It certainly does. That writer should run for office!Kriegsspiel wrote:Wild exaggeration? Hyperbole? Outright lying? No cost for being caught in a lie? Extreme spinning? Reality doesn't really matter?
Sounds like a politician to me.
Trump as tragicomedy
Moderator: Global Moderator
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
- Kriegsspiel
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Sure. No better, no worse.moda0306 wrote:So we should at the very least treat him no-better than one, right?Kriegsspiel wrote:Wild exaggeration? Hyperbole? Outright lying? No cost for being caught in a lie? Extreme spinning? Reality doesn't really matter?
Sounds like a politician to me.
I'm hesitant to recommend anyone run for a political office; they're breeding grounds for monsters.Libertarian666 wrote:It certainly does. That writer should run for office!Kriegsspiel wrote:Wild exaggeration? Hyperbole? Outright lying? No cost for being caught in a lie? Extreme spinning? Reality doesn't really matter?
Sounds like a politician to me.
- Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4959
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Fixed your post.Kriegsspiel wrote:Sure. No better, no worse.moda0306 wrote:So we should at the very least treat him no-better than one, right?Kriegsspiel wrote:Wild exaggeration? Hyperbole? Outright lying? No cost for being caught in a lie? Extreme spinning? Reality doesn't really matter?
Sounds like a politician to me.
I'm hesitant to recommend anyone run for (from) a political office; they're (we're) breeding grounds for monsters.Libertarian666 wrote:It certainly does. That writer should run for office!Kriegsspiel wrote:Wild exaggeration? Hyperbole? Outright lying? No cost for being caught in a lie? Extreme spinning? Reality doesn't really matter?
Sounds like a politician to me.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Certainly worse applies here. But even so, I'd be happy if I'd see conservatives treat Trump with the same disdain that they show "librul" politicians. It's obviously not about being a politician. Nor about lying or hyperbole. It's about virtue-signalling. It always has been with most folks.Kriegsspiel wrote:Sure. No better, no worse.moda0306 wrote:So we should at the very least treat him no-better than one, right?Kriegsspiel wrote:Wild exaggeration? Hyperbole? Outright lying? No cost for being caught in a lie? Extreme spinning? Reality doesn't really matter?
Sounds like a politician to me.
So I'll feel free to treat him modestly worse if he's materially worse in said traits. Just like I would treat Kanye West or Kathy Griffin with disdain if liberals were dumb enough to put them in charge of the decision of how we wage war.
Conversely, if Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, Jon Huntsman or Bernie Sanders were president (better than the average politician in those traits), I would probably treat them with more respect, even if I heavily criticize them.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
A statement like this astonishes me. Is it that your personal disdain for Trump is so great that you'd champion the eradication of the most fundamental, constitutionally-based, tenets of criminal procedure? Does it worry you even a little that at some point the "Give me the man, and I'll find you the crime" team might come after YOU? Do you appreciate, even a little, the irony inherent in the view that these tactics are justified in the case of Trump because of his "authoritarian" mindset?Desert wrote: Mueller is going to bring this national tragedy to its rightful end.
I'd be curious to know what Moda thinks about this.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
It's not a disorder. At heart, all criminal prosecution is discretionary... someone in law enforcement has to get an idea into their head to investigate something, and press charges. How does that idea get there... well, how do any ideas get into our heads? Through our network of contacts and the media, which media circle we subscribe to.
I don't think it's a big deal to expect that the President should be held to a very high standard, and his privacy should basically be forfeit... that's like being a famous person and expecting papparazzi not to take pictures of you. Wrong expectation.
I'd expect absolutely the same if HRC was sitting in the WH.
I don't think it's a big deal to expect that the President should be held to a very high standard, and his privacy should basically be forfeit... that's like being a famous person and expecting papparazzi not to take pictures of you. Wrong expectation.
I'd expect absolutely the same if HRC was sitting in the WH.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
I nearly coughed out my coffee over that one.ochotona wrote: I'd expect absolutely the same if HRC was sitting in the WH.
Moreover, this is not about "a higher standard," nor about "privacy." It's about dummying up evidence to obtain a warrant, about unlawful searches and seizures, about coercing testimony, about premising criminal investigations on events that, even if proved, are not crimes, and about untenable conflicts of interest.
