Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03 Feb 2018, 04:11 AM   #683411 / #1
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,374
Default Nunes Memo

I think this deserves its own thread as it will likely be the final nail in Trump’s coffin and here’s why. The argument hinges entirely on this paragraph:

Quote:
[T]he public’s confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court’s ability to hold the government to the highest standard—particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the FISC’s rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government’s production to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government.
Such a standard would literally require that the government include ALL “potentially favorable” information, which is not just absurd, it’s impossible. How would any organization know what would (or would not) pass such a subjective, open-ended threshold? Aside from the fact that it’s not materially relevant information.

The reason it’s the death nail is that this memo was supposed to be substantive enough for Trump to pressure Rosenstein to fire Mueller and/or enough to justify firing Rosenstein, so that Trump could put someone in his place who would then in turn fire Mueller. This memo does neither. At best, it’s just more irrelevant chum to stir up Trump’s 20% for another news cycle (already crushed as of this writing, but certainly by the end of the weekend), but public outcry isn’t a legitimate legal basis for firing Rosenstein.

Which means, the GOP’s last ditch effort was this knowingly non-substantive ploy that played Trump more than it played into Trump. Iow, as I have argued for some time now, it is all just rhetorical pretense that gives the appearance of supporting Trump while only actually serving to set him up for the inevitable fall.

The FBI already pre-emptied the “memo” and the memo itself was written by cheese-eating college grads, so in true “mafia” stupidity, Trump hoisted himself with a petard given to him by the GOP opening the way now for a thorough debunking (and response) that will fill all of next week.

Plus the stock market saw through it and that’s the best barometer of all. If this were favorable to Trump, it would have gone up, not down.

ETA: This about covers it.
__________________
Stupidity is not intellen

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 03 Feb 2018 at 04:41 AM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Feb 2018, 10:11 AM   #683414 / #2
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,402
Default

Then there's an objective view of this.

Quote:
Based on the memo released today by the House Intelligence Committee (read it here), current and former members of the FBI and the Department of Justice who signed off on applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will likely face contempt of court charges. Who? James Comey, Andy McCabe, Sally Yates, Dana Boente and Rob Rosenstein. They effectively lied to a Federal judge. That is not only stupid but illegal.

Here are the critical points from the Nunes memo that you should commit to memory.:
The rest is at the site.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_s...s-tacitus.html
praxis is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Feb 2018, 03:42 PM   #683416 / #3
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
Then there's an objective view of this...They effectively lied
So, your definition of the word “objective” is: opposite of its true meaning; purely subjective.

Tell us how one can “effectively” lie objectively.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Feb 2018, 05:42 PM   #683421 / #4
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,402
Default

What I meant was that Lang is an objective person, who after reading the memo called a spade a spade regarding how the warrant was obtained.

How's this one?

Quote:
I think it’s very fitting that the ever-tightening repetitive loops of America’s increasingly schizophrenic partisan warfare have finally hit peak shrillness and skyrocketed into a white noise singularity on Groundhog Day. Right about now I feel like we’re at the part of the movie where Bill Murray is driving over a cliff in a pickup truck with a large rodent behind the wheel.

If you only just started paying attention to US politics in 2017 what I’m about to tell you will blow your mind, so you might want to sit down for this: believe it or not, there was once a time when both of America’s mainstream political parties weren’t screeching every single day that there was news about to break any minute now which would obliterate the other party forever. No Russiagate, no Nunes memo, no Rachel Maddow red yarn graphs, no Sean Hannity “tick tock”, no nothing. People screaming that the end is nigh and it’s all about to come crashing down were relegated to street corners and the occasional Infowars appearance, not practicing mainstream political punditry for multimillion dollar salaries on MSNBC and Fox News.
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/t...nt-1ac24a34444
praxis is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Feb 2018, 07:24 PM   #683424 / #5
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
What I meant was that Lang is an objective person
What does that mean? And how is it relevant?

Are you trying to claim he isn’t biased? If so what is your evidence and why would that even matter in regard to the facts at issue?

Quote:
who after reading the memo called a spade a spade regarding how the warrant was obtained.
In no way did he do any such thing. He asserted that the FBI had “effectively lied.” Which means that they did not in fact lie. That’s what the adverb “effectively” indicates.

