[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 21 NEXT
 

Lil devils x:

1)Amount Clinton Foundation Received from Saudi Arabia while Secretary of state = $0. You are talking about a donation made years earlier that was long spent by the time she was appointed Secretary, money that was spent on saving lives in Africa. Simply because someone donates to save lives in Africa does not mean they are buying " play" later. Many people donated to save lives in Africa and received 0 play, why is that?

And they donated again afterwards, up until she lost the presidential race. Along with a lot of other people. Not everyone who donated to her obviously got something out of it, but she heavily favored people who did.

2) Did you forget about this?

Bush Announces $20 Billion Arms Deal for Saudis

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18076351

REAGAN PUSHES SALE OF ARMS TO SAUDIS

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/04/28/reagan-pushes-sale-of-arms-to-saudis/dcae59a6-1598-4efe-b46e-39f683ec9b3b/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ca97272605a1

Quit trying to pin this on Hillary, she didn't start this, it was already going on long before her and after her. No, unlike what you seem to think, Hillary did not manufacture this.

I have in fact mentioned that this is decades of foreign policy that she perpetuated. Several times.

3) Anytime someone runs a smear campaign against a charity, the funds dry up regardless of anything they actually did. Clinton Foundation funds started drying up due to the unfounded disinformation blitz in the media about the foundation. Although her charity still has an excellent rating and the "Pay for play" accusation was found to be false, people still want to believe the lie. You are the prefect example of this. Would you donate to a charity if you think it is corrupt regardless of it's rating? Of course not. You could donate to it now if you think that isn't the case of course. Oh yea, you believe the lie no matter how many times you are told the truth because you want to believe it, not due to anything they actually did. You are not basing your feelings on the matter on facts, instead you are basing it on what you want to believe. The donations drying up do not hurt the Clinton's, they were donors as well, instead it just hurts the people who were benefiting from it in Africa.

If you want to believe that, that all these big names left under this particular cloud of suspicion and not any of the others that have plagued the Clintons for years. Instead of the other major event in 2016.

Fun fact, you can see it drop when she lost the primary to Obama too, and then build up as she built up steam again.

4)Don't give me this "profits in political capital" nonsense. She spent her own money trying to help people that can't even campaign for her. If it was only about political capital she would have spent that money on people who could. Why is it I see you bash her for saving millions of peoples lives, but yet I don't see you calling out Trump for the BS he is doing, which is so much worse?

From my perspective, you were duped by misinformation and refuse to accept it.

I'd say check a mirror. Hillary has been shown, repeatedly, to absolutely never be trusted. And this is what it gets to, you can yell about Trump all day, because he is awful and does awful things, but it's a lot of awful things that were already happening. I don't care about making the Republicans do something better, because I would never expect them to. I want the Democrats to do something better because they're the ones I think might, if they can pull their heads out of their asses.

Something they adamantly refuse to do. And will never do so long as people keep carrying water for the corrupt Republican-lite candidates who rightly lost.

Lil devils x:

crimson5pheonix:

Agema:

Arms sales almost intrinsically come with risk of misuse, and Saudi Arabia actually has a pretty decent record of not getting involved in direct military action (it had us or paid others to fight for it). There are also plusses to arming Saudi Arabia, which is that if an aggressive neighbour like Iraq or Iran got uppity, it'd have a decent shot of defending itself - and it is a pretty important country for global oil supply. Selling them arms also potentially puts them in our pockets - at least a little - providing influence. And of course it's worth good money and jobs.

The simplest answer is to not sell arms at all except to the safest countries. But if arms are to be sold, it's reasonable to let the purchasers know that there will be negative consequences for misuse. Those negative consequences just have to be upheld.

It's a country established on a very antagonistic and puritanical religious sect. Why is anyone surprised this happened as soon as they got enough weapons to get away with it?

No one should be surprised and the precedent of selling arms to Saudis as being "standard" should have never been set. The problem is US economy relying on arms sales to begin with. Regardless of who is in office, they are going to be heavily pressured to make these sales to keep these US companies in business and that is what has to be addressed in order to change this.

Exactly who are you voting for that would put a stop to it? Trump made it far worse than everyone else combined, but somehow Hillary is worse and it is her fault? Not buying that.

Because it's the planes she sold getting used right now. What I want is a Democrat who isn't one of these tepid pseudo-Republicans.

crimson5pheonix:

Lil devils x:

1)Amount Clinton Foundation Received from Saudi Arabia while Secretary of state = $0. You are talking about a donation made years earlier that was long spent by the time she was appointed Secretary, money that was spent on saving lives in Africa. Simply because someone donates to save lives in Africa does not mean they are buying " play" later. Many people donated to save lives in Africa and received 0 play, why is that?

And they donated again afterwards, up until she lost the presidential race. Along with a lot of other people. Not everyone who donated to her obviously got something out of it, but she heavily favored people who did.

2) Did you forget about this?

Bush Announces $20 Billion Arms Deal for Saudis

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18076351

REAGAN PUSHES SALE OF ARMS TO SAUDIS

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/04/28/reagan-pushes-sale-of-arms-to-saudis/dcae59a6-1598-4efe-b46e-39f683ec9b3b/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ca97272605a1

Quit trying to pin this on Hillary, she didn't start this, it was already going on long before her and after her. No, unlike what you seem to think, Hillary did not manufacture this.

I have in fact mentioned that this is decades of foreign policy that she perpetuated. Several times.

3) Anytime someone runs a smear campaign against a charity, the funds dry up regardless of anything they actually did. Clinton Foundation funds started drying up due to the unfounded disinformation blitz in the media about the foundation. Although her charity still has an excellent rating and the "Pay for play" accusation was found to be false, people still want to believe the lie. You are the prefect example of this. Would you donate to a charity if you think it is corrupt regardless of it's rating? Of course not. You could donate to it now if you think that isn't the case of course. Oh yea, you believe the lie no matter how many times you are told the truth because you want to believe it, not due to anything they actually did. You are not basing your feelings on the matter on facts, instead you are basing it on what you want to believe. The donations drying up do not hurt the Clinton's, they were donors as well, instead it just hurts the people who were benefiting from it in Africa.

If you want to believe that, that all these big names left under this particular cloud of suspicion and not any of the others that have plagued the Clintons for years. Instead of the other major event in 2016.

Fun fact, you can see it drop when she lost the primary to Obama too, and then build up as she built up steam again.

4)Don't give me this "profits in political capital" nonsense. She spent her own money trying to help people that can't even campaign for her. If it was only about political capital she would have spent that money on people who could. Why is it I see you bash her for saving millions of peoples lives, but yet I don't see you calling out Trump for the BS he is doing, which is so much worse?

From my perspective, you were duped by misinformation and refuse to accept it.

I'd say check a mirror. Hillary has been shown, repeatedly, to absolutely never be trusted. And this is what it gets to, you can yell about Trump all day, because he is awful and does awful things, but it's a lot of awful things that were already happening. I don't care about making the Republicans do something better, because I would never expect them to. I want the Democrats to do something better because they're the ones I think might, if they can pull their heads out of their asses.

Something they adamantly refuse to do. And will never do so long as people keep carrying water for the corrupt Republican-lite candidates who rightly lost.

Lil devils x:

crimson5pheonix:

It's a country established on a very antagonistic and puritanical religious sect. Why is anyone surprised this happened as soon as they got enough weapons to get away with it?

No one should be surprised and the precedent of selling arms to Saudis as being "standard" should have never been set. The problem is US economy relying on arms sales to begin with. Regardless of who is in office, they are going to be heavily pressured to make these sales to keep these US companies in business and that is what has to be addressed in order to change this.

Exactly who are you voting for that would put a stop to it? Trump made it far worse than everyone else combined, but somehow Hillary is worse and it is her fault? Not buying that.

Because it's the planes she sold getting used right now. What I want is a Democrat who isn't one of these tepid pseudo-Republicans.

Sure I would love a candidate that gives me everything I want, I would love to have one that ends US arms sales all together, however, I am not being offered that and neither are you. Republicans shouldn't get a free pass simply because you hold democrats to higher standards, otherwise we will NEVER get anything better because it will only get worse due to Republicans winning and being allowed to get away with whatever they want since no one expects any better from them. If Biden wins the primary this time, I would expect more of the same as under Obama. From my perspective, I think Biden running is a horrible idea and will likely harm turnout, but the alternative is worse, we have to begrudgingly support the person who does less damage than allowing the one who is doing far worse to make things even more difficult for anyone else coming in.