I've come to the opinion that the mindset of the Progressive Left is not a mental disorder; it's a calculated decision to side with the political establishment based upon the presumption that they will ultimately be rewarded with the utopia that only the authoritarian state can bring about.
Last edited by Maddy on Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Every party to a criminal investigation, or their allies, is of this opinion. The system is adversarial. That's just how it is.Maddy wrote:I nearly coughed out my coffee over that one.ochotona wrote: I'd expect absolutely the same if HRC was sitting in the WH.
Moreover, this is not about "a higher standard," nor about "privacy." It's about dummying up evidence to obtain a warrant, about unlawful searches and seizures, about coercing testimony, about premising criminal investigations on events that, even if proved, are not crimes, and about untenable conflicts of interest.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
You're talking to someone who spent the better part of three decades working in the legal system--always playing by the rules. What's happening now is NOT "just how it is."ochotona wrote:Every party to a criminal investigation, or their allies, is of this opinion. The system is adversarial. That's just how it is.Maddy wrote:I nearly coughed out my coffee over that one.ochotona wrote: I'd expect absolutely the same if HRC was sitting in the WH.
Moreover, this is not about "a higher standard," nor about "privacy." It's about dummying up evidence to obtain a warrant, about unlawful searches and seizures, about coercing testimony, about premising criminal investigations on events that, even if proved, are not crimes, and about untenable conflicts of interest.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Could you please post or re-post a source that shows how this investigation is unjust in some material way?Maddy wrote:I nearly coughed out my coffee over that one.ochotona wrote: I'd expect absolutely the same if HRC was sitting in the WH.
Moreover, this is not about "a higher standard," nor about "privacy." It's about dummying up evidence to obtain a warrant, about unlawful searches and seizures, about coercing testimony, about premising criminal investigations on events that, even if proved, are not crimes, and about untenable conflicts of interest.
I've come to the opinion that the mindset of the Progressive Left is not a mental disorder; it's a calculated decision to side with the political establishment based upon the presumption that they will ultimately be rewarded with the utopia that only the authoritarian state can bring about.
And if anyone should be subject to legal scrutiny, it's war criminals and police statists within the executive branch, not the least of which would be the President.
I'm definitely not an expert on legal procedure, but I've found no news source that is avidly in defense of Trump that qualifies as anything but drivel. The closest thing has been from sources that aren't afraid to accuse Trump of as many lies, breaches of character and outright crimes as they are of "the left."
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Pretty much the same as "I hate Obama but I can't say why"Libertarian666 wrote: But some people don't seem to be calculating anything; they are just consumed by hatred of Trump and his supporters, and often can't even say why.
{or maybe not willing to admit why, not even even to oneself, because that "reason" is pretty ugly}
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Re: Uranium One... does someone have some really good sources on this? I've heard, in this order:
1. General accusations of "giving uranium to Russia," by some putrid partisans... on Fox News after hearing a conservative friend of mine bring it up (obviously not the best source)...
2. A lengthy and detailed rebuttal by a left-of-center podcaster that SEEMED like a legitimate retort, but as I mentioned I didn't have a good original source to compare it to.
I'd like to have a "steel man" argument about Uranium One rather than conservative drivel.
1. General accusations of "giving uranium to Russia," by some putrid partisans... on Fox News after hearing a conservative friend of mine bring it up (obviously not the best source)...
2. A lengthy and detailed rebuttal by a left-of-center podcaster that SEEMED like a legitimate retort, but as I mentioned I didn't have a good original source to compare it to.
I'd like to have a "steel man" argument about Uranium One rather than conservative drivel.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
I'm happy to let anyone who wants to stew in their juices over the fact that their side lost the election do so. But it'll be a cold day in Hell when I sit idly by while they take down our constitutional system of justice because of it.
Just curious: Do any of the left-leaning members of this forum have anything to say in defense of the secret tribunals known as "FISA courts?" Or about warrantless surveillance deemed justifiable because the evidence is kept under "mask" until needed?
Just curious: Do any of the left-leaning members of this forum have anything to say in defense of the secret tribunals known as "FISA courts?" Or about warrantless surveillance deemed justifiable because the evidence is kept under "mask" until needed?