He also clearly has no idea how FISC works or what the actual FISA application contained or what it needs (or does not need) to contain. Or how basic logic works for that matter. If who paid for the investigation into Trump is at all relevant (it is not), then why omit the fact that it was initially paid for by a Republican organization? Because, of course, that instantly renders the question moot and underscores its irrelevance.

Quote:
How's this one?
Equally specious.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Feb 2018, 07:28 PM   #683426 / #6
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,651
Default

Goddamn rwnj's are fucked in the head.

Eta: that is an objective fact

Last edited by BWE; 03 Feb 2018 at 07:29 PM. Reason: Eta
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Feb 2018, 07:44 PM   #683427 / #7
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
Goddamn rwnj's are fucked in the head.

Eta: that is an objective fact
Indeed. This whole shit storm makes perfect sense when one first understands that to an rwnj anything a black man touches needs to be destroyed. That’s what’s so hard to wrap our heads around watching the Republicans felate Trump as he dismantles America. To them, Obama was the corruption and everything he touched is therefore covered in shit and must be burned to the ground.

They see no corruption in Trump (or the Russians or the Republicans in suppporting it all and grabbing trillions of dollars). In their pinheads this is all a necessary fire sale because a nigger dared touch their stuff.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Feb 2018, 08:49 PM   #683431 / #8
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,402
Default

My, my, you guys are in deep, aren't you. How does this happen to otherwise smart people?
praxis is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Feb 2018, 09:31 PM   #683434 / #9
Copernicus
Industrial Linguist
Admin; Mod: Miscellaneous Discussions, Philosophy & Morality, Politics & World Events
 
Copernicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 7,495
Default

The memo actually destroys its own argument (that the FISA warrant is based on the Steele dossier) and the GOP conspiracy theory (that the Trump-Russia investigation is essentially something that Hillary-supporting Democrats manufactured to destroy the Trump administration). How does it do this? The answer is on the last page of the 4 1/2 page memo:

Quote:
“The Page fisa application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Peter Strzok.”
This paragraph tells us

1) That the FISA application was NOT based solely on the Steele dossier.
2) That the Trump-Russia investigation was NOT triggered by the Steele dossier.

The Papadopoulos revelation came from a separate source--the Austrian government. Papadopoulos apparently got drunk in a bar and blabbed to an Austrian diplomat that Russia had damaging information on Hillary Clinton. The Austrians then told that to the US government.

FISA applications typically run about 60 pages. Only two Congressmen were allowed to read it: Trey Gowdy and Adam Schiff. Devin Nunes has admitted that he never read the FISA application. It was based solely on Gowdy's impression. Schiff has created an alternative memo, but Republicans have so far blocked its release. The 4 1/2 page Nunes memo certainly leaves out important details, all of which still remain classified as Top Secret. We only know what is in the memo that Trump obligingly declassified.

Note that neither the Democrats nor (apparently) the FISA application alleged a conspiracy between Papadopoulos and Page, although the above paragraph alleges such a straw man. It seems that, if one believes that the sole basis for the FISA application was the Steele dossier, then the only reason to mention Papadopoulos was to link him to Page--utter nonsense. Page had been under surveillance since 2013 by the FBI for his connection with Russian spies, and the FISA application was actually just to renew that ongoing surveillance. What the FISA application did was link the Russian spy activities involving Carter Page with the Trump administration. Papadopoulos only showed the growing importance to US security in keeping Page under surveillance.
Copernicus is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Feb 2018, 09:42 PM   #683435 / #10
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
1) That the FISA application was NOT based solely on the Steele dossier.
Nobdy said it was based solely on the dossier. The fact that the dossier was used reveals that adding it must have meant that without using it there must have been a fear of not getting the warrant, and again, subsequent continued use of it knowing it was a lie shows the weakness of the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
2) That the Trump-Russia investigation was NOT triggered by the Steele dossier.
Again, I've never made that claim, nor do I recall any source I've cited making it. The dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant, not begin the investigation, which in and of itself is troublesome.

You're a democratic political operative, aren't you? Your posts are among the most deceptive and misleading I've read.
praxis is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 04 Feb 2018, 04:56 PM   #683463 / #11
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
The fact that the dossier was used reveals that adding it must have meant that without using it there must have been a fear of not getting the warrant
Specious. It is corroborative evidence. The whole point is to show the court what evidence exists and what corroborates that evidence. Now you're shifting the goalposts by demonizing the FBI for providing too much evidence?

