Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
I’m kinda torn about this to be honest. I just deleted a big paragraph which was gonna be my reply to epic. I think that wikileaks was right to publish the podesta emails.
But I would not, for example, be happy about say, Americans hacking into Labour party communications and leaking it. It’s just very violating for a foreign entity to be interfering like that since I’m not some kinda internationalist.
This is just a newspeak version of claiming that you're happy for political figures you oppose to be the targets of criminal activity on the basis that your views are consonant with "what is beneficial" for the country. I mean I know you're pretty good at inadvertently making my points for me, but you've really outdone yourself here.
How does this absolute conspiracy theory have any traction at this point at all? Oh lawd the desperation for orange man bad trump delusion to pan out. truly pitiable.
Last edited by Pontifex Maximus; August 03, 2019 at 08:36 PM.
It isn't a binary choice. You can oppose the illegal acquisition of information as a violation of privacy whilst also holding politicians to account who're exposed for impropriety. The reality is that a great deal of the "dirt" that ends up in the public sphere has been obtained by the press through some breach of confidence or privacy.
I don’t think that Comey and russian hackers are on the same exact level of ‘criminal’. You should compare comey to other whistleblowers, since that’s what Comey is.
Fair enough. So what you’re saying is that it’s hypocritical for people to want Comey acquitted but want people who hacked the DNC jailed. It’s just, it wasn’t Americans that hacked the DNC.
Last edited by Aexodus; August 03, 2019 at 08:45 PM.
This isn't about whether Comey should be "acquitted", its about whether he should be prosecuted at all. Arguing that there isn't enough evidence of intent to secure a conviction is a reasonable position to take; arguing that you think Comey should be given a pass because his actions damaged Trump (and are therefore "motivated by sentiments which are beneficial to the country") is not. It is hypocritical to take the latter view whilst simultaneously wittering on (as certain posters in this thread have done) about your alleged commitment to ethics and lawful behaviour over tribal politics. As to your point regarding the nationality of the perpetrators, it is is largely irrelevant. I think it would be more concerning had the CIA or FBI been responsible for deliberately damaging the DNC and/or Clinton campaign than if it was the Kremlin.
There is a difference between being motivated by faction loyalty, and by personal perceptions of justice and patriotism. The fact that your thoughts on the matter distill down to a binary expose your own, perhaps subconscious, partisanship.
Racists often deny being racists.
There is a difference between breaking the letter of the law and breaking the spirit of the law. Arguing that Comey should be given a pass is due to an inherent belief that his actions resulted in a benefit of the country. Though it is amusing to see your inane ramblings on "hypocrisy".
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
No. It isn't.
It's got nothing to do with the benefit of the people or the country. It's got to do with the fact that he believed that all the memos, and especially the memos he released and showed his lawyers were unclassified and remained so until another authority went over them. He had absolutely no belief that the memos contained classified information. Ironically enough, this is one crime where intent is all about it. Your inane belief that he should be given a pass due to his actions resulting in some stupid benefit for the country has absolutely no part in this nor should it ever. That crap don't fly.
One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
Lol. I couldn't imagine being so completely wrong about something but still demanding to be seen as reasonable on the same position that has been irreversibly proven to be wrong. The Russia conspiracy hoax is over. There is no obstruction theory either, and house dems lack any other theory for impeachment or they would have promoted it like a bunch of morons already because they lack all self control.
Your position is the actual laughingstock of the entire country. I really, really hope you make some sort of post denying this.
Racists often deny being racists.This sort of "greater good" logic leads to an infinite regress where anyone can dismiss any accusation of impropriety by arguing that it "resulted in a benefit" to the country. Using your rationale, all those people who happen to think that Clinton being prevented from acquiring the presidency was beneficial for the US can simply claim that the Russian interference scandal can be ignored because it was all for the greater good; they can also claim, for the same reason, that Comey should be prosecuted for damaging the Trump campaign. It hardly takes a genius to recognize why this line of reasoning leads to a dead end.There is a difference between breaking the letter of the law and breaking the spirit of the law. Arguing that Comey should be given a pass is due to an inherent belief that his actions resulted in a benefit of the country. Though it is amusing to see your inane ramblings on "hypocrisy".
As for the rest, and I can't believe I'm about to say this, but Gaidin has just put you in your place.
Last edited by Infidel144; August 05, 2019 at 06:46 AM.
I'm heartbroken over your opinion, really.
The point is that the binary explanation of Katsumoto's (and by extension the "left-wing" portion of the country) opinion is laughably naive. People differ in how much and why they dislike Trump. The same goes for any number of political decisions.
It seems both of you seem to think that I want to give Comey a pass. I find it funny how you jumped to that conclusion following everything I said so far. I'm perfectly fine with the Justice Department charging Comey and holding a trial to determine whether he should be punished or not. Not surprising I guess, Mr. believer in independent thinking.As for the rest, and I can't believe I'm about to say this, but Gaidin has just put you in your place.
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
I'm confused why this thread has pivoted towards wrong-doing by Comey. That's not the topic. There's currently at least 10 ways trump obstructed justice, there's several ways he's used his office for personal gains, violated the emoluments clause, he's incited hatred and violence across the country. He's placed the richest most powerful swamp in control of the country. He's rolled back racial, sexual and environmental protections decades. The information already present supports the conclusion that high crimes and misdemeanors have not only occurred but are provable beyond a shadow of doubt. I'm not sure what the point of the charade is when he should simply be impeached. The only unfortunate part is that his conspirators and string-pullers have not been quite as easily revealed.
Russian interference have been proven to be true. Trump's involvement at best could be described as being too stupid to make use of Russian help. Trump's obstruction of justice have been proven as well. They simply didn't think it would be OK to indict a sitting president about that. Basically, your own post becomes the accurate example of your parting description there.
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
If Pelosi’s reluctance is any indication, the Dems would rather beat Trump in 2020 than risk giving him a massive sympathy boost to his approval rating on the eve of the election. Clinton’s approval rating jumped 10 points to his highest ever, in tandem with disapproval of the GOP, in 98.
Why this strategy makes political sense:
Stats are on her side. Pelosi’s run out the clock gambit not only has roots in the lessons of 98, but she probably also has her mind on down ballot races. It also gives lower ranking Dems the ability to advertise their support for impeachment if doing so is politically expedient in certain districts (and vice versa), without the potential risks associated with following through. Her job as party leader is to protect the party, after all.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/would-democrats-really-face-a-backlash-if-they-impeached-trump/
The “wait for Mueller” strategy gave Trump, and later Barr, months to neutralize a steady trickle of news stories, and muddy the waters beyond any point of saving. By the time Mueller’s report was published, it proved a methodical legal brief that more or less confirmed the publicly reported material facts of the case and even revealed some new(ish) ones, but failed to deliver the bumper sticker/sound byte/TV commercial content needed to create traction with voters. If Mueller’s confirmation of the most shocking foreign espionage attack and attempted cover up scandal in American history - one that is still ongoing - failed to move the needle for voters, let alone among Republicans in the Senate, why spend political capital on a doomed endeavor?
Why this strategy is bad for the country:
Trump’s approval rating has never gone above 50%, which is at least one reason why declining to pursue impeachment because it might magically produce sympathy for him based on something from 20 years ago is a pretty expensive assumption. Even then, Clinton’s impeachment did not shift majorities in either chamber. Not impeaching Trump, at a minimum, means Republicans will be able to maintain a veneer of plausible deniability when the history of this time in American politics is written. This can only help the GOP electorally post-Trump.
Not attempting impeachment sets the precedent that a president is literally above the law and there are no mechanisms of ultimate accountability as long as he or she remains in office. Given all the lines Trump has crossed and is crossing, I would argue this, more than any other factor, will be the most damaging legacy of Pelosi’s strategy.
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII
I think Pelosi's wait out impeachment bit is appropriate given that movements are being made to pursue impeachment. Although I think it's important to note that no one was for impeachment in the Nixon case until it became obvious and widely known what he had done. It will probably take up to a year for Trump's actions to become widely known but the best way to grease that is to keep impeachment hearings going and slowly accrue the evidence necessary to launch an unimpeachable (pun intended) impeachment inquiry.