Forums / Discussion / General

hmmmmmmmm
https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/fox-news-different-reactions-regarding-negotiations-with-north-korea

Guess you got it right this week
Mueller report sent to attorney general, signaling his Russia investigation has ended

The investigation isn't over.
The Special Counsel's investigation is; the other investigations are still ongoing.

Mueller has filed his report to the justice department

If Trump does go to jail personally I think it'll be for financial crimes considering how his family isn't exactly known for legally earning money.

It'll be SDNY who will get him for financial crimes I think.

It's anti (((specific))) kind of lobbying though.
I have yet to hear anyone complain about the South Korean lobbying (by far the highest contributing lobby), or the Japanese lobby, or the United Arab Emirates lobbying. All of which is way higher than Israel. Nor do I hear anyone really give an iota of concern over the Irish lobby, which is slightly less than Israel. At least according to OpenSecrets.org

And while I understand, completely, that criticism of Israeli policy, or even Israeli lobbying in of itself isn't anti-Semitic, the reality is that Israel, tends to be singled out quite often by the very same people who deny that it has anything to do with the fact that it's a Jewish state.

Nor is it that hard to see that the criticisms are often tied closely to millennial old anti-Semitic tropes re-packaged by Soviet propagandists as "anti-Zionism". (One doesn't have to google far to see how and why the USSR repackaged old anti-Semitic canards into an anti-Imperialist rhetoric specifically targeting Israel.)

If the mighty FBI can all the access they have couldn't find any crimes, what will SDNY will find? I say they won't and this will be another nothing burger. The back fire from all these investigations that do nothing AND the waste of tax payer money for these investigations will hurt the Democrats in 2020 and beyond. The voters are seeing the Democrats are harassing President Trump out of petty spite.

>these investigations that do nothing

Mutiple criminals are sitting in jail due to these investigations. Thats not nothing

>the waste of tax payer money

These investigations are a net PROFIT, not loss. Millions of dollars was seized from Manafort.

poochyena said:

its the idea that they were flawless

When did I ever say they were flawless? They had to release a day one patch to fix potential problems that could have developed. I said they knew what they were doing. The fact they recognized the criticisms and worked to fix them with said patch further demonstrates that.

Morality isn't subjective based on time.

It literally is. Morality is based on the culture and society of the present. There can't be an objective morality because what is and isn't moral is shaped by the society and culture that's present. What was perfectly moral 200 years ago is no longer seen as such today and I can easily see the same being true in 200 years. Things we think are perfectly moral today, like end of life care, may be seen as horribly barbaric 200 years from now.

What is your logic?

You cannot judge past actions or laws based on present conditions. In order to properly examine something, you have to look at and understand the context it exists in.

Literally what is your point?

They created a political system that has survived a dozen major ordeals over the centuries. Every major European power from 1787 either no longer exists or has been radically altered since. The fact our system has survived unscathed when every other has fallen demonstrates that they knew how to build a good political system.

…have to do with the EC?

You first. What does slavery or woman's rights have to do with the EC? You're the one who brought that up in relation to the EC. My point about the instabilities was relating to the founding fathers and their civic knowledge, not the EC.

not the individual voter

And who determines where that electoral power is directed?

…has more power in deciding how the state votes…

And in exchange, they're state counts for less in the EC. Pretty good balancing.

reagan, no. Reagan's overall approval is still much higher than Trump's

Reagan's approval rating in March of 1983 was 40%. Trump's currently beating him by 2 points at this same point in their presidencies'.

I already linked earlier of discussions against the EC during Obama's presidency.

The talking heads bring it up every presidential election. Obama and Dem politicians, though, never seemed to mention it.

It never stopped being an issue…

It never was an issue with the Democratic Party, until now. Just as SCOTUS only having nine members wasn't an issue or the Senate being a thing wasn't an issue. Just because a blog post on MoveOn.org talks about it, doesn't mean everyone on the left has been campaigning about it for years. Fact is, until Trump won, the EC was an oddity that got brought up talking heads every four years, then promptly forgotten.

Now that Democrats are realizing that demographics might not lock them in permanently, they want to change the rules of elections and the structure of the government itself with that court packing bullshit.

When was that?

2007-2014.

the supreme court was fairly balanced.