Quote:
and again, subsequent continued use of it knowing it was a lie
Knowing what was a lie?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
2) That the Trump-Russia investigation was NOT triggered by the Steele dossier.
Again, I've never made that claim, nor do I recall any source I've cited making it.
That is the only relevant claim that can be made. Every single claim to any court in history includes evidence that came from biased sources. This means absolutely nothing, unless the bias of the source was such that they manufactured false evidence (and this in turn can be proved, not merely asserted).

By my taking you to court, I am axiomatically biased against you. That has zero relevance as to the nature of the evidence I present against you unless you can prove I falsified it.

You know this, which is why you tried to just claim that the Steele dossier as a whole "was a lie." "It" is not a lie, regardless of whether or not there may be particulars within the dossier that Steele got wrong and/or there may have been particulars that the FBI or CIA could not yet independently verify.

If you hire a private investigator to follow me to determine how often I'm fucking your wife, the fact that you hired him does not make him biased against me in the sense you and your GOP overlords are trying (and failing) to imply; i.e., that he would manufacture false evidence against me due to his bias. Likewise, when the investigator takes pictures of your wife blowing me in extreme ecstasy, because she's never been with a real man before, the fact that the investigator you hired to take those pictures is likewise impressed with my manhood and skill at giving your wife such pleasure does not in any way render the photos he took of me fake any more than the fact that you hired him would render the photos of your wife's unparalleled pleasure fake.

See how facts work? They are true regardless of individual bias.

Quote:
The dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant
Misleading. The dossier--as you have conceded--was only part of the corroborating evidence used to obtain the FISA warrant (apparently; we have no idea exactly how it was used). There is absolutely nothing wrong with the FBI providing the court with whatever evidence they have. It is then up to the court to decide whether or not the evidence justifies the warrant. What difference would it make if the FBI told the court that Steele was first hired by a Republican organization and then by a Democrat organization? How does that render anything Steele discovered inadmissible as evidence in support of the warrant application?

ETA: To put it simply...


Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 04 Feb 2018 at 05:20 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 09 Feb 2018, 01:17 AM   #683538 / #12
Copernicus
Industrial Linguist
Admin; Mod: Miscellaneous Discussions, Philosophy & Morality, Politics & World Events
 
Copernicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 7,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
1) That the FISA application was NOT based solely on the Steele dossier.
Nobdy said it was based solely on the dossier. The fact that the dossier was used reveals that adding it must have meant that without using it there must have been a fear of not getting the warrant, and again, subsequent continued use of it knowing it was a lie shows the weakness of the evidence.
Nonsense. The introduction of the dossier was only to add to the urgency of continuing surveillance of Page, given that Russian intelligence may have infiltrated the Trump campaign. There was far more to the surveillance than just that dossier, as the Nunes memo acknowledged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
2) That the Trump-Russia investigation was NOT triggered by the Steele dossier.
Again, I've never made that claim, nor do I recall any source I've cited making it. The dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant, not begin the investigation, which in and of itself is troublesome.
I never said or implied that you made such a claim, but the entire basis of the Nunes memo was to claim that the Page surveillance was engineered by the Clinton campaign. In fact, the memo acknowledged on the last page that Australia had triggered the investigation by reporting on Papodopoulos' drunken boast. The Steele dossier merely showed Page's relevance to the investigation Russian interference in our presidential election.

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
You're a democratic political operative, aren't you? Your posts are among the most deceptive and misleading I've read.
Most Trump supporters would have exactly that kind of delusional reaction. It is laughable that anyone would see all of those Republicans in the FBI as engaged in a conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton, yet here you are.

We have also learned that the FISA document informed the court that the document had been indirectly funded by a major political faction, and the judge was perfectly capable of assessing its potential bias. Indeed, the judge could well have asked for the identity of that faction. The disclosure of the bias has been acknowledged by Nunes (who never actually saw the FISA application), so he has fallen back on the lame excuse that the FISA document did not specify in writing that the Clinton campaign had contributed indirectly to the funding.
Copernicus is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 09 Feb 2018, 01:46 PM   #683542 / #13
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,402
Default

I am not a Trump supporter, I am a supporter of civil rights and honesty in government, however, I understand that the weakness of this entire bs argument puts you in a position to need to label me as such.


