-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And it turns out ... surprise surprise that the report that Rosentein threatened to resign was FAKE NEWS.
you mean fake news like the original white house story that the firing was as a result of the investigation from rosenstein - contradicted via the horse's mouth?
-
@Duluth said in US Politics:
@jegga said in US Politics:
There's quite a difference between Trump not colluding with the Russians and the Russians trying to influence the election
A very important point
Also worth noting that the Russian influence was quite wide, Trump, Hillary and Stein all have some questionable links with Russia (I guess Johnson should be offended no one cared enough about him?)
The idea that they are promoting chaos in US political discourse is starting to make more sense. Stein's pro Putin positions really didn't fit with her party and then she pushed for the recount.
Russia's oval office photo stunt yesterday certainly wasn't designed to help Trump, it seemed to be designed to increase conflict.So rather than a particular policy outcome, are they just trying to keep USA divided, distracted and therefore weaker?
My guess is they wanted exactly as you suspected, it's never been easier to spread misinformation.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And it turns out ... surprise surprise that the report that Rosentein threatened to resign was FAKE NEWS.
you mean fake news like the original white house story that the firing was as a result of the investigation from rosenstein - contradicted via the horse's mouth?
No fake news in that the main stream media just made shit up yet again.
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Doesn't actually matter anyway. Trump admits that he gets rid of people he doesn't like and I concede he has that power. All it proves to me is that he throws tanties when he doesn't like what he is hearing. That is a conclusion borne out by numerous 'leaks' or stories coming from the White House staff.
I simply don't think it is the way a POTUS should behave especially it is indicative of his actions under stress.Every president gets rid of political appointees he doesn't like!
I think it is noteworthy that Comey is only the second FBI director to be fired (Sessions was fired by Bill Clinton for a slew of unethical actions centred around using public funds for his personal enrichment and left a bureau demoralized and a mess from his behaviour), and in Trump's words for being a "showboat". Considering the appointment is for 11 years (?) there have been many directors installed by one president only to work for another. In the case of Hoover he worked under many from both sides of the aisle. IMHO partisanship in the position has been greatly overstated, despite the fact that I think Comey was a dick he appears to have been well regarded by the bureau if comments by the assistant Director (under oath) are to be believed
Didn't Hoover have dirt on everyone? No way was anyone going to risk taking him out.
I think Comey kind of had to go after all the shit that went down during the election. Fresh start and all that.
-
Someone refresh my memory. Isn't Comey the bloke Democrats wanted to be fired..?
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
Someone refresh my memory. Isn't Comey the bloke Democrats wanted to be fired..?
Yes, but that was before Trump fired him.
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
Someone refresh my memory. Isn't Comey the bloke Democrats wanted to be fired..?
ah yes, back when he was investigating democrats... and wasn't fired....
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And it turns out ... surprise surprise that the report that Rosentein threatened to resign was FAKE NEWS.
you mean fake news like the original white house story that the firing was as a result of the investigation from rosenstein - contradicted via the horse's mouth?
No fake news in that the main stream media just made shit up yet again.
is there a difference between an 'anonymous source' story that turns out to be false(-ish), and the white house line being directly contradicted by the president himself?
the whole thing reeks of trump making a decision, then others scrambling to try to make a pretence at due process. and as per the 2 lawfare links i posted earlier, it is a pretence.- i say false-ish because the washington post reported him threatening to resign which he has denied, whereas the wall street journal for example said that he 'pressed White House counsel Don McGahn to correct what he felt was an inaccurate White House depiction' and implied that he couldn't work in an environment where facts were ignored etc - which is subjective and not necessarily a threat to resign.
-
@jegga said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback In isolation yes. I'm also a fan of listening to my lawyer when he offers his opinion because he knows the law better than me
OK good. So if you thought your lawyer didnt like you and was actively trying to undermine you, and then he refused to represent you in a case (and told his staff not to help you) that you were sure was valid and other lawyers had said was valid.. what would you do?
Fire him as your lawyer maybe and get someone else?
Remember Yates was a political appointee of Obama.
If the system is that you put your own flunkies in place then that's what it is. No problem there.
The pattern is that Trump gets annoyed with people not because they are being partisan but because they wont be his flunkies. The single issue excuses for dismissing them are just that, excuses.