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Maddy,Maddy wrote:I'm happy to let anyone who wants to stew in their juices over the fact that their side lost the election do so. But it'll be a cold day in Hell when I sit idly by while they take down our constitutional system of justice because of it.
Just curious: Do any of the left-leaning members of this forum have anything to say in defense of the secret tribunals known as "FISA courts?" Or about warrantless surveillance deemed justifiable because the evidence is kept under "mask" until needed?
To your question about FISA courts, I'm pretty firmly in opposition to them. I leave a crack in the door for a national security statist that can actually produce a decent argument for them in full context of risks we face.
I'm probably "left-leaning." Although this forum brings out the lefty in me a lot more than when I debate my liberal friends.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
How about we start with you stating exactly what crimes are the legitimate subject of this investigation, and exactly what evidence of those crimes has been adduced? Because the biggest injustice of all may be the fact that this was never anything more than a wild fishing expedition.moda0306 wrote: Could you please post or re-post a source that shows how this investigation is unjust in some material way?
I appreciate your consistency on that point and respect you for it.To your question about FISA courts, I'm pretty firmly in opposition to them. I leave a crack in the door for a national security statist that can actually produce a decent argument for them in full context of risks we face.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
My interpretation was that there were reports from intelligence agencies that "Russia" possibly tried to meddle in U.S. elections, and the investigation was of them doing this, with the possibility (or probability, if you're inclined to believe it) that it would lead to Trump campaign/admin officials. Even if it didn't even breach Trump, this wasn't the point. The point was that Russia possibly meddled in our elections. And though I'll be the first to say that the U.S. has done this for decades to other countries, I still think it's reasonable to expect an investigation when a country does this to us.Maddy wrote:How about we start with you stating exactly what crimes are the legitimate subject of this investigation, and exactly what evidence of those crimes has been adduced? Because the biggest injustice of all may be the fact that this was never anything more than a wild fishing expedition.moda0306 wrote: Could you please post or re-post a source that shows how this investigation is unjust in some material way?
I appreciate your consistency on that point and respect you for it.To your question about FISA courts, I'm pretty firmly in opposition to them. I leave a crack in the door for a national security statist that can actually produce a decent argument for them in full context of risks we face.
Am I way far off either in-fact or opinion here? This all (so-far) seems like pretty standard, agreeable stuff. I'm open to other interpretations, though, if you can either articulate them or provide the sources. But I think if there's anything an intelligence agency has the duty to investigate, it would be foreign countries trying to influence democratic processes within your country.
Where things get into the weeds is how this investigation should proceed into admin/campaign officials as it shows that they had ties to the Russian meddling. If THIS is where you think the investigation took a grossly inappropriate turn, then I'd imagine the Flynn indictment is key, and I'd be interested to hear your take on that particular piece. And Flynn just pled guilty to lying to the FBI... so how do you see that in the context of all this?
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
I'd be surprised if any self-respecting civil-libertarian would be afraid to express extreme skepticism towards those courts' legitimacy.Maddy wrote:How about we start with you stating exactly what crimes are the legitimate subject of this investigation, and exactly what evidence of those crimes has been adduced? Because the biggest injustice of all may be the fact that this was never anything more than a wild fishing expedition.moda0306 wrote: Could you please post or re-post a source that shows how this investigation is unjust in some material way?
I appreciate your consistency on that point and respect you for it.To your question about FISA courts, I'm pretty firmly in opposition to them. I leave a crack in the door for a national security statist that can actually produce a decent argument for them in full context of risks we face.
But then again I've seen self-ascribed anarchists worship Trump, so my radar's a bit off.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Well, "meddling" isn't a crime. What, specifically, was believed to have occurred that amounted to a crime? But more to the point, what actual evidence did Mueller have of an actual crime being committed? And why, when the "evidence" he was relying upon repeatedly failed to pan out, did he simply launch a new and different investigation? Even Alan Dershowitz is scratching his head over this one.moda0306 wrote:My interpretation was that there were reports from intelligence agencies that "Russia" possibly tried to meddle in U.S. elections, and the investigation was of them doing this, with the possibility (or probability, if you're inclined to believe it) that it would lead to Trump campaign/admin officials. Even if it didn't even breach Trump, this wasn't the point. The point was that Russia possibly meddled in our elections. And though I'll be the first to say that the U.S. has done this for decades to other countries, I still think it's reasonable to expect an investigation when a country does this to us.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
It is obviously a witch hunt with no actual crimes being investigated other than those caused by the investigation itself.Simonjester wrote:http://www.dailywire.com/news/24214/mue ... =position1 probably a to right wing source for some, but i don't see a lot of hyperbole in the article.