You all keep going back to the argument that Mueller and company are Republicans while neglecting the other side of that argument that liberals are now loving Republicans. As an example, anyone notice Donna Brazile and David Frome swapping spit on Bill Mahr's show last Friday?

From a former FBI agent and whistleblower:

Quote:
Setting aside for the moment the merits of the Russiagate narrative, who really is this Robert Mueller that amnesiac liberals clamor to hold up as the champion of the people and defender of democracy? Co-author Coleen Rowley, who as an FBI whistleblower exposed numerous internal problems at the FBI in the early 2000s, didn’t have to be privy to his inner circle to recall just a few of his actions after 9/11 that so shocked the public conscience as to repeatedly generate moral disapproval even on the part of mainstream media. Rowley was only able to scratch the surface in listing some of the more widely reported wrongdoing that should still shock liberal consciences.

Although Mueller and his “joined at the hip” cohort James Comey are now hailed for their impeccable character by much of Washington, the truth is, as top law enforcement officials of the George W. Bush administration (Mueller as FBI Director and Comey as Deputy Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of the Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited stunning levels of incompetence.

Ironically, recent declassifications of House Intelligence Committee’s and Senate Judiciary Committee Leaders letters (here and here) reveal strong parallels between the way the public so quickly forgot Mueller’s spotty track record with the way the FBI and (the Obama administration’s) Department of Justice rushed, during the summer of 2016, to put a former fellow spy, Christopher Steele up on a pedestal. Steele was declared to be a “reliable source” without apparently vetting or corroborating any of the “opposition research” allegations that he had been hired (and paid $160,000) to quickly produce for the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/0...siagate-probe/
praxis is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 09 Feb 2018, 03:34 PM   #683544 / #14
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
I am not a Trump supporter
98% of your posts to the contrary, Cop didn’t say you were.

Quote:
You all keep going back to the argument that Mueller and company are Republicans
No one is “going back to” anything. It’s called “counter-argumentation.” You should look it up some time.

As Cop pointed out, the argument being presented by the Trump occupation is that the Russian investigations are all “hoaxes” and “witch hunts” being driven entirely by a Democrat/partisan bias in every one of our intelligence branches.

The obvious and most direct counter-argument to such sophistry—beside the fact that no alleged bias has been proved to have influenced anything in any way, which is the only salient question in regard to any such accusations—is that Mueller is a Republican; Rosenstein (the one who appointed Mueller) is not just a Republican, but also a Trump appointee; the unprecedented and highly misleading Comey (former Republican) announcement regarding a re-opening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails is considered one of the primary factors in Hillary not being President; and, most importantly, the now infamous Steele Dossier was initiated by Republicans.

Iow, if simply saying “Democrat” is sufficient to insinuate not just bias, but acting on that bias to commit felony fraud, then so too must pointing out “Republican” have the same effect. They don’t get to have it both ways, but that, of course, isn’t stopping them because the goal is to turn the word “Democrat” into a slur through false equivalancies and not to uncover any fundamental truths.

Thus by simply stating, “This person is a Democrat” the hope and intent is to equate that with “This person will commit felony fraud for no other reason than their partisan politics.”

Quote:
From a former FBI agent and whistleblower:

Quote:
Setting aside for the moment the merits of the Russiagate narrative, who really is this Robert Mueller that amnesiac liberals clamor to hold up as the champion of the people and defender of democracy?
Nice strawman.

Quote:
Co-author Coleen Rowley, who as an FBI whistleblower exposed numerous internal problems at the FBI in the early 2000s, didn’t have to be privy to his inner circle to recall just a few of his actions after 9/11 that so shocked the public conscience as to repeatedly generate moral disapproval even on the part of mainstream media. Rowley was only able to scratch the surface in listing some of the more widely reported wrongdoing that should still shock liberal consciences.
That’s funny, considering that it was her memo to Mueller that in turn led Mueller to initiate what turned into a two year investigation/overhaul of the DOJ.