With both Yates and Comey they pissed him off because they told him things he didn't want to hear and stuck to their jobs rather than just do what he wanted. In the case of Comey the stories are now out (and I'm sure you will dismiss them as being from a biased press) that Trump wanted him to put the Russia stuff aside and put resources into finding leaks. He was getting more and more frustrated with Comey not doing what he wanted himto do so asked Rosenstein (also a non fan) to document a case for dismissal.
It is all very well to argue that Trump is within his rights to get rid of people he can't work with but what he doesn't do is weigh that up against the validity of what they are doing that pisses him off.
When Yates pissed him of twice in a space of days she was sacked but her message about Flynn was thrown out with her until it became obvious she was correct and some spin was put on him resigning instead.
With Comey, the guy may be the stubborn dick he seems to be but it was important the the Russia investigation was allowed to run its course without interference by a party to the investigation. An importance that Trump failed to recognise.
Just as the parallels to Nixon it isn't whether you are actually guilty or not it is the interference that gets you.
Trump's biggest flaw is that he cannot accept the fact that being President doesn't mean he can have absolutely everything his own way and that everyone under him will jump to his commands like they did in his business. People in public office will stand up for their own beliefs (or interpretations on their public role) far more than an employee (who will just quit).You think Comey was fired because he stuck to his job? You think you know more than the Assistant AG , his direct boss, who said the exact opposite? That in fact he should be fired because he DIDNT stick to his job!
Interesting you are now saying that Rosentein wasn't a fan. Rosentein is incredibly well regarded by all sides.. but I predict the narrative will now change and he will become a villain. Are you saying you have seen evidence that Rosentein was a non fan before he was asked to investigate and look at job performance?As for Yates, she didnt stick to her job either, she played partisan bullshit to the highest order, as I have previously explained.
You do keep explaining this 'partisan bullshit' line but only as your unproven opinion.Provide some factual evidence and I'll stop debating my differing opinion with you.
Comparing the role in the US system of the AG to that of someone's personal lawyer is oversimplification.
An AG takes an oath to support the Constitution of the US and discharge the duties of their office accordingly. Defending an Executive Order is one of the duties of office but must be done while supporting the constitution at the same time. Yates did not believe she could do both.Obviously both Yates and Comey see things from their own viewpoint and their views differ to those of Trump but to assert that their actions were done for partisan reasons surely requires proof other than what you simply believe.
BTW does anyone know if Yates lost her bond? An AG has to personally put up $5k which they lose if they don't carry out the duties of their office.
@Crucial
How many times did Yates tell Obama that she wouldn't let the DOJ represent his side? ZERO. Then the very first time she has to represent Trump... she suddenly has an issue. What an incredible coincidence. And Obama via the DOJ lost a number of judgements at the Supreme Court because they didnt stand the constitutional test. So was she just really crap at her job under Obama? Was she corrupt under Obama? Or did she just suddenly start doing her job under Trump?All sounds very much like this explanation I read earlier "that is all just fodder for conspiracy theory, not much different to having facts that kids get autism soon after the MMR jab... therefore ...."
In case anyone forgot, Trumps not a fan of mmr and thinks it might cause autism.
That will be an impeachable offense from any public office once I'm in charge of the planet.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And it turns out ... surprise surprise that the report that Rosentein threatened to resign was FAKE NEWS.
you mean fake news like the original white house story that the firing was as a result of the investigation from rosenstein - contradicted via the horse's mouth?
No fake news in that the main stream media just made shit up yet again.
is there a difference between an 'anonymous source' story that turns out to be false(-ish), and the white house line being directly contradicted by the president himself?
the whole thing reeks of trump making a decision, then others scrambling to try to make a pretence at due process. and as per the 2 lawfare links i posted earlier, it is a pretence.- i say false-ish because the washington post reported him threatening to resign which he has denied, whereas the wall street journal for example said that he 'pressed White House counsel Don McGahn to correct what he felt was an inaccurate White House depiction' and implied that he couldn't work in an environment where facts were ignored etc - which is subjective and not necessarily a threat to resign.
No, the whole thing reeks of Trump derangement syndrome.... with a healthy dose if fake news.
-
@Donsteppa said in US Politics:
@jegga said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback In isolation yes. I'm also a fan of listening to my lawyer when he offers his opinion because he knows the law better than me
OK good. So if you thought your lawyer didnt like you and was actively trying to undermine you, and then he refused to represent you in a case (and told his staff not to help you) that you were sure was valid and other lawyers had said was valid.. what would you do?