However, it is a good reminder (if one was needed) of the danger in talking to law enforcement, especially the FBI, without one's lawyer present to advise.
- Kriegsspiel
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
From what I have seen, this seems to be the case.Libertarian666 wrote:It is obviously a witch hunt with no actual crimes being investigated other than those caused by the investigation itself.Simonjester wrote:http://www.dailywire.com/news/24214/mue ... =position1 probably a to right wing source for some, but i don't see a lot of hyperbole in the article.
Yup.However, it is a good reminder (if one was needed) of the danger in talking to law enforcement, especially the FBI, without one's lawyer present to advise.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Well said. If the FBI appeared on your doorstep, announced that you were under federal criminal investigation, and asked you when your last bowel movement was, I do believe most people would lie. I saw this over and over in the context of depositions. People get scared, they don't know where you're going with your questions, they think you're trying to trick them, so they reflexively lie about things that are completely inconsequential. Hell, half the time they lie even when the truth is more favorable to them.Libertarian666 wrote:It is obviously a witch hunt with no actual crimes being investigated other than those caused by the investigation itself.
Last edited by Maddy on Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:29 pm, edited 3 times in total.
- Kriegsspiel
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Not me. I'd be so explicit, I'd make the FBI uncomfortable. I'd even throw a little tax law into it.Maddy wrote: If the FBI appeared on your doorstep, announced that you were under federal criminal investigation, and asked you when your last bowel movement was, I do believe most people would lie.
"Yes sir, lentils, and lot's of em. I call them LLCs, because they're a pass-through entity."
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
The only thing I would say is "I'm calling my lawyer". And I have his phone number memorized, just in case.Maddy wrote:Well said. If the FBI appeared on your doorstep, announced that you were under federal criminal investigation, and asked you when your last bowel movement was, I do believe most people would lie. I saw this over and over in the context of depositions. People get scared, they don't know where you're going with your questions, they think you're trying to trick them, so they reflexively lie about things that are completely inconsequential. Hell, half the time they lie even when the truth is more favorable to them.Libertarian666 wrote:It is obviously a witch hunt with no actual crimes being investigated other than those caused by the investigation itself.
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
Maddy,
I meant meddling as a general term. So you don't think there should even be an investigation into Russia at all? It's ok to make clear points. But I don't know what you are saying when you just ask loaded questions.
Please post some sources. Ones you've found useful in digesting this. I'm not an expert on the Russia investigation. My disdain for Trump is based on much simpler inputs such as everything I've seen him say or do.
I've tried to do a small bit of diving into this Russia stuff, but the only reasonable positions I can make out are that of Glenn Greenwald, who still rightfully thinks Trump is one of the most contemptible people one could have in office, but won't accept without evidence Russia hyperbole.
To me there are huge reasons to dislike Trump without Russia so i really don't have much of a horse in this race.
I meant meddling as a general term. So you don't think there should even be an investigation into Russia at all? It's ok to make clear points. But I don't know what you are saying when you just ask loaded questions.
Please post some sources. Ones you've found useful in digesting this. I'm not an expert on the Russia investigation. My disdain for Trump is based on much simpler inputs such as everything I've seen him say or do.
I've tried to do a small bit of diving into this Russia stuff, but the only reasonable positions I can make out are that of Glenn Greenwald, who still rightfully thinks Trump is one of the most contemptible people one could have in office, but won't accept without evidence Russia hyperbole.
To me there are huge reasons to dislike Trump without Russia so i really don't have much of a horse in this race.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14232
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Trump as tragicomedy
One thing I hate about Trump is his pardoning of Sheriff Arpaio.
(Libertarian666, to ochotona)
Now let's see your itemized list, based on facts rather than unbacked assertions, of why you hate Trump
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years