Here is a relevant snippet from her 20/20 hindsight memo:

Quote:
I know that my comments appear so presumptuous for a person of my rank in the organization and I'm very sorry for that impression. A word of explanation is therefore probably in order as to why I feel moved to write you directly about these issues. A good part of the reason lies in a promise I made to myself after I realized the enormity of what resulted when FBI Headquarters Supervisory personnel dismissed the warnings of Minneapolis agents pre-September 11, 2001. I was well aware of the forceful but frustrated efforts being made by Minneapolis case agents and their supervisor in their efforts to get Headquarters to move. But since my own role was peripheral, I did not think I could be of much additional help. Since that fateful day of September 11, 2001, however, I have not ceased to regret that perhaps I did not do all that I might have done.

I promised myself that in the future I would always try.

I appreciate that you alone do not determine policy on the terrorist threat from inside or outside the countrythat, indeed, you may have little influence in the crafting of broad domestic or foreign policy. And it seems clear to me now that the decision to attack Iraq was taken some time ago and you, even as FBI Director, may be little more than a helpless bystander.

Such an attack, though, may have grave consequences for your ability to discharge your responsibility to protect Americans, and it is altogether likely that you will find yourself a helpless bystander to a rash of 9-11s. The bottom line is this: We should be deluding neither ourselves nor the American people that there is any way the FBI, despite the various improvements you are implementing, will be able to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq. What troubles me most is that I have no assurance that you have made that clear to the president.

If you believe my concerns have merit, I would ask you to share them with the president and attorney general.
And then this is from Time magazine who first published leaked portions of the memo:

Quote:
FBI director Mueller isn't denying Rowley's charges. He said Thursday night he has asked Justice Department Inspector General Glen Fine to investigate her claims. "While I cannot comment on the specifics of the letter, I am convinced that a different approach is required," Mueller said. "New strategies, new technologies, new analytical capacities and a different culture make us an agency that is changing post 9/11. There is no room for the types of problems and attitudes that could inhibit our efforts."
Iow, she made her personal concerns about 9/11 known—and conceded that Mueller had little to do with any policy decisions in regard to her other accusations on Iraq tie-ins—and Mueller acted upon those concerns.

Quote:
Although Mueller and his “joined at the hip” cohort James Comey are now hailed for their impeccable character
More straw.

Quote:
as top law enforcement officials of the George W. Bush administration (Mueller as FBI Director and Comey as Deputy Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of the Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited stunning levels of incompetence.
Assertions all, but even if they were all fully supported, so what? It’s a strawman to begin with and has no bearing on how Mueller is conducting his investigation.

Worse, it’s full of omissions and speculations that ironically fall victim to the same allegation being lobbed at Mueller (emphasis mine):

Quote:
Steele was declared to be a “reliable source” without apparently vetting or corroborating any of the “opposition research” allegations that he had been hired (and paid $160,000) to quickly produce for the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Apparently, of course, being the operative term and the omission of the fact that Republicans were the first to engage Steele the fatal flaw in the entire line of reasoning Cowley and her co-author ironically miss.

She is of course entitled to her personal opinions about Mueller and/or Comey, but such opinions have little bearing on whether or not Mueller is capable of conducting a thorough, non-partisan investigation and are seriously discredited by her reliance on strawmen, admitted speculation and ironic omissions of material information that contradict her and her co-author’s conclusion.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 09 Feb 2018, 05:15 PM   #683551 / #15
Copernicus
Industrial Linguist
Admin; Mod: Miscellaneous Discussions, Philosophy & Morality, Politics & World Events
 
Copernicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 7,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
I am not a Trump supporter, I am a supporter of civil rights and honesty in government, however, I understand that the weakness of this entire bs argument puts you in a position to need to label me as such.
Just to underscore what Koy said, in case you missed it--I did not call you a Trump supporter. What I said was: "Most Trump supporters would have exactly that kind of delusional reaction."

You seem to pick all of your arguments right out of the right wing blogosphere, just like those who claim to be Trump supporters. I am familiar with your past denials on that subject, but you need to keep denying it. Otherwise, people would not be able to tell the difference between you and a Trump supporter.