The problem when we allow Republicans to wreck everything is when the next democrat comes in they will never be able to make it better because they will spend all their time just getting back to square one due to having to fix everything the republicans broke while in power. We will stand still and go backwards instead of going forward at all. It will not be until republicans are permanently shut out that we can start to improve and "expect more" from democrats because they will finally be able to compete with " doing better than each other" than trying to just be better than Republicans. We are FAR from that point right now and you are trying to skip ahead and by trying to skip ahead all you do is cause us to go backwards instead.

Hillary was a conservative. A better conservative than any of the republicans running, as she actually was going to help with healthcare, family sick leave, the housing crisis, environment, but a conservative none the less. Trump OTOH was breaking all of those things beyond repair and also damaging so much more. I would rather us stand still than get shoved so far back we may never recover. Trump packing the courts is going to make it more difficult to move forward than ever. THAT is exactly what happens when you hold the parties to different standards rather than hold them to the same and expect better from anyone doing the job. By giving Trump a free pass and only focusing on Hillary's faults, you make it sound as if Hillary is somehow worse, when in reality she is STILL a billion times better than allowing Trump to do what he has been doing.

The recent drop off in donations for the Clinton foundation started in 2014, long before she lost, it started after the smear campaign started and continued to decline the more press it received. It takes time for word to spread and that is exactly what the decline shows to have happened. Did you not even bother to look at the link you provided? It just continued to drop even when they thought she was going to win.

I personally wanted Bernie to win, but even if he had, he is not infallible, he was still better than the other choices. Just as when he was eliminated ,Hillary is not infallible, but still she is better than the other choices. We have to view this realistically or we will never get ahead and only go backwards as we are now. We are currently being pushed so far back that it will take a near miracle to recover at this point due to people not understanding the full ramifications of allowing the worst candidate to be able to have free reign.

Lil devils x:

Sure I would love a candidate that gives me everything I want, I would love to have one that ends US arms sales all together, however, I am not being offered that and neither are you. Republicans shouldn't get a free pass simply because you hold democrats to higher standards, otherwise we will NEVER get anything better because it will only get worse due to Republicans winning and being allowed to get away with whatever they want since no one expects any better from them. If Biden wins the primary this time, I would expect more of the same as under Obama. From my perspective, I think Biden running is a horrible idea and will likely harm turnout, but the alternative is worse, we have to begrudgingly support the person who does less damage than allowing the one who is doing far worse to make things even more difficult for anyone else coming in.

If you haven't noticed, things have been getting worse under Democrats too, because you don't hold them to any standards other than being "not a Republican". So now they are the Republicans of 10 years ago, and keep going right. I can try to make the Republicans go left, or I can try to make the Democrats go left. One of these seems far saner than the other.

The problem when we allow Republicans to wreck everything is when the next democrat comes in they will never be able to make it better because they will spend all their time just getting back to square one due to having to fix everything the republicans broke while in power. We will stand still and go backwards instead of going forward at all. It will not be until republicans are permanently shut out that we can start to improve and "expect more" from democrats because they will finally be able to compete with " doing better than each other" than trying to just be better than Republicans. We are FAR from that point right now and you are trying to skip ahead and by trying to skip ahead all you do is cause us to go backwards instead.

That's something oft repeated and I don't buy it for a moment. You don't have to 'go back to 0 before you go forward', you put policies in place, good policies. They inherently go past 0 to where they need to be. If Democrats didn't squander the advantage when they have it, this would already be done.

Hillary was a conservative. A better conservative than any of the republicans running, as she actually was going to help with healthcare, family sick leave, the housing crisis, environment, but a conservative none the less. Trump OTOH was breaking all of those things beyond repair and also damaging so much more. I would rather us stand still than get shoved so far back we may never recover. Trump packing the courts is going to make it more difficult to move forward than ever. THAT is exactly what happens when you hold the parties to different standards rather than hold them to the same and expect better from anyone doing the job. By giving Trump a free pass and only focusing on Hillary's faults, you make it sound as if Hillary is somehow worse, when in reality she is STILL a billion times better than allowing Trump to do what he has been doing.

At best she would have applied bandaids, but she was to the right of Obama, who was already a right-wing president. I wouldn't trust her to actually do any of that. I'm sure she would have mired herself in compromise and nothing like that would get done in any meaningful way.

The recent drop off in donations for the Clinton foundation started in 2014, long before she lost, it started after the smear campaign started and continued to decline the more press it received. It takes time for word to spread and that is exactly what the decline shows to have happened. Did you not even bother to look at the link you provided? It just continued to drop even when they thought she was going to win.

It's biggest drop was after the end of the election, losing half their remaining revenue stream. And I'm willing to bet it's not going to significantly come back up.

I personally wanted Bernie to win, but even if he had, he is not infallible, he was still better than the other choices. Just as when he was eliminated ,Hillary is not infallible, but still she is better than the other choices. We have to view this realistically or we will never get ahead and only go backwards as we are now. We are currently being pushed so far back that it will take a near miracle to recover at this point due to people not understanding the full ramifications of allowing the worst candidate to be able to have free reign.

See above about not having to go to 0 first. Unless you just want to make things hard on yourself, which the Democrats are a big fan of doing.

crimson5pheonix:

Lil devils x:

Sure I would love a candidate that gives me everything I want, I would love to have one that ends US arms sales all together, however, I am not being offered that and neither are you. Republicans shouldn't get a free pass simply because you hold democrats to higher standards, otherwise we will NEVER get anything better because it will only get worse due to Republicans winning and being allowed to get away with whatever they want since no one expects any better from them. If Biden wins the primary this time, I would expect more of the same as under Obama. From my perspective, I think Biden running is a horrible idea and will likely harm turnout, but the alternative is worse, we have to begrudgingly support the person who does less damage than allowing the one who is doing far worse to make things even more difficult for anyone else coming in.

If you haven't noticed, things have been getting worse under Democrats too, because you don't hold them to any standards other than being "not a Republican". So now they are the Republicans of 10 years ago, and keep going right. I can try to make the Republicans go left, or I can try to make the Democrats go left. One of these seems far saner than the other.

The problem when we allow Republicans to wreck everything is when the next democrat comes in they will never be able to make it better because they will spend all their time just getting back to square one due to having to fix everything the republicans broke while in power. We will stand still and go backwards instead of going forward at all. It will not be until republicans are permanently shut out that we can start to improve and "expect more" from democrats because they will finally be able to compete with " doing better than each other" than trying to just be better than Republicans. We are FAR from that point right now and you are trying to skip ahead and by trying to skip ahead all you do is cause us to go backwards instead.

That's something oft repeated and I don't buy it for a moment. You don't have to 'go back to 0 before you go forward', you put policies in place, good policies. They inherently go past 0 to where they need to be. If Democrats didn't squander the advantage when they have it, this would already be done.

Hillary was a conservative. A better conservative than any of the republicans running, as she actually was going to help with healthcare, family sick leave, the housing crisis, environment, but a conservative none the less. Trump OTOH was breaking all of those things beyond repair and also damaging so much more. I would rather us stand still than get shoved so far back we may never recover. Trump packing the courts is going to make it more difficult to move forward than ever. THAT is exactly what happens when you hold the parties to different standards rather than hold them to the same and expect better from anyone doing the job. By giving Trump a free pass and only focusing on Hillary's faults, you make it sound as if Hillary is somehow worse, when in reality she is STILL a billion times better than allowing Trump to do what he has been doing.

At best she would have applied bandaids, but she was to the right of Obama, who was already a right-wing president. I wouldn't trust her to actually do any of that. I'm sure she would have mired herself in compromise and nothing like that would get done in any meaningful way.

The recent drop off in donations for the Clinton foundation started in 2014, long before she lost, it started after the smear campaign started and continued to decline the more press it received. It takes time for word to spread and that is exactly what the decline shows to have happened. Did you not even bother to look at the link you provided? It just continued to drop even when they thought she was going to win.

