were not illegal.  You have to take secret documents home to show your Chinese-intelligence-service girlfriend to get convicted.  The crime requires intent.  Three classified emails out of 30,000 that were erroneously forwarded by staff and not by Hillary herself is nothing.  Nothing.

 

[Simon]

In total agreement with the anti "but what about..." statements.

If you want to talk about what Hillary did (or did not) do, that's fine.  But it's entirely separate from what anyone else did.  There is no equivalency.  If you're accused of murdering someone, you don't get to point at Jeffrey Dahmer and say "but he murdered and ate people!".  That's not a defense, it's a deflection.

 

In regards to Hillary Clinton, listen to Old Man -- I work in "security" as well.  What she did in regards to a private email server wasn't great, but is NOTHING compared to what goes on daily at all levels of DC politics.  Not deflection, just case in point of her actions being par for the course:  do you think that Trump's cell (from which he constantly tweets) is secured?  How about the email services of Pence, Ivanka, Jared Kushner, or other top-ranking officials?  Think they're not using their own?  It's a depressingly common occurrence....and not actionable (yet) without flagrant disregard for safety/security.

[Tech priest support]

Actually pointing out that Republicans are not holding hearing after hearing on any issue involving someone in the white house now is  completely relevant and valid here for one simple reason: When a party goes after a member of a rival party over and over and over again on charge after charge, or one charge, but then ignores allegations against one of their own and even calls for the investigator to be fired and even for people investigating one o their own to be arrested, it creates a situation where their accusations and investigations of that rival party member have a very strong appearance of being nothing but politically motivated baseless accusations and lies designed to swing an election. False accusations are a crime in America.

 

So yeah, normally saying "But someone else did...!" is not valid but when you can show a consistent, decades long pattern of one sided accusations, investigations and hearings it does cast doubt on the validity of the accusers.

[Old Man]

It's become abundantly clear that the GOP fully intends to shut down the House investigation into Russia, and Trump and Fox are also busily undermining Mueller, Rosenstein, and the FBI.  They will probably implicate Mueller in some other investigation, making it difficult for him to operate effectively if at all.

[Christopher]

5 hours ago, MSgtB said:

Because she broke the law?  That's a great reason to me.

That is a reason why it should be prosecuted. Not a reason it should be used to distract from the misdeeds of the persona actually in power right now. And that is all that is being done with it.

This technique has a name: Whataboutism. It is literally from a Soviet Playbook.

 

Either sue already or stop trying to do Defamation.

 

When the Democrats had a suspected Sexual Predator, they spoke out against him.

When the Republicans had a suspected Sexual Predator with more proof, they still supported him. And almost elected him.

So, sorry if I find hte Democrats once again the better people with less Hypocrisy. It is as if the republicans are working their behind off trying to appear like liars that will screw you and your whole family, if you let your guard down for one second.

[gewing]

I have generally caucused with the Republicans so to speak, but now the only point of congruence is opposition to gun control.  I Intend to always vote against anyone who votes for the current tax overhaul, and lean towards writing in Teddy Roosevelt for everything, If I cannot find an actual candidate for whom I can not stand to hold my nose and vote.   I would never have believed that I would vote for Hillary, but compared to the opposition...    Any day and twice on Sunday.  

[Lord Liaden]

5 hours ago, gewing said:

I would never have believed that I would vote for Hillary, but compared to the opposition...    Any day and twice on Sunday.  

 

I suspect that a lot of people who were thinking, "I won't vote for a lesser of two evils" before Trump's election, have reconsidered.

[Armitage]

The latest decree from the Ministry of Truth.

 

The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases — including “fetus” and “transgender” — in any official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.

Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.

 

Yes, the phrases "science-based" and "evidence-based" are now forbidden, along with other scary words.

[Hermit]

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/15/571124649/wife-of-kentucky-lawmaker-who-killed-himself-plans-to-run-for-his-seat

 

 

[TrickstaPriest]

18 hours ago, Simon said:

In total agreement with the anti "but what about..." statements.

If you want to talk about what Hillary did (or did not) do, that's fine.  But it's entirely separate from what anyone else did.  There is no equivalency.  If you're accused of murdering someone, you don't get to point at Jeffrey Dahmer and say "but he murdered and ate people!".  That's not a defense, it's a deflection.

 

In regards to Hillary Clinton, listen to Old Man -- I work in "security" as well.  What she did in regards to a private email server wasn't great, but is NOTHING compared to what goes on daily at all levels of DC politics.  Not deflection, just case in point of her actions being par for the course:  do you think that Trump's cell (from which he constantly tweets) is secured?  How about the email services of Pence, Ivanka, Jared Kushner, or other top-ranking officials?  Think they're not using their own?  It's a depressingly common occurrence....and not actionable (yet) without flagrant disregard for safety/security.

 

I can semi-vouch for Simon's expertise in this field >_>

 

Hillary probably should be looked at for the emails, but so should so many, many others.  Running private email servers is apparently an epidemic in Washington...  and if you think that's bad, how many stories have come out this last year of critical government and military infrastructures being raided? 

 

I haven't forgotten the Republican voter databank records being available without password protection on Amazon AWS servers X_x  But unless you can understand the data (and it did appear to be anonymised?), it's more interesting for how and what data is being stored to begin with.  For real messes, the OPM (Office of Personnel Management) breach is hideous.  People I know with TOS who haven't been government employees for years have still been impacted.  I can't imagine the amount of special agents who's identities are now out.  So if we are talking about prosecution, I hate to say it but that feels a heck of a lot more political than anything else.  Our government's data security is well over the hill.  The email servers need to be dealt with, but there's simply so much even more critical areas that need to be dealt with.

 

In general, if you find corruption in a party, it's got to be dealt with.  No one is exempt.  I don't know that the email servers qualify as corruption (at least by personal definition), merely reckless.  But not nearly as reckless as our whole government IT infrastructure right now.

 

As a vague security stab, Trump's goading of Kim Jong Un "just you wait for what's coming" might have led to the North Koreans searching for, and unearthing, our assassination strategy coordinated with South Korea.  What a ridiculous situation it is, when our strategic military personnel are struggling to work around a PotUS twitter account.