Fire him as your lawyer maybe and get someone else?
Remember Yates was a political appointee of Obama.
If the system is that you put your own flunkies in place then that's what it is. No problem there.
The pattern is that Trump gets annoyed with people not because they are being partisan but because they wont be his flunkies. The single issue excuses for dismissing them are just that, excuses.
With both Yates and Comey they pissed him off because they told him things he didn't want to hear and stuck to their jobs rather than just do what he wanted. In the case of Comey the stories are now out (and I'm sure you will dismiss them as being from a biased press) that Trump wanted him to put the Russia stuff aside and put resources into finding leaks. He was getting more and more frustrated with Comey not doing what he wanted himto do so asked Rosenstein (also a non fan) to document a case for dismissal.
It is all very well to argue that Trump is within his rights to get rid of people he can't work with but what he doesn't do is weigh that up against the validity of what they are doing that pisses him off.
When Yates pissed him of twice in a space of days she was sacked but her message about Flynn was thrown out with her until it became obvious she was correct and some spin was put on him resigning instead.
With Comey, the guy may be the stubborn dick he seems to be but it was important the the Russia investigation was allowed to run its course without interference by a party to the investigation. An importance that Trump failed to recognise.
Just as the parallels to Nixon it isn't whether you are actually guilty or not it is the interference that gets you.
Trump's biggest flaw is that he cannot accept the fact that being President doesn't mean he can have absolutely everything his own way and that everyone under him will jump to his commands like they did in his business. People in public office will stand up for their own beliefs (or interpretations on their public role) far more than an employee (who will just quit).You think Comey was fired because he stuck to his job? You think you know more than the Assistant AG , his direct boss, who said the exact opposite? That in fact he should be fired because he DIDNT stick to his job!
Interesting you are now saying that Rosentein wasn't a fan. Rosentein is incredibly well regarded by all sides.. but I predict the narrative will now change and he will become a villain. Are you saying you have seen evidence that Rosentein was a non fan before he was asked to investigate and look at job performance?As for Yates, she didnt stick to her job either, she played partisan bullshit to the highest order, as I have previously explained.
You do keep explaining this 'partisan bullshit' line but only as your unproven opinion.Provide some factual evidence and I'll stop debating my differing opinion with you.
Comparing the role in the US system of the AG to that of someone's personal lawyer is oversimplification.
An AG takes an oath to support the Constitution of the US and discharge the duties of their office accordingly. Defending an Executive Order is one of the duties of office but must be done while supporting the constitution at the same time. Yates did not believe she could do both.Obviously both Yates and Comey see things from their own viewpoint and their views differ to those of Trump but to assert that their actions were done for partisan reasons surely requires proof other than what you simply believe.
BTW does anyone know if Yates lost her bond? An AG has to personally put up $5k which they lose if they don't carry out the duties of their office.
@Crucial
How many times did Yates tell Obama that she wouldn't let the DOJ represent his side? ZERO. Then the very first time she has to represent Trump... she suddenly has an issue. What an incredible coincidence. And Obama via the DOJ lost a number of judgements at the Supreme Court because they didnt stand the constitutional test. So was she just really crap at her job under Obama? Was she corrupt under Obama? Or did she just suddenly start doing her job under Trump?All sounds very much like this explanation I read earlier "that is all just fodder for conspiracy theory, not much different to having facts that kids get autism soon after the MMR jab... therefore ...."
In case anyone forgot, Trumps not a fan of mmr and thinks it might cause autism.
That will be an impeachable offense from any public office once I'm in charge of the planet.
He should be hauled across the coals about it. It is something the opposition could really make him pay for.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
And if he was left leaning you still would have written that lengthy essay and spent large amounts of your time researching something that will lead nowhere?
If and when there's a genuine scandal, no one will care because the weakly furore over Trump will have made them immune.
Give it six months (if that), and the outrage fatigue will be so strong that the Boy Who Cried Wolf effect will be in such full flight that Trump will be able to do anything.
Trump being Trump I'm quite sure that he's quite capable of shooting himself in the foot on a major scale at least once in a four year term. Problem is, it's being claimed that's what he's doing every other minute on Facebook... Various aspects of opposition would do well to keep their powder dry...
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Donsteppa said in US Politics:
That will be an impeachable offense from any public office once I'm in charge of the planet.