It's biggest drop was after the end of the election, losing half their remaining revenue stream. And I'm willing to bet it's not going to significantly come back up.

I personally wanted Bernie to win, but even if he had, he is not infallible, he was still better than the other choices. Just as when he was eliminated ,Hillary is not infallible, but still she is better than the other choices. We have to view this realistically or we will never get ahead and only go backwards as we are now. We are currently being pushed so far back that it will take a near miracle to recover at this point due to people not understanding the full ramifications of allowing the worst candidate to be able to have free reign.

See above about not having to go to 0 first. Unless you just want to make things hard on yourself, which the Democrats are a big fan of doing.

Democrats having majority =\= progressives having majority. How do they pass " good legislation" when they cannot even control all of congress? Currently the vast majority of democrats and republicans in congress are conservative. You have to not only replace republican seats but conservative democrats as well in order to pass that legislation or nothing happens. When we go backwards, we cannot even get to point 0 without a hard fight let alone going forward. How do you propose we gain those seats when we cannot even maintain a majority long enough to pass anything useful when the people who elect these conservatives are in fact conservatives themselves? Go ahead and explain to me how we are going to make conservative people vote for a non conservative when they are terrified of progressives? That is what has to happen to flip the seats need to pass this legislation.

We are no where remotely near having enough progressive congressional seats to pass progressive agenda, and it will not happen unless the people in those districts choose to make it happen. Trying to push it farther left just alienates them further and makes them push farther right.

Lil devils x:

crimson5pheonix:

Lil devils x:

Sure I would love a candidate that gives me everything I want, I would love to have one that ends US arms sales all together, however, I am not being offered that and neither are you. Republicans shouldn't get a free pass simply because you hold democrats to higher standards, otherwise we will NEVER get anything better because it will only get worse due to Republicans winning and being allowed to get away with whatever they want since no one expects any better from them. If Biden wins the primary this time, I would expect more of the same as under Obama. From my perspective, I think Biden running is a horrible idea and will likely harm turnout, but the alternative is worse, we have to begrudgingly support the person who does less damage than allowing the one who is doing far worse to make things even more difficult for anyone else coming in.

If you haven't noticed, things have been getting worse under Democrats too, because you don't hold them to any standards other than being "not a Republican". So now they are the Republicans of 10 years ago, and keep going right. I can try to make the Republicans go left, or I can try to make the Democrats go left. One of these seems far saner than the other.

The problem when we allow Republicans to wreck everything is when the next democrat comes in they will never be able to make it better because they will spend all their time just getting back to square one due to having to fix everything the republicans broke while in power. We will stand still and go backwards instead of going forward at all. It will not be until republicans are permanently shut out that we can start to improve and "expect more" from democrats because they will finally be able to compete with " doing better than each other" than trying to just be better than Republicans. We are FAR from that point right now and you are trying to skip ahead and by trying to skip ahead all you do is cause us to go backwards instead.

That's something oft repeated and I don't buy it for a moment. You don't have to 'go back to 0 before you go forward', you put policies in place, good policies. They inherently go past 0 to where they need to be. If Democrats didn't squander the advantage when they have it, this would already be done.

Hillary was a conservative. A better conservative than any of the republicans running, as she actually was going to help with healthcare, family sick leave, the housing crisis, environment, but a conservative none the less. Trump OTOH was breaking all of those things beyond repair and also damaging so much more. I would rather us stand still than get shoved so far back we may never recover. Trump packing the courts is going to make it more difficult to move forward than ever. THAT is exactly what happens when you hold the parties to different standards rather than hold them to the same and expect better from anyone doing the job. By giving Trump a free pass and only focusing on Hillary's faults, you make it sound as if Hillary is somehow worse, when in reality she is STILL a billion times better than allowing Trump to do what he has been doing.

At best she would have applied bandaids, but she was to the right of Obama, who was already a right-wing president. I wouldn't trust her to actually do any of that. I'm sure she would have mired herself in compromise and nothing like that would get done in any meaningful way.

The recent drop off in donations for the Clinton foundation started in 2014, long before she lost, it started after the smear campaign started and continued to decline the more press it received. It takes time for word to spread and that is exactly what the decline shows to have happened. Did you not even bother to look at the link you provided? It just continued to drop even when they thought she was going to win.

It's biggest drop was after the end of the election, losing half their remaining revenue stream. And I'm willing to bet it's not going to significantly come back up.

I personally wanted Bernie to win, but even if he had, he is not infallible, he was still better than the other choices. Just as when he was eliminated ,Hillary is not infallible, but still she is better than the other choices. We have to view this realistically or we will never get ahead and only go backwards as we are now. We are currently being pushed so far back that it will take a near miracle to recover at this point due to people not understanding the full ramifications of allowing the worst candidate to be able to have free reign.

See above about not having to go to 0 first. Unless you just want to make things hard on yourself, which the Democrats are a big fan of doing.

Democrats having majority =\= progressives having majority. How do they pass " good legislation" when they cannot even control all of congress? Currently the vast majority of democrats and republicans in congress are conservative. You have to not only replace republican seats but conservative democrats as well in order to pass that legislation or nothing happens. When we go backwards, we cannot even get to point 0 without a hard fight let alone going forward. How do you propose we gain those seats when we cannot even maintain a majority long enough to pass anything useful when the people who elect these conservatives are in fact conservatives themselves? Go ahead and explain to me how we are going to make conservative people vote for a non conservative when they are terrified of progressives? That is what has to happen to flip the seats need to pass this legislation.

Yes, and your answer is to keep putting these conservative Democrats in power and just overlooking this fact because of the D next to their name.

crimson5pheonix:

Lil devils x:

crimson5pheonix:

If you haven't noticed, things have been getting worse under Democrats too, because you don't hold them to any standards other than being "not a Republican". So now they are the Republicans of 10 years ago, and keep going right. I can try to make the Republicans go left, or I can try to make the Democrats go left. One of these seems far saner than the other.

That's something oft repeated and I don't buy it for a moment. You don't have to 'go back to 0 before you go forward', you put policies in place, good policies. They inherently go past 0 to where they need to be. If Democrats didn't squander the advantage when they have it, this would already be done.

At best she would have applied bandaids, but she was to the right of Obama, who was already a right-wing president. I wouldn't trust her to actually do any of that. I'm sure she would have mired herself in compromise and nothing like that would get done in any meaningful way.

It's biggest drop was after the end of the election, losing half their remaining revenue stream. And I'm willing to bet it's not going to significantly come back up.

See above about not having to go to 0 first. Unless you just want to make things hard on yourself, which the Democrats are a big fan of doing.

Democrats having majority =\= progressives having majority. How do they pass " good legislation" when they cannot even control all of congress? Currently the vast majority of democrats and republicans in congress are conservative. You have to not only replace republican seats but conservative democrats as well in order to pass that legislation or nothing happens. When we go backwards, we cannot even get to point 0 without a hard fight let alone going forward. How do you propose we gain those seats when we cannot even maintain a majority long enough to pass anything useful when the people who elect these conservatives are in fact conservatives themselves? Go ahead and explain to me how we are going to make conservative people vote for a non conservative when they are terrified of progressives? That is what has to happen to flip the seats need to pass this legislation.

Yes, and your answer is to keep putting these conservative Democrats in power and just overlooking this fact because of the D next to their name.

You didn't answer my question. I will tell you how I see making it doable once you do.

Lil devils x:

crimson5pheonix:

Lil devils x:
Democrats having majority =\= progressives having majority. How do they pass " good legislation" when they cannot even control all of congress? Currently the vast majority of democrats and republicans in congress are conservative. You have to not only replace republican seats but conservative democrats as well in order to pass that legislation or nothing happens. When we go backwards, we cannot even get to point 0 without a hard fight let alone going forward. How do you propose we gain those seats when we cannot even maintain a majority long enough to pass anything useful when the people who elect these conservatives are in fact conservatives themselves? Go ahead and explain to me how we are going to make conservative people vote for a non conservative when they are terrified of progressives? That is what has to happen to flip the seats need to pass this legislation.

Yes, and your answer is to keep putting these conservative Democrats in power and just overlooking this fact because of the D next to their name.

You didn't answer my question. I will tell you how I see making it doable once you do.