And my opinion of what constitutes a Trump supporter is that they are a very diverse lot. About the only thread that runs through all of them is an intense hatred of liberals, progressives, and Democrats. What Donald Trump does for them, more than anything else, is cause liberals/progressives/Democrats to suffer the fact that he can do just about anything he pleases, and they can't do anything about it. He won the presidency on an electoral technicality, and he will likely remain in office as long as Republicans control enough congressional seats to prevent his removal. It does not matter what he did or does. He is effectively above the law, and he can spend the rest of his term tearing down just about everything--social programs, legal precedents, traditional values, Constitutional protections. And that makes Trump supporters feel good. It gives them something that they want.
Copernicus is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 09 Feb 2018, 06:42 PM   #683555 / #16
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,374
Default

Correction: Her name is Coleen Rowley, which my dyslexic brain evidently turned into “Cowley.” Not that it makes any difference.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 09 Feb 2018, 10:55 PM   #683563 / #17
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,402
Default

At this point, I'm wondering if this is going to reach all the way to Obama. Getting as high as Comey, Brennen and Clapper is real close.
praxis is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 10 Feb 2018, 03:09 PM   #683578 / #18
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,374
Default

If what is going to get “as high” as Obama, he asked wearily.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 10 Feb 2018, 03:50 PM   #683580 / #19
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,402
Default

Not only how much he knew, I think it's obvious he probably knew pretty much everything, but how much of an active participant he was in all this and how much was by his direction. Obama reviles Trump as much as Trump hates Obama.

Both the democratic and republican inside Washington power brokers do not like this invasion of a Washington outsider. Carter experienced a similar reaction, but he wasn't the same kind of rough and tumble fighter Trump is.

And while I detest Trump as a person and his choices on cabinet appointments, I have to say that what I do appreciate about his presidency is how much it's rocked the establishment and exposed just how joined at the hip the two parties actually are.

Donna Brazile made the statement on Mahr's show of "we want our democracy back" when what I interpreted that as is "we want our power back".

I hope this is the beginning of the unraveling of that power for good. Both parties as they exist deserve to die.
praxis is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 10 Feb 2018, 06:23 PM   #683584 / #20
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
Not only how much he knew
About what? That the Russians were colluding with the Trump campaign or that Trump has been a Russian asset for decades?

Quote:
Both the democratic and republican inside Washington power brokers do not like this invasion of a Washington outsider.
That’s quite possibly the stupidest thing you’ve ever posted. Aside from it being hopelessly speculative without a chance of corroboration in any substantive form, it’s monolithic.

Quote:
Carter experienced a similar reaction, but he wasn't the same kind of rough and tumble fighter Trump is.
And the monolith doesn’t like “rough and tumble” eh? What a hero he must be to you. The poor billionnaire outsider up against the intractable monolith of DC “establishment” power brokers all baring their teeth at any who dare cross their sacred civil servant path.

Quote:
And while I detest Trump as a person
All evidence and in particular that previous nonsense about him being a “rough and tumble fighter” to the contrary.

Quote:
I have to say that what I do appreciate about his presidency is how much it's rocked the establishment
There it is.

Quote:
and exposed just how joined at the hip the two parties actually are.
If it weren’t for the fact that I know you’re trolling, the depth of ignorance in such a sentiment is almost too much to measure, but sadly you’re just regurgitating the Russian/Stone false equivalence strategy.

Quote:
Donna Brazile made the statement on Mahr's show of "we want our democracy back" when what I interpreted that as is "we want our power back".
How devilishly clever of you.

Quote:
I hope this is the beginning of the unraveling of that power for good. Both parties as they exist deserve to die.
And end it with a reinforcement of the equivalence fallacy. That’s quite a two-dimensional line of bullshit you keep spewing. Checkers at a chess match. Stone would be proud. But of course we’re a year in now and that kind of Trump-rally horseshit is so 2016 of you, but hey, just keep repeating the same vapid nonsense, I guess. If you’re not a shill, you’re either blind or blinded, which, but it doesn’t matter. Everyone else the world over has their eyes so wide open it’s time to check the thyroid, so you can just keep rocking in your corner desperately repeating over and over “he’s bucking the system” while the rest of us work to throw his treasonous ass in prison.

It likely won’t ever happen of course, but it’s the only good fight there is to this huge pile of shit that idiotic monolithic thinking like you’ve displayed above got us all in in the first place, so, c’est la vie.

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 10 Feb 2018 at 06:34 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 11 Feb 2018, 04:05 AM   #683593 / #21
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,651
Default

In Cuba, c'est la vie translates phonetically as I see her pussy.
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus