Don't y'all just love how NeoMcCarthyism is rattling federal US politics?
It's an entertaining year, that's for sure.
Gwynbleidd Banned
Summon The Bitches
- Last Seen: 4 yrs ago
- Joined: 11 yrs ago
- Posts: 1247 (0.31 / day)
- VMs: 3
-
Username history
- Gwynbleidd 7 yrs ago
- █████████ 11 yrs ago
Status
User has no status, yet
Bio
User has no bio, yet
Most Recent Posts
It's an entertaining year, that's for sure.
Wait, you mean Muller isn't investigating President Nixon?!
I know! Shocker.
Apparently Muller is working on it.
And we'll see where he gets to, if anywhere.
The very best you can say is that Trump's campaign had sketchy Russian connections (Mannafort) and sketchy Turkish connections (Flynn). It is easy to imagine that Trump, a relative new comer to the political stage wouldn't be aware, or at least aware of how problematic, this could become. I think its completely understandable that his legal counsel is ultra cautious. I haven't really been following the story but I haven't heard they are obstructing.
One possible path of many. Or, there's nothing really to any of this and there was no collusion; also a possible path.
@The Harbinger of Ferocity I'll refer you to Penny's quote
Not only that, but the question that remains is, if Trump or his staff staff never had anything to hide, how come they never give a full story? Like the meeting with Donald Jr. and the the Russian lawyer. Why did it take weeks for them to admit it was not just him, but in fact 8 people in the room? It took multiple occasions of questions and reports to find out something Donald Jr. could have just outright stated. This is a consistent trend within the Trump administration. If they do have nothing to hide, they're doing a poor job at it.
The implication is that Watergate is equivalent to this. They are different cases, with a different set of facts, so in the end bringing up Watergate doesn't have much relevance other than that yes, investigations can take a long time.
Also, when you're involved in those sort of legal situation: you don't often say much because people have accidentally incriminated themselves before when they didn't do anything. There is reason for saying this, or not saying that.
In the end, this doesn't matter so much because nothing to date has been released on the Trump, Jr. meeting to prove, well, anything. As of this moment, there is no proof of information having exchanged hands.
ADDED: We're getting into speculation of motives and what not here, and that's a shady as fuck place to get because once again, we're like blind people grasping about in the dark. The focus should be: crime committed? crime not committed? prove it.
First off. These two agents did not start the investigation. They did not run it. They were both removed from it as soon as Mueller discovered their opinions on Trump.
And then when there were inquiries about their removal, there was a significant amount of stonewalling.
They didn't push forward because of their bias. These messages were from before the investigation began. Questioning the credibility of the entire investigation over two dismissed agents is idiotic. Neither one has been involved in the investigation for months now.
1) We don't know that.
2) Time of message does not really matter, they were apart of the investigation at the beginning.
3) Questioning the removal of the two agents wasn't exactly handled with transparency. The lack of transparency surrounding removing agents with extreme anti-Trump bias is more than a good enough reason to question the credibility of the entire investigation. Call it idiotic all you want; whatever.
He was a Trump apointee. He was the man that pushed for Trump to dismiss Comey.
And if he did, he may have had political motivations to do so. Trump's appointing of him may have been a mistake on Trump's part. There's still nothing of serious relevance here.
True. But Mueller was considered by Trump to replace Comey. His track record of bipartisanship speaks for itself.
You call it a track record of bipartisanship, I say there is no real record of bipartisanship. Your word. My word. Fox's word, or CNN's word. This one comes down to perspective.
What is the 'correct opinion' then? Your own? It shows that this is a commonly held opinion that Trump is an idiot.
Who knows? You think you're correct. I think I'm correct. You might be right. I might be right. We might both be half right, or a quarter right. All I'm saying with that particular statement was that popular consensus does not equate to accuracy.
The question still remains: so what? I can think anyone's an idiot on any given day just like any other person. Who took the poll? Where did they take the poll? What was the political ideology of the person answering the poll? I don't care if you or anyone thinks Trump (or someone else) is an idiot because it has no substantive meaning with regards to legitimate discussion revolving around meaningful data. I'm not sure what you intend to prove by saying the commonly held view of the public is that Trump is an idiot. Are you saying that he's an idiot because someone else thinks so?
That website reeks of bias.
“Special prosecutors, investigators, and counsels are usually a bad idea. They are admissions that constitutionally mandated institutions don’t work.” I wonder how they'd feel about a Clinton investigation.
Probably all websites reek of bias. Philosophically speaking, people are biased. CNN or the Huff Post can get something right just as much as Fox News or Breitbart can.
And to answer your wondering: who can know? That's speculation of the author's thoughts with little to no evidence to prove your harbored beliefs as to what their feelings might be. I'm inclined to agree with their sentiment as to one thing: we shouldn't need special prosecutors, the system shouldn't be so corrupted and untrusted that we can't investigate and imprison criminal wrongdoing amongst our politicians who have done wrong.
How many coincidences have we seen with members of the Trump administration and their ties to Russia?
It's not a bad (or criminal, even) thing to have "ties" with Russia, so long as they're not ties that are of a criminal nature. Many of these ties have different meanings depending on which side you ask. Manafort and company may indeed be guilty of something, but we've got no idea what. Manafort was removed long ago. Flynn was removed after he'd misled the VP. In any case, these are ongoing stories with an ending we're only grasping at through the dark.
Well that's your (biased) opinion. The investigation has given way to indictments of several people. No one knows whats going to happen next in it. Investigations take time.
That's the reason for the line separation. Indeed, it is my biased opinion. There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. I can only take what there is available at hand and then make my own judgment call on the matter. And I already stated that I have no idea how long the investigation will go on or what will be the end result. I'm taking a guess, that's all. Your guess would, as I'd suspect, probably be different than my own.
Here's an opinion piece from a website I hardly ever agree with. There's what, I would call, a lot of relevant information in there regarding the credibility of the investigation.
<Snipped quote by The Spectre>
This is a terrible attempt at discrediting the entire investigation via guilt by association.
Two former people on Mueller's team, who were both fired by Mueller for having 'anti-Trump bias', shared opinions in privacy before the investigation began. FBI agents are allowed to have opinions, especially on a man that has attacked the FBI several times.
Opinions commonly shared by the public. An opinion also shared by the Trump appointed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Both agents were removed before the press even learned about their 'bias'. They haven't been involved in the investigation for months now.
The deputy attorney, Rod Rosenstein is behind Mueller and sees no reason to fire him. He was the one that appointed the special council.
- Mueller was appointed by the current administration.
- Mueller was last known to be a registered Republican. He has a history of non-partisanship.
- Mueller was interviewed and considered by Trump to be the FBI Director after Comey was fired.
The investigation has led to the indictments of four people. Flynn, Manafort, Papadopoulos and Gates.
Mueller ain't going away.
The real concerning thing here is that the head of DOJ used their power to assassinate the character of two private citizens by leaking their text messages sent in privacy to the press.
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in [deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe’s] office that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40…”
I don't know, man. That's a pretty sketchy text message that potentially suggests launching an investigation with no proof for a prolonged period of time in order to sink him and his approval numbers.
Yes, an agent can harbor an opinion, but any eagerness to push forward because of their bias does throw some doubts upon the credibility of the investigation.
Also, some other things:
1) Good for Rod Rosenstein. So what? This does not mean Rod Rosenstein harbors no political biases or motivations of his own.
2) Good for Mueller and his party registration. So what? Joe Scarborough was/is a Republican, but that doesn't mean he follows Republican ideology to a T. Jeff Flake is a republican, but does that mean he's absolutely true to that to every single letter? Simply, the answer is no. People call people Democrats and Republicans "in name only" for a reason. Just because you are labeled or registered in a particular manner does not make you an unbiased party.
3) The public opinion is another 'so what?' moment here. Public opinion does not equate to the correct opinion.
Too many coincidences revolving around Mueller and his investigation. Far too many.
As it stands, I have no idea how long this investigation will go on. My opinion is that they have, and will continue to have nothing (on Trump), but will continue the investigation for as long as possible because the longer they can keep the shroud hovering above the more they can sway a decent number of the general public's thought on Trump and his administration.
<Snipped quote by Dark Wind>
Yes, people have the right to refuse to state the parts in the oath/pledge that reference God, but those lines still exist in the texts.
- People who deny existence of a God/Almighty God technically can't run for state office in several states.
- God or the divine is referenced in every state constitution.
- Almost all U.S. presidents, including Trump, have been Christians. Presidential inaugurations are filled with displays of faith, and in many many cases, tilted towards an Almighty Christian God. Trump's inauguration was particularly filled with religious references..
- Many government buildings have religious symbols on them. Including the Supreme Court building, where Moses and his Ten Commandments are front and center.
Depending on the definition of mostly, religion is still very abound in the US government, and it tends to have a Christian tilt.
1) Three picture links that say 'God' but doesn't necessarily distinguish which God. As stated before this post, the Constitution was founded on the idea that our rights are inalienable and bestowed upon us by our creator. That's it. In other words, Christianity still does not dictate governance: the Constitution does. And you just said it yourself, you don't have to say 'God' because that is your right to do or not do as allowed by the Constitution.
2) I will concede that the founding of America was strongly about the freedom to believe in one's own religion without being lawfully punished for doing so. So, it naturally makes sense that many of our government buildings would have Christian allusions especially because Christianity was the predominant and still is predominant religion of the country. This is still not proof that Christianity governs the United States. Parts of our framework of laws are certainly influenced by the Ten Commandments (like laws against murder, thieving, being a false witness), but a significant number of other countries also follow such laws.
3) The states you linked are a total of eight which constitutes a minority. Those laws are also unenforceable therefore making them irrelevant. The one thing you and me would agree here is that those laws are unconstitutional and should be immediately abolished.
4) Religious reference does not equal religious governance.
To sum this all up: Christianity is absolutely entrenched in the fabric of our country's foundational history so it makes sense that we'd see such references. However, allusions to the faith are not laws and are not a governing aspect of any relevance outside of the unconstitutional laws that you linked. We could have a long discussion about how we've walked all over the constitution with the ever-growing power of our federal government regardless of religious intervention or non-religious intervention. My point still remains that, in the modern day religion holds no significant sway in governance within the U.S.A. We are not some Christian theocracy, we are a republic with allusions to a higher power and have remained so.
The better question here is: So what?
Why.
For starters, I'll preface this by saying I wish there were more countries on the list to be banned. However, that may be naive on my part because I understand there are other political factors in play preventing such a decision. I'm interested to see if more countries of predominant Islamic faith will be added, or not.
1) Europe faces the plight of mass Muslim refugees, and refugees of all sorts period. No Go Zones are a real thing, and I think it's wise to be preemptive rather than allow our country to follow the same path of let's say... Sweden.
2) The Muslim faith, until it is reformed, is largely not compatible with western values. Their religion is law whereas the United States has mostly cut religion out of law and governance.
3) Terrorism, plain and simple.
Until we can find a demonstrably effective plan on vetting, no person from a terrorism-laden country should be permitted travel to the States.
SCOTUS upheld executive order 13769, more commonly known as the Muslim ban.
Good.
Righty. I write terribly. Sometimes a sentence crosses through lines and takes up two, sometimes three spaces.
I am a monster.
I am a monster.
© 2007-2024