I've already said, the Democrats will turn left or they won't get votes. It's not even something I have to do, we saw it happen to Hillary.

crimson5pheonix:

Lil devils x:

crimson5pheonix:

Yes, and your answer is to keep putting these conservative Democrats in power and just overlooking this fact because of the D next to their name.

You didn't answer my question. I will tell you how I see making it doable once you do.

I've already said, the Democrats will turn left or they won't get votes. It's not even something I have to do, we saw it happen to Hillary.

How will them turning left win conservative seats? The biggest issue holding back Beto from taking Ted Cruz out was Beto's support for medicare for all, that was why he wavered on support after due to what happened during his congressional run.

I would love to live in a reality where we could win conservative districts with progressive agenda, but that will never happen. The only time that Democrats had a majority, it was a conservative majority, not progressive. How do we win districts where the voters there are terrified of progressive agenda? That is what we actually have to do to win enough seats to pass anything.

EDIT:
Have you even gone through the voter surveys from those districts to see what they are actually asking for? You cannot apply what people in AOC's district want to all districts or you will lose them all. You have to look at what the voters in that district want and offer it to them.

Lil devils x:

crimson5pheonix:

Lil devils x:
You didn't answer my question. I will tell you how I see making it doable once you do.

I've already said, the Democrats will turn left or they won't get votes. It's not even something I have to do, we saw it happen to Hillary.

How will them turning left win conservative seats? The biggest issue holding back Beto from taking Ted Cruz out was Beto's support for medicare for all, that was why he wavered on support after due to what happened during his congressional run.

I would love to live in a reality where we could win conservative districts with progressive agenda, but that will never happen. The only time that Democrats had a majority, it was a conservative majority, not progressive. How do we win districts where the voters there are terrified of progressive agenda? That is what we actually have to do to win enough seats to pass anything.

EDIT:
Have you even gone through the voter surveys from those districts to see what they are actually asking for? You cannot apply what people in AOC's district want to all districts or you will lose them all. You have to look at what the voters in that district want and offer it to them.

What held Beto back was being another half-assed centrist who gave tepid support maybe-kinda for left wing policies and a whole lot of vapid fundraising platitudes. Thus, he lost to a sneering homonculus of a senator. And unfortunately wants to try for president, which if he makes the nomination will be the Democrats taking the L again.

crimson5pheonix:

Lil devils x:

crimson5pheonix:

I've already said, the Democrats will turn left or they won't get votes. It's not even something I have to do, we saw it happen to Hillary.

How will them turning left win conservative seats? The biggest issue holding back Beto from taking Ted Cruz out was Beto's support for medicare for all, that was why he wavered on support after due to what happened during his congressional run.

I would love to live in a reality where we could win conservative districts with progressive agenda, but that will never happen. The only time that Democrats had a majority, it was a conservative majority, not progressive. How do we win districts where the voters there are terrified of progressive agenda? That is what we actually have to do to win enough seats to pass anything.

EDIT:
Have you even gone through the voter surveys from those districts to see what they are actually asking for? You cannot apply what people in AOC's district want to all districts or you will lose them all. You have to look at what the voters in that district want and offer it to them.

What held Beto back was being another half-assed centrist who gave tepid support maybe-kinda for left wing policies and a whole lot of vapid fundraising platitudes. Thus, he lost to a sneering homonculus of a senator. And unfortunately wants to try for president, which if he makes the nomination will be the Democrats taking the L again.

You would have to be delusional to think that a progressive could have beat Ted Cruz with all of the conservative voters here. He literally lost over medicare for all according to the data from the election. You are ignoring what the people in these districts will vote for all together and assuming you know better than they do which gets us nowhere. You can take a good look at Jill Stein's numbers if you want to see how much support a progressive gets on the national level, she has been running for some time now and how well has that turned out?

I still think Bernie is the best shot we have to convince conservative voters to vote for a progressive, though I still think he will have one hell of a fight. I could be wrong though, they have been moving right, not left as of late due to the same disinformation campaign that convinced you Hillary was worse than Trump. They are working hard to make socialism a dirty word right now and it appears to be just as effective as it was for them to convince you that the Clinton Foundation that saved hundreds of millions of lives was a " pay for play" profit scam for the Clintons. If anything this last election proved was that it doesn't matter how much good someone has done, how many people they have helped, people will believe the lie over everything else.

The smear campaign against Bernie has already been effective enough that Bernie likely will not even win the Primary and they will pit Biden in. I see that as a huge mistake, but what will it matter anyhow if they do not do something to better address the disinformation blitz.

Lil devils x:

crimson5pheonix:

Lil devils x:
How will them turning left win conservative seats? The biggest issue holding back Beto from taking Ted Cruz out was Beto's support for medicare for all, that was why he wavered on support after due to what happened during his congressional run.

I would love to live in a reality where we could win conservative districts with progressive agenda, but that will never happen. The only time that Democrats had a majority, it was a conservative majority, not progressive. How do we win districts where the voters there are terrified of progressive agenda? That is what we actually have to do to win enough seats to pass anything.

EDIT:
Have you even gone through the voter surveys from those districts to see what they are actually asking for? You cannot apply what people in AOC's district want to all districts or you will lose them all. You have to look at what the voters in that district want and offer it to them.

What held Beto back was being another half-assed centrist who gave tepid support maybe-kinda for left wing policies and a whole lot of vapid fundraising platitudes. Thus, he lost to a sneering homonculus of a senator. And unfortunately wants to try for president, which if he makes the nomination will be the Democrats taking the L again.

You would have to be delusional to think that a progressive could have beat Ted Cruz with all of the conservative voters here. He literally lost over medicare for all according to the data from the election. You are ignoring what the people in these districts will vote for all together and assuming you know better than they do which gets us nowhere. You can take a good look at Jill Stein's numbers if you want to see how much support a progressive gets on the national level, she has been running for some time now and how well has that turned out?

I still think Bernie is the best shot we have to convince conservative voters to vote for a progressive, though I still think he will have one hell of a fight. I could be wrong though, they have been moving right, not left as of late due to the same disinformation campaign that convinced you Hillary was worse than Trump. They are working hard to make socialism a dirty word right now and it appears to be just as effective as it was for them to convince you that the Clinton Foundation that saved hundreds of millions of lives was a " pay for play" profit scam for the Clintons. If anything this last election proved was that it doesn't matter how much good someone has done, how many people they have helped, people will believe the lie over everything else.

The smear campaign against Bernie has already been effective enough that Bernie likely will not even win the Primary and they will pit Biden in. I see that as a huge mistake, but what will it matter anyhow if they do not do something to better address the disinformation blitz.

Just to point out, the first campaign against Bernie was instituted by Hillary and the DNC, before you go talking about all the good she did. She's the one that kneecapped Bernie in the first place.

crimson5pheonix:

Lil devils x:

crimson5pheonix:

What held Beto back was being another half-assed centrist who gave tepid support maybe-kinda for left wing policies and a whole lot of vapid fundraising platitudes. Thus, he lost to a sneering homonculus of a senator. And unfortunately wants to try for president, which if he makes the nomination will be the Democrats taking the L again.

You would have to be delusional to think that a progressive could have beat Ted Cruz with all of the conservative voters here. He literally lost over medicare for all according to the data from the election. You are ignoring what the people in these districts will vote for all together and assuming you know better than they do which gets us nowhere. You can take a good look at Jill Stein's numbers if you want to see how much support a progressive gets on the national level, she has been running for some time now and how well has that turned out?

I still think Bernie is the best shot we have to convince conservative voters to vote for a progressive, though I still think he will have one hell of a fight. I could be wrong though, they have been moving right, not left as of late due to the same disinformation campaign that convinced you Hillary was worse than Trump. They are working hard to make socialism a dirty word right now and it appears to be just as effective as it was for them to convince you that the Clinton Foundation that saved hundreds of millions of lives was a " pay for play" profit scam for the Clintons. If anything this last election proved was that it doesn't matter how much good someone has done, how many people they have helped, people will believe the lie over everything else.

The smear campaign against Bernie has already been effective enough that Bernie likely will not even win the Primary and they will pit Biden in. I see that as a huge mistake, but what will it matter anyhow if they do not do something to better address the disinformation blitz.

Just to point out, the first campaign against Bernie was instituted by Hillary and the DNC, before you go talking about all the good she did. She's the one that kneecapped Bernie in the first place.

Her trying to win the primary does not suddenly take away the hundreds of millions of lives she helped save. The DNC and Hillary's campaign did some underhanded shit. Obama's campaign did some underhanded shit. EVEN Bernie's campaign has done some underhanded shit. I am not even sure if there is a campaign that has never done some underhanded shit. Trying to win is pretty much what politics is about. HOWEVER, Just as "Bernie Bro's" does not take away from all the good Bernie has done, neither does Debbie downer from the good work Hillary has done.

This is still not addressing how to combat the "disinformation blitz" to actually get someone like Bernie elected. Right now they are convincing the population that Bernie is a senile, delusional, crazy old man that will bankrupt the economy with his " dangerous" socialist ideas. Go ahead and explain how we can combat that to have him win the primary and then go on to beat Trump's constant BS afterwards?

Lil devils x:

crimson5pheonix:

Lil devils x:
You would have to be delusional to think that a progressive could have beat Ted Cruz with all of the conservative voters here. He literally lost over medicare for all according to the data from the election. You are ignoring what the people in these districts will vote for all together and assuming you know better than they do which gets us nowhere. You can take a good look at Jill Stein's numbers if you want to see how much support a progressive gets on the national level, she has been running for some time now and how well has that turned out?

I still think Bernie is the best shot we have to convince conservative voters to vote for a progressive, though I still think he will have one hell of a fight. I could be wrong though, they have been moving right, not left as of late due to the same disinformation campaign that convinced you Hillary was worse than Trump. They are working hard to make socialism a dirty word right now and it appears to be just as effective as it was for them to convince you that the Clinton Foundation that saved hundreds of millions of lives was a " pay for play" profit scam for the Clintons. If anything this last election proved was that it doesn't matter how much good someone has done, how many people they have helped, people will believe the lie over everything else.

The smear campaign against Bernie has already been effective enough that Bernie likely will not even win the Primary and they will pit Biden in. I see that as a huge mistake, but what will it matter anyhow if they do not do something to better address the disinformation blitz.

Just to point out, the first campaign against Bernie was instituted by Hillary and the DNC, before you go talking about all the good she did. She's the one that kneecapped Bernie in the first place.

Her trying to win the primary does not suddenly take away the hundreds of millions of lives she helped save. The DNC and Hillary's campaign did some underhanded shit. Obama's campaign did some underhanded shit. EVEN Bernie's campaign has done some underhanded shit. I am not even sure if there is a campaign that has never done some underhanded shit. Trying to win is pretty much what politics is about. HOWEVER, Just as "Bernie Bro's" does not take away from all the good Bernie has done, neither does Debbie downer from the good work Hillary has done.

This is still not addressing how to combat the "disinformation blitz" to actually get someone like Bernie elected. Right now they are convincing the population that Bernie is a senile, delusional, crazy old man that will bankrupt the economy with his " dangerous" socialist ideas. Go ahead and explain how we can combat that to have him win the primary and then go on to beat Trump's constant BS afterwards?

Because you're not chasing conservative votes, you're chasing everyone else, something the DNC hasn't figured out yet and should have been illustrated beautifully by Hillary's campaign where she won the coasts that were going to vote for her anyway and abandoned everyone else, so she lost.

crimson5pheonix:

Lil devils x:

crimson5pheonix:

Just to point out, the first campaign against Bernie was instituted by Hillary and the DNC, before you go talking about all the good she did. She's the one that kneecapped Bernie in the first place.

Her trying to win the primary does not suddenly take away the hundreds of millions of lives she helped save. The DNC and Hillary's campaign did some underhanded shit. Obama's campaign did some underhanded shit. EVEN Bernie's campaign has done some underhanded shit. I am not even sure if there is a campaign that has never done some underhanded shit. Trying to win is pretty much what politics is about. HOWEVER, Just as "Bernie Bro's" does not take away from all the good Bernie has done, neither does Debbie downer from the good work Hillary has done.

This is still not addressing how to combat the "disinformation blitz" to actually get someone like Bernie elected. Right now they are convincing the population that Bernie is a senile, delusional, crazy old man that will bankrupt the economy with his " dangerous" socialist ideas. Go ahead and explain how we can combat that to have him win the primary and then go on to beat Trump's constant BS afterwards?

Because you're not chasing conservative votes, you're chasing everyone else, something the DNC hasn't figured out yet and should have been illustrated beautifully by Hillary's campaign where she won the coasts that were going to vote for her anyway and abandoned everyone else, so she lost.

If they stop trying to win conservative districts, they lose all of those seats entirely. You act as if they haven't run progressive candidates in those districts, they HAVE done that and lost repeatedly. I see this all the time here in Texas. When they run progressives they lose everything. A complete blow out You are forgetting the majority of the population is conservative, at least until the babyboomers are gone, but then we have to deal with this whole new influx of Holy rollers and alt right recruits to worry about.

Your plan of only running progressives = lose everything.

crimson5pheonix:

What held Beto back was being another half-assed centrist who gave tepid support maybe-kinda for left wing policies and a whole lot of vapid fundraising platitudes. Thus, he lost to a sneering homonculus of a senator. And unfortunately wants to try for president, which if he makes the nomination will be the Democrats taking the L again.

Beto seems to me for all the world like an scion of the overprivileged who thinks political power is his birthright, not a tool to do good. But he's very charismatic, and you can't say that about Ted Cruz.

crimson5pheonix:

I'd say check a mirror. Hillary has been shown, repeatedly, to absolutely never be trusted. And this is what it gets to, you can yell about Trump all day, because he is awful and does awful things, but it's a lot of awful things that were already happening. I don't care about making the Republicans do something better, because I would never expect them to. I want the Democrats to do something better because they're the ones I think might, if they can pull their heads out of their asses.

Can I ask what you consider "better" to be?

Lil devils x:
If they stop trying to win conservative districts, they lose all of those seats entirely. You act as if they haven't run progressive candidates in those districts, they HAVE done that and lost repeatedly. I see this all the time here in Texas. When they run progressives they lose everything. A complete blow out You are forgetting the majority of the population is conservative, at least until the babyboomers are gone, but then we have to deal with this whole new influx of Holy rollers and alt right recruits to worry about.

Your plan of only running progressives = lose everything.

Well the last 30 years of running conservative Democrats hasn't worked, so why keep trying that?

Agema:

crimson5pheonix:

What held Beto back was being another half-assed centrist who gave tepid support maybe-kinda for left wing policies and a whole lot of vapid fundraising platitudes. Thus, he lost to a sneering homonculus of a senator. And unfortunately wants to try for president, which if he makes the nomination will be the Democrats taking the L again.

Beto seems to me for all the world like an scion of the overprivileged who thinks political power is his birthright, not a tool to do good. But he's very charismatic, and you can't say that about Ted Cruz.

I'm not sure about "very", though the bar is set extremely low with Cruz. Otherwise, accurate.

crimson5pheonix:

I'd say check a mirror. Hillary has been shown, repeatedly, to absolutely never be trusted. And this is what it gets to, you can yell about Trump all day, because he is awful and does awful things, but it's a lot of awful things that were already happening. I don't care about making the Republicans do something better, because I would never expect them to. I want the Democrats to do something better because they're the ones I think might, if they can pull their heads out of their asses.

Can I ask what you consider "better" to be?

Medicare for all, a living minimum wage, and a drastic decrease in foreign intervention would be a nice start. My hope beyond hope is to see the military budget get hacked to pieces, but that's genuinely a hard pill to swallow.

crimson5pheonix:
Medicare for all, a living minimum wage, and a drastic decrease in foreign intervention would be a nice start. My hope beyond hope is to see the military budget get hacked to pieces, but that's genuinely a hard pill to swallow.

Thank you - interesting stuff.

I read about a speech Bernie gave in Trumpland covered by Fox, suggesting the Fox commentators were about to tear strips out of Bernie before being caught wrong-footed about how well a lot of what he said went down. Don't know how true that really is rather than a journalistic confection, but if it is, it's a big deal.

I think the Democrats have made a genuinely terrible job at appealing to a huge number of Americans they could win over. Part of the problem I think is that both parties have a set of core activists, and the party ends up dancing to the tunes of the core activists. In ways, sadly, that's often also a good electoral tactic, because it's often about motivating the enthusiasts to turn out more than providing a wider vision for the country. What I think Bernie and others reveal is that there are potentially a large number of Americans who can be won if only they got the messaging right. However, I suspect most of that party top brass like Pelosi (and of course in the last election represented by Clinton) are so totally in the pockets of the status quo that they're more interested in shutting that message down rather than using it. The Ocasio-Cortezes are perhaps a start, but it probably also needs people a little more from post-industrial and rural areas. The fear, however, is always that they scare progressives who are otherwise highly invested in a lot of the status quo - potentially often big donors often from the corporate world.

Lil devils x:

This is still not addressing how to combat the "disinformation blitz" to actually get someone like Bernie elected. Right now they are convincing the population that Bernie is a senile, delusional, crazy old man that will bankrupt the economy with his " dangerous" socialist ideas. Go ahead and explain how we can combat that to have him win the primary and then go on to beat Trump's constant BS afterwards?

A question for the strategists and media-men. I'm certain that simply giving up on defending the platform and running someone else out of fear of attack ads isn't the way forward, though.

The opposition are going to attack whoever the Democrats put forward. You do not get to avoid that by fielding the most tepid, uninspiring, inoffensive candidate you can find.

Silvanus:

The opposition are going to attack whoever the Democrats put forward. You do not get to avoid that by fielding the most tepid, uninspiring, inoffensive candidate you can find.

Yes, but if you frame the question as a balancing act between the boring establishment and the hedonistic communists, people will forget to ask if either of those viewpoints offer anything of value in the first place.

tstorm823:

Silvanus:

The opposition are going to attack whoever the Democrats put forward. You do not get to avoid that by fielding the most tepid, uninspiring, inoffensive candidate you can find.

Yes, but if you frame the question as a balancing act between the boring establishment and the hedonistic communists, people will forget to ask if either of those viewpoints offer anything of value in the first place.

The only people who hate socialism are the greedy and the misinformed.

'Hedonistic communists'? You realize that's an oxymoron, right? Capitalism is the hedonistic side. The one that is supposed to allow for the luxury of the dollar. If anything, it is the push away from luxury that usually puts people off communism.

Bringing this back to the topic of the report, something interesting just popped up in my feed.

And it brings up an interesting point that seems to be getting left in the shuffle. Not an indictment of Mueller, mind you, just that the framework in which the report was made requires that we adjust our 'bottom line' fixation somewhat. Simply put, the legal framework Mueller was working with did not actually allow him to conclude that the president committed a crime. So - to borrow from an oversimplification in the video, "they were allowed to rule 'not guilty' or 'not not guilty', and they ruled 'not not guilty'". What makes this important is that we've been wont to think of the latter as saying that the evidence was inconclusive, when in fact it's quite the opposite.

Flat out accusing Trump of a crime was never on the table for Mueller due to the DoJ's policy not to indict a sitting president. As far as Mueller was concerned it wasn't the job of the investigation to level that accusation at a time when extant policy forbade the case from going to court. Instead, he saw the purpose of the investigation as "to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available". So saying that the report didn't say "Trump committed a crime" is a moot point because that is not an accusation that Mueller felt he was allowed to make in the first place. And when you understand the framework that he was working with, it forces you to take another look at the specific findings, and those...well, "wow" sums it up rather neatly.

image
image
Source. Nexus here meaning "a nexus between the act and an official proceeding"

Saelune:

The only people who hate socialism are the greedy and the misinformed.

'Hedonistic communists'? You realize that's an oxymoron, right? Capitalism is the hedonistic side. The one that is supposed to allow for the luxury of the dollar. If anything, it is the push away from luxury that usually puts people off communism.

I'm sure there are non-hedonistic communists out there, but the vast majority of people on the "far-left" part of the spectrum treat physical satisfaction as the moral imperative. The average person advocating for socialism will also unrestrict practically any version of sex or drugs so long as done by consenting adults. They would disparage any religious, philosophical, or moral judgment that makes it's adherents think less of themselves for pursuing their base desires. They would defend the environment with romantic pictures of waterfalls and rainbows, and condemn industry for being unnatural and destructive. And of course, paint a picture of fat cat capitalists getting rich directly from the pain of others in order to condemn that wealth too. The underlying foundation of the modern left isn't just fairness and equality. The belief that I think binds all those positions together is the idea that pleasure is virtuous and pain is evil. That, philosophically, is hedonism.

And there are certainly hedonistic capitalists, but most of the people advocating for the virtues of capitalism in America are philosophically Christians. And there are certainly Christians who betray Christian virtue, but Christian virtues aren't hedonism. Prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, and charity. Greed is sinful, lust is sinful, pride is sinful. Those of us who advocate capitalism do so with the confidence that people have used and will use their capital to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless. We see that over the last couple centuries, mankind has for the first time experienced a world that isn't dominated by whoever is most violent, where society is guided to where people en masse point their capital, and it's raised civilizations out of misery by the virtues of people. If I believed most people are violently selfish, or believed people saw virtue in their own pursuit of pleasure, I surely would advocate for communist control of the world's resources. It's because I see most people as virtuous, kind, and generous, that I believe capitalism is an effective system.

Asita:

Flat out accusing Trump of a crime was never on the table for Mueller due to the DoJ's policy not to indict a sitting president. As far as Mueller was concerned it wasn't the job of the investigation to level that accusation at a time when extant policy forbade the case from going to court. Instead, he saw the purpose of the investigation as "to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available". So saying that the report didn't say "Trump committed a crime" is a moot point because that is not an accusation that Mueller felt he was allowed to make in the first place. And when you understand the framework that he was working with, it forces you to take another look at the specific findings, and those...well, "wow" sums it up rather neatly.

Ok, but there are powers designated to indict a sitting president, specifically within the legislature, and they came up with even less indictment than the people who couldn't do anything in the first place. The investigative forces of the legislature have also investigated these things and found precisely nothing, and unless something drastically changed in the last day or so, are declining to move towards impeachment given the Mueller report's release.

Here's the situation: nobody investigating has put forward any evidence that Trump committed the underlying crime of conspiring with Russians to illegally influence the 2016 election. We now have some official evidence that Trump may have wanted to undermine Mueller's investigation, which people are framing as obstruction of justice. And you think it works against Trump to know that the investigation never had the power to bring Trump to justice in the first place. May I ask what justice Trump obstructed by wanting to (and failing to) stop a prosecutor that couldn't indict him in the first place?

tstorm823:

Saelune:

The only people who hate socialism are the greedy and the misinformed.

'Hedonistic communists'? You realize that's an oxymoron, right? Capitalism is the hedonistic side. The one that is supposed to allow for the luxury of the dollar. If anything, it is the push away from luxury that usually puts people off communism.

I'm sure there are non-hedonistic communists out there, but the vast majority of people on the "far-left" part of the spectrum treat physical satisfaction as the moral imperative. The average person advocating for socialism will also unrestrict practically any version of sex or drugs so long as done by consenting adults. They would disparage any religious, philosophical, or moral judgment that makes it's adherents think less of themselves for pursuing their base desires. They would defend the environment with romantic pictures of waterfalls and rainbows, and condemn industry for being unnatural and destructive. And of course, paint a picture of fat cat capitalists getting rich directly from the pain of others in order to condemn that wealth too. The underlying foundation of the modern left isn't just fairness and equality. The belief that I think binds all those positions together is the idea that pleasure is virtuous and pain is evil. That, philosophically, is hedonism.

And there are certainly hedonistic capitalists, but most of the people advocating for the virtues of capitalism in America are philosophically Christians. And there are certainly Christians who betray Christian virtue, but Christian virtues aren't hedonism. Prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, and charity. Greed is sinful, lust is sinful, pride is sinful. Those of us who advocate capitalism do so with the confidence that people have used and will use their capital to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless. We see that over the last couple centuries, mankind has for the first time experienced a world that isn't dominated by whoever is most violent, where society is guided to where people en masse point their capital, and it's raised civilizations out of misery by the virtues of people. If I believed most people are violently selfish, or believed people saw virtue in their own pursuit of pleasure, I surely would advocate for communist control of the world's resources. It's because I see most people as virtuous, kind, and generous, that I believe capitalism is an effective system.

Asita:

Flat out accusing Trump of a crime was never on the table for Mueller due to the DoJ's policy not to indict a sitting president. As far as Mueller was concerned it wasn't the job of the investigation to level that accusation at a time when extant policy forbade the case from going to court. Instead, he saw the purpose of the investigation as "to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available". So saying that the report didn't say "Trump committed a crime" is a moot point because that is not an accusation that Mueller felt he was allowed to make in the first place. And when you understand the framework that he was working with, it forces you to take another look at the specific findings, and those...well, "wow" sums it up rather neatly.

Ok, but there are powers designated to indict a sitting president, specifically within the legislature, and they came up with even less indictment than the people who couldn't do anything in the first place. The investigative forces of the legislature have also investigated these things and found precisely nothing, and unless something drastically changed in the last day or so, are declining to move towards impeachment given the Mueller report's release.

Here's the situation: nobody investigating has put forward any evidence that Trump committed the underlying crime of conspiring with Russians to illegally influence the 2016 election. We now have some official evidence that Trump may have wanted to undermine Mueller's investigation, which people are framing as obstruction of justice. And you think it works against Trump to know that the investigation never had the power to bring Trump to justice in the first place. May I ask what justice Trump obstructed by wanting to (and failing to) stop a prosecutor that couldn't indict him in the first place?

This is all right-wing BS. Capitalism goes against Christian teachings anyways, and Trump is no Christian, but he is idolized (a sin mind you) by Right-Wing Christians which is mostly a redundant term.

If you think Communism is hedonistic, then you don't know what Communism is.

Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and sheltering the homeless for free, that's socialism, and it is not capitalism.

tstorm823:

Asita:

Flat out accusing Trump of a crime was never on the table for Mueller due to the DoJ's policy not to indict a sitting president. As far as Mueller was concerned it wasn't the job of the investigation to level that accusation at a time when extant policy forbade the case from going to court. Instead, he saw the purpose of the investigation as "to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available". So saying that the report didn't say "Trump committed a crime" is a moot point because that is not an accusation that Mueller felt he was allowed to make in the first place. And when you understand the framework that he was working with, it forces you to take another look at the specific findings, and those...well, "wow" sums it up rather neatly.

Ok, but there are powers designated to indict a sitting president, specifically within the legislature, and they came up with even less indictment than the people who couldn't do anything in the first place. The investigative forces of the legislature have also investigated these things and found precisely nothing, and unless something drastically changed in the last day or so, are declining to move towards impeachment given the Mueller report's release.

Here's the situation: nobody investigating has put forward any evidence that Trump committed the underlying crime of conspiring with Russians to illegally influence the 2016 election. We now have some official evidence that Trump may have wanted to undermine Mueller's investigation, which people are framing as obstruction of justice. And you think it works against Trump to know that the investigation never had the power to bring Trump to justice in the first place. May I ask what justice Trump obstructed by wanting to (and failing to) stop a prosecutor that couldn't indict him in the first place?

To the former paragraph, I hope you're not talking about Nunes's little stunt, as the U.S. Intelligence Community and even the House Intelligence Committee itself openly disputed its accuracy even before it was released. Additionally, declining to move towards impeachment is not indicative of the lack of confidence you're implying, as the Impeachment process has to clear both houses of Congress, and the senate is currently packed with Trump loyalists who have consistently been bending over backwards to protect Trump for the last year or so. It's also worth noting that while Mueller's report says it didn't find enough to establish conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, we see in report that there is ample evidence suggesting it. This ties into another bit that tends to get lost in translation, which is the operative phrase "did not establish". Common parlance would take that to mean lack of evidence, but in law it has a much more specific meaning as definitively proving beyond a reasonable doubt. As the report itself chooses to emphasize in its introduction: "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts".

To the latter paragraph, I believe we went over this on the first page of the thread. Obstruction of justice is a procedural crime that is not predicated on the existence of an underlying crime. It is entirely contained within the act of trying to illegally influence an investigation, regardless of the reason. To repeat my own explanation:

Obstruction of Justice is a procedural crime that is entirely distinct from the subject of investigation. Whether I lie to investigators to cover up criminal activity on my part or because I was trying to protect myself or an ally from embarrassing revelations (or a different crime entirely), that's still obstruction of justice. See for instance the conviction of Martha Stewart. She was originally charged with securities fraud, and even though those charges were dropped she was still convicted of four counts of obstruction of justice for lying to investigators out of fear of reputational harm. See also the case of Scooter Libby. He was brought to trial on five counts: One of Obstruction of Justice, two of making false statements to investigators, and two counts of perjury in his grand jury testimony. He was found guilty on four of the five counts (found not guilty on one of the two counts of making false statements). Again, he wasn't charged with an underlying crime, nor were the charges predicated on one. Hell, the impeachment of Bill Clinton was predicated entirely on perjury and obstruction of justice without charging him with an underlying crime.

In the case of the report itself, perhaps I need to clarify one particular detail. When I say that the report could not find Trump guilty, I mean that purely in the sense of technicality due to the DoJ's policy not to charge a sitting president with a crime. Point of fact, the report actually lays out a good ten counts of obstruction of justice, but rather explicitly refrains from making the charge because of that selfsame policy.

Perhaps the most apt phrase I've been hearing thrown about with regards to this is that the report is a roadmap. Essentially "we can't charge him now due to extant policy, but when we can charge him, here's what you charge him with".

tstorm823:

I'm sure there are non-hedonistic communists out there, but the vast majority of people on the "far-left" part of the spectrum treat physical satisfaction as the moral imperative.

No.

To use the simplistic notion of politics as a combination of social liberalism - illiberalism and economic preferences (capitalism - socialism), a substantial chunk of the "far left" are actually quite illiberal in various ways.

It is generally liberals who are in favour of easy legal access to drugs and sex - but bear in mind liberal in this sense runs all the way from the far left, through the centre, to a large chunk of the political right and libertarianism. "Physical satisfaction" however is not the moral imperative. The moral imperative is personal autonomy: the right to do with yourself what you wish without interference (assuming it does not harm others). Some people may choose physical pleasure first and foremost, however plenty of liberals will disapprove of it even if they accept the legal and moral right to do so. The reason for this is a distinction between a personal morality and the morality of imposing law: for instance things like lying and cheating on your spouse are usually held to be immoral, but not deemed appropriate for legal intervention.

And there are certainly hedonistic capitalists, but most of the people advocating for the virtues of capitalism in America are philosophically Christians.

In terms of advocating anything most of them will be Christians, because Christians are 80% of the US population. Although "Christian" doesn't necessarily answer that much: there's a ton of difference between the viewpoints of an average east coast Episcopalian and an average deep south Pentecostalist.

We now have some official evidence that Trump may have wanted to undermine Mueller's investigation, which people are framing as obstruction of justice. And you think it works against Trump to know that the investigation never had the power to bring Trump to justice in the first place. May I ask what justice Trump obstructed by wanting to (and failing to) stop a prosecutor that couldn't indict him in the first place?

That prosecutor did not have the power to indict Trump himself, but his evidence would inevitably to go to Congress and could justify a potential impeachment, thus there was a still a very real threat against Trump's presidency from it.

Again, as I've said before, defending Trump by saying he hasn't been convicted of a crime is damning with faint praise. His conduct (as per the report and a great deal else over the last few years) indicates ignorance, corruption, venality, nepotism, willingness to abuse power, and complete disinterest in honesty especially to the public. This is the sort of thing we have spent decades claiming to resent in our politicians, and instead it's being endorsed by support for him.

Agema:
*snip*

For an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about, there was a case where an off-duty Marine was approached by a group and asked if he was "proud." Not knowing what they were going on about (and rather ironically being one of "the few, the proud, the Marines") and also not knowing that the Proud Boys were having some kind of event nearby, he didn't know how to answer. As a result, they attacked him for being a "Nazi", by which I mean a Proud Boy, by which I mean someone who didn't know the right answer when a group of strangers approached and asked if he was proud.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/12/18/im-mexican-marines-bewildered-after-being-called-nazis-beat-up-by-alleged-antifa-mob/

Or a teenager assaulted in a restaurant for wearing a MAGA hat: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-teenager-maga-hat-attack-san-antonio-viral-video-a8432581.html

Or maybe a middle aged man at another restaurant: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2019/02/25/maga-hat-assault-cape-cod Some reports claim the woman behind this assault was also an illegal immigrant.