He should be hauled across the coals about it. It is something the opposition could really make him pay for.
This article appeared in my Facebook feed about a week ago and I keep meaning to dig into it in more depth. It may or may not be unfairly politicised: while it's mostly Republican focused I think it's more a reflection that the anti-vaccine movement and their ilk will find any possible niche to shove their dangerous ideology into..
An excerpt...
There has been a long history of bipartisan consensus on vaccine policy and school vaccine mandates in this country. Unfortunately, this consensus is being undermined, and bills like HB 4425/6 and SB 299/300 are the result. My personal suspicion is that, energized by the fight against California SB 277, antivaccine activists stumbled upon a successful strategy based linking “vaccine choice” with “freedom” in general, “parental rights,” and the distrust of the government baked into conservative politics. Thus, over the last five years or so, the loudest voices in the antivaccine movement have increasingly tended to come from the right, not the left, such that vaccine policy even featured prominently in the second Republican debate, largely thanks to Donald Trump’s long history of antivaccine rhetoric and the increasing alignment with antivaccine groups with Tea Party and right wing political groups. To me, this alignment in rhetoric and viewpoint was epitomized by an interview with Sen. Rand Paul (who really is antivaccine) two years ago in which he said, “The state doesn’t own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom.” Antivaccine-sympathetic physicians like “Dr. Bob” Sears, in particular, traffic in these “parental rights” and “freedom” antivaccine dog whistles. Antivaxers were further energized when it was revealed that Donald Trump had met with disgraced British antivaccine gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield in August and then again when he met with antivaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in January, allegedly about a vaccine safety commission.
Also:
antivaccine pseudoscience is an irrationality that appeals to both the right and the left, but for different reasons. On the left, it’s often due to a belief that “natural” is somehow better, coupled with distrust of big business, especially big pharma. On the right it’s “freedom” and anti-government rhetoric.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Donsteppa said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Donsteppa said in US Politics:
That will be an impeachable offense from any public office once I'm in charge of the planet.
He should be hauled across the coals about it. It is something the opposition could really make him pay for.
This article appeared in my Facebook feed about a week ago and I keep meaning to dig into it in more depth. It may or may not be unfairly politicised: while it's mostly Republican focused I think it's more a reflection that the anti-vaccine movement and their ilk will find any possible niche to shove their dangerous ideology into..
An excerpt...
There has been a long history of bipartisan consensus on vaccine policy and school vaccine mandates in this country. Unfortunately, this consensus is being undermined, and bills like HB 4425/6 and SB 299/300 are the result. My personal suspicion is that, energized by the fight against California SB 277, antivaccine activists stumbled upon a successful strategy based linking “vaccine choice” with “freedom” in general, “parental rights,” and the distrust of the government baked into conservative politics. Thus, over the last five years or so, the loudest voices in the antivaccine movement have increasingly tended to come from the right, not the left, such that vaccine policy even featured prominently in the second Republican debate, largely thanks to Donald Trump’s long history of antivaccine rhetoric and the increasing alignment with antivaccine groups with Tea Party and right wing political groups. To me, this alignment in rhetoric and viewpoint was epitomized by an interview with Sen. Rand Paul (who really is antivaccine) two years ago in which he said, “The state doesn’t own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom.” Antivaccine-sympathetic physicians like “Dr. Bob” Sears, in particular, traffic in these “parental rights” and “freedom” antivaccine dog whistles. Antivaxers were further energized when it was revealed that Donald Trump had met with disgraced British antivaccine gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield in August and then again when he met with antivaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in January, allegedly about a vaccine safety commission.
Also:
antivaccine pseudoscience is an irrationality that appeals to both the right and the left, but for different reasons. On the left, it’s often due to a belief that “natural” is somehow better, coupled with distrust of big business, especially big pharma. On the right it’s “freedom” and anti-government rhetoric.
Bill Maher epitomises the smug arrogance of the pro disease crowd where tries to tell a Republican senator who is Graduate of the Harvard school of medicine and has performed heart and lung transplants that he knows more than him about vaccines and they don't work. He also goes into the politics of the pro disease loons in case anyone thinks I'm trying to drag this off topic, Maher tends to side with liberal politics when it suits him , here he's using the arguments of the conservatives "the government fucks everything up, so if they tell you to take a vaccine its obvious you shouldn't".
US Politics