That's what happens when SCOTUS justices die. They get replaced. I don't remember the Republican Party getting up in arms when FDR got to replace nine justices over his presidency. Or when Truman got another four. Trump gets to replace two--and not a single liberal justice--and now in comes the court packing. It's nuts.

It is, thats just a fact.

It's entire purpose is to represent the states (hence why legislatures used to pick senators, until that was butchered). The House is for representing the people. It acts as a check against the larger states ramming their agenda through Congress, just as the EC checks the larger states from ramming their agenda through the president.

…they can still use it…

I can't. Gotta drive two miles to the nearest bus stop. The regional train Detroit wanted us to pay for was the same (thank you Oakland County voters for stopping that). Great for Detroit, but everyone else gets screwed with no access while having fork over ten billion.

Its just generic land regulations.

Regulations which only impact the rural areas (and are determined by the President's cabinet).

Black Graphic T said:

i feel like we're probably close to some form of political armed conflict.

As I said in a different thread, I'm only buying that when I see people having fist fights in Kroger over politics. The internet/news tend to amplify and inflame, while reality is much different. I can say this much. If I never went online or watched the news, I'd see an incredibly peaceful community where people are mostly polite and courteous to each other. I'd be completely shocked if you told me "America is severely divided!"

I think people tend to underestimate just how "freeing" the internet is, compared to IRL interactions. It's easy to argue with someone about the EC online--even someone you personally know. There's a digital wall separating you from them. But tear that wall down and suddenly it becomes much harder. It's only when tearing down becomes easy that I think problems could develop.

BrentD15 said:

…she is the granddaughter…

And why is that relevant? Didn't the Old Testament deal with the whole "sins of the father" thing?

Adegeneratefurry said:

…how the fuck do people expect ai…

Current AI is incredibly stupid. I realized this when text recognition software couldn't tell the difference between a c and a < or would replace a whole sentence with complete gibberish because the book had a smudge in that section.

Companies want to market the shit out of their stuff, so they hype up their AI because it's the hot new thing, like the cloud was a few years ago. Then when the reality sets in, they're left with their pants down.

Btw, self driving cars are exactly the same. They can run flawlessly on an even, well marked road, but give them a residential street, an inch of snow, or unexpected construction that forces you to drive between lanes and they're as useful driving as a two year old is.

Team Arkos said:

This isn't a surprise to me…

To be fair to them, it's not an election year. The 2015 conference also didn't have any potential candidates attend. AIPAC's mainly about Congress anyway and both Schumer and Pelosi are going.

In regards to the claims of "ISIS completed defeated in Syria", I'll leave this.

Lets go over the top 5 things that DIDN'T happen over Muller's probe.

1. Mueller did not indict Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, or other people whose purported legal jeopardy was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

2. Mueller did not charge anyone in the Trump campaign or circle with conspiring with Russia to fix the 2016 election, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

3. Mueller did not subpoena the president, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

4. The president did not fire Mueller, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.

5. The president did not interfere with the Mueller investigation, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year. In his letter to Congress, Barr noted the requirement that he notify lawmakers if top Justice Department officials ever interfered with the Mueller investigation. "There were no such instances," Barr wrote.

@xTSGx
>When did I ever say they were flawless?
You said "It's very safe to say they knew what they were doing." which seemed to imply that.

>Morality is based on the culture and society of the present.

Its not. Hating gay people didn't become magically become morally wrong in ~2001 because thats when a majority of people started believing gay people should have equal rights

Some cultures are just morally just wrong. Harming others doesn't magically become ok because everyone else is doing it.

>What was perfectly moral 200 years ago is no longer seen as such today

If it is seen as morally wrong today, it was most likely seen as wrong by many people 200 years ago.

>You cannot judge past actions or laws based on present conditions.

What year is the cut off to when I can't just that person's actions?

>The fact our system has survived unscathed when every other has fallen demonstrates that they knew how to build a good political system.

Again, what is your point? If you aren't saying its flawless, then what does that have to do with anything? Humans survives thousands of years in mud huts too.

>And who determines where that electoral power is directed?

The elector

>And in exchange, they're state counts for less in the EC.

What do you mean by "in exchange"? Voters don't get more power in those states because the state's electoral number is less. Its not directly connected and doesn't justify it at all.