Maybe an elderly man this time, again for wearing a MAGA hat: https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/crime/jersey-mayhem/2019/02/26/maga-hat-nj-man-assaulted-shoprite-cops/2993220002/

How about a younger black guy at a Cheesecake Factory, this time assaulted by the employees rather than other patrons for, you guessed it having a nice family dinner while wearing a MAGA hat: https://www.kyma.com/news/restaurant-employees-fired-after-attacking-man-wearing-maga-hat/745878181 That one is from the distant past of Mother's Day last year.

Yep, all dangerous folks who needed to be prevented from engaging in violence through proactive violent self defense. On the upside the ones happening at restaurants weren't all that serious on the whole, but I mean there have been a double digit number of "someone minding their own business assaulted for wearing a MAGA hat" incidents already this year..

This has always been my complaint about people who support "punching Nazis" - that they are very, very poor at limiting their targets to actual Nazis. They also like o try to expand the definition of "Nazis" arbitrarily to justify violence against anyone they disagree with.

Agema:

I think the Democrats have made a genuinely terrible job at appealing to a huge number of Americans they could win over.

Be careful, suggesting that any Democrats were in any way at fault for Clinton not taking her rightful and ordained role as President is dangerous, suggesting that sort of thing makes you a sexist, and whatever other kind of bigot is convenient. It was HER TURN, after all! Her rightful place was stolen by the Russians!

Agema:
In ways, sadly, that's often also a good electoral tactic, because it's often about motivating the enthusiasts to turn out more than providing a wider vision for the country.

Voter turnout is so bad in the US that all you have to do is pick a demographic and motivate them to actually show up and vote for you. So long as it's a demographic that can actually legally vote (for example, motivating illegal immigrants is largely wasted).

Agema:
What I think Bernie and others reveal is that there are potentially a large number of Americans who can be won if only they got the messaging right.

I live in a state that's solidly red that was solidly blue just 20 years ago (I even remember when a hardline position on free speech was left-wing rather than dangerous and racist far right). During the primary, Bernie won every county by a huge margin. During the general, Trump beat Clinton in this state by a record setting margin (widest gap in election results since Lincoln, and this state was founded because of the Civil War).

Hint: Not starting with "I want to destroy your largest local industries, put you on welfare and retraining for a few years, and then make you relocate in the hopes of getting a job that isn't as good as the one you already have" is a good first step.

Schadrach:

Agema:
*snip*

For an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about, there was a case where an off-duty Marine was approached by a group and asked if he was "proud." Not knowing what they were going on about (and rather ironically being one of "the few, the proud, the Marines") and also not knowing that the Proud Boys were having some kind of event nearby, he didn't know how to answer. As a result, they attacked him for being a "Nazi", by which I mean a Proud Boy, by which I mean someone who didn't know the right answer when a group of strangers approached and asked if he was proud.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/12/18/im-mexican-marines-bewildered-after-being-called-nazis-beat-up-by-alleged-antifa-mob/

Or a teenager assaulted in a restaurant for wearing a MAGA hat: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-teenager-maga-hat-attack-san-antonio-viral-video-a8432581.html

Or maybe a middle aged man at another restaurant: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2019/02/25/maga-hat-assault-cape-cod Some reports claim the woman behind this assault was also an illegal immigrant.

Maybe an elderly man this time, again for wearing a MAGA hat: https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/crime/jersey-mayhem/2019/02/26/maga-hat-nj-man-assaulted-shoprite-cops/2993220002/

How about a younger black guy at a Cheesecake Factory, this time assaulted by the employees rather than other patrons for, you guessed it having a nice family dinner while wearing a MAGA hat: https://www.kyma.com/news/restaurant-employees-fired-after-attacking-man-wearing-maga-hat/745878181 That one is from the distant past of Mother's Day last year.

Yep, all dangerous folks who needed to be prevented from engaging in violence through proactive violent self defense. On the upside the ones happening at restaurants weren't all that serious on the whole, but I mean there have been a double digit number of "someone minding their own business assaulted for wearing a MAGA hat" incidents already this year..

This has always been my complaint about people who support "punching Nazis" - that they are very, very poor at limiting their targets to actual Nazis. They also like o try to expand the definition of "Nazis" arbitrarily to justify violence against anyone they disagree with.

I'd take having a soda spilled on my lap over getting stabbed to death, having my Church shot up, or having bombs sent to me, as far as political violence goes.

I mean, I don't agree with antifa's tactics, but to even discuss what they do when right-wing violence and terrorism is far more common, and worse, is hogwash

Punching a person who advocates mass murder is not the same as committing mass murder. Go figure.

Sonmi:
I'd take having a soda spilled on my lap over getting stabbed to death, having my Church shot up, or having bombs sent to me, as far as political violence goes.

I mean, I don't agree with antifa's tactics, but to even discuss what they do when right-wing violence and terrorism is far more common, and worse, is hogwash

I don't think assaulting people for their political views or beliefs is justified unless they are actively trying to impose them.

In the examples above, by all accounts, the victims were not attempting to enforce any draconian or tyrannical policy - yet they were assaulted all the same. Just because other people are doing bad things is not an excuse to handwave assault crimes because the victims are of a different political allegiance.

Abomination:

Sonmi:
I'd take having a soda spilled on my lap over getting stabbed to death, having my Church shot up, or having bombs sent to me, as far as political violence goes.

I mean, I don't agree with antifa's tactics, but to even discuss what they do when right-wing violence and terrorism is far more common, and worse, is hogwash

I don't think assaulting people for their political views or beliefs is justified unless they are actively trying to impose them.

In the examples above, by all accounts, the victims were not attempting to enforce any draconian or tyrannical policy - yet they were assaulted all the same. Just because other people are doing bad things is not an excuse to handwave assault crimes because the victims are of a different political allegiance.

I'm not handwaving the assaults, I'm pointing out that left wing violence is barely notable compared to how widespread right wing violence and terrorism is throughout the West. Any discussion of political violence centering on antifa is dealing in whataboutism, as far as I am concerned, it's talking about how the heating is too high while the house is on fire.

EDIT: As far as imposing political beliefs, one could argue that openly arguing and pushing for said beliefs, and successfully getting a candidate holding those beliefs elected, is pretty much actively enforcing those views.

Abomination:

Sonmi:
I'd take having a soda spilled on my lap over getting stabbed to death, having my Church shot up, or having bombs sent to me, as far as political violence goes.

I mean, I don't agree with antifa's tactics, but to even discuss what they do when right-wing violence and terrorism is far more common, and worse, is hogwash

I don't think assaulting people for their political views or beliefs is justified unless they are actively trying to impose them.

In the examples above, by all accounts, the victims were not attempting to enforce any draconian or tyrannical policy - yet they were assaulted all the same. Just because other people are doing bad things is not an excuse to handwave assault crimes because the victims are of a different political allegiance.

A Nazi gets punched 'The left is terrible' but right-wingers shoot up multiple places and...what?

A guy in a van decked out as a shrine to Trump sends fucking bombs to left-wingers and...what?

If you really cared about political violence, you would condemn the right more than you do the left.

'I know Hitler SAYS he wants to kill all Jews, but lets wait and see, he hasn't done it yet. Hell, I heard he was building camps for them, people are overreacting'.

Saelune:
'I know Hitler SAYS he wants to kill all Jews, but lets wait and see, he hasn't done it yet. Hell, I heard he was building camps for them, people are overreacting'.

To extend that a little, Hitler didn't actually kill 6 million Jews (and at least 5 million others, depends how you count it) personally. He just told people to do so, not even always in the form of official orders.

Saelune:
A Nazi gets punched 'The left is terrible' but right-wingers shoot up multiple places and...what?

That would be all well and good if the term "Nazi" hadn't been thrown around so much that it's lost all meaning.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 21 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here