>It never was an issue with the Democratic Party

It still isn't. https://democrats.org/about/party-platform
Its not an official issue with the party.

>Just as SCOTUS only having nine members wasn't an issue or the Senate being a thing wasn't an issue.

See above

>Fact is, until Trump won, the EC was an oddity that got brought up talking heads every four years, then promptly forgotten.

Is it "got brought up talking heads every four years" or "promptly forgotten". If something gets talked about every election cycle, it obviously isn't forgotten.

>It's entire purpose is to represent the states (hence why legislatures used to pick senators, until that was butchered). The House is for representing the people.

represent the state, but not the people in it? How does that work?

>I can't. Gotta drive two miles to the nearest bus stop.

so you can. I've driven to bus stops, its because its cheaper and quicker to park near a bus stop and then get on the bus to the convention center or wherever.

>Regulations which only impact the rural areas

Doesn't it include land that the general public uses too?

Pelosi is pushing for the full mueller report to be released, which is nice, especially after saying she has no interest in impeaching trump. Honestly, the longer it goes that the full report isn't released, the more likely it is that something very damaging is in it. I doubt they'd wait long if it just said was just 1 page that said "Trump innocent".

CNN is practically fellating Donald Trump.

Remember: Mainstream Media isn't Liberal; it's Mercenary.

Nah, the Mainstream Fake news media is solidly Liberal, they are just gone into full CYA mode now that their best and likely only hope of impeaching President Trump FAILED.

A public release of some level of muller's report due today it seems. The Democrats are bracing for a mighty President Trump win.

If the report shows absolutely no wrong doing of Trump, it sure will be hilarious seeing fox news and their fans saying we should accept the results of the investigation, even though they spent months/years talking about hillary's emails after the fbi conclusions.

If the msm was "solidly liberal" they would support candidates like Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, not centrists like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

>Thinking that solidly liberal means far left….
Are you joking? What he is saying is that the majority of the MSM is left leaning. So much so that the ONLY conservative news outlet that is part of the MSM is Fox news.

>thinking Bernie and Gabbard are far left
oof

Also, there are way more mainstream media outlets that are conservative. Alex jones, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage are all right wing with their own media empire.

Barr is going to send a summary to congress today. My hailchaos boner is trembling with anticipation.

LOL! https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/video/live-news-coverage-from-cbs-news/ar-BBmYvYY?appwebview=true&ocid=spartanntp
Apparently they found NOTHING! This is hilarious!

>they found NOTHING!

tell that to all the people sitting in jail as a result from the investigation

The thing is while he didn't find any evidence of collusion with Russia he didn't get exonerated from wrong doing. If Trump did break the law my money is on financial crimes instead.

The special counsel said "While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him".

Moral of this: Trump isn't evil, he's just dumb.

I hope the Democrats switch gears now.

It's probably for the best for them that the Russiagate bubble popped now and not halfway through election season.

Mueller was an effective counsel and did a good job sinking Trump's criminal business/political associates. I think his judgement on this matter should be respected.

Rachel Maddow is on suicide watch.

Barr's summary =/= Mueller's Report.

Remember; House Democrats have subpoena power for the actual report.

Also, Devin Nunes wants to burn the allegedly exonerating report.

This is a good take

For me, the safest conclusion is that a lot of political downside risk was removed from Trump's portfolio, in part because he got through the investigation without firing Mueller or pardoning anyone. pic.twitter.com/sdbW2meMo8

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) March 25, 2019

yeah because it was fucked and we've had this conversation.
Now i found it annoying, accept the damn thing because there wasn't evidence that in order to bring the prosecution they wouldn't have to cut their nose off to spite their face.
But that begin said the shortness the scope and everything detailed in the DOJ is clear to me that this was a politically motivated thing designed to end and absolve her before the election. the DOJ says as much

Feeling very vindicated today, how about you thread?

Completely vindicated! I called this ages ago too. Now notice another great point is that President Trump isn't diving into this as much as he could have done. Very mature and presidential there. Why gloat about it when the rest of us are doing that for him?

Oh yea, there are many people on twitter who made some serious bets that President Trump would be convicted by Muller and now are have to pay up for losing those bets. It seems the people in here never took any of those bets so that is a good thing.

>Completely vindicated!

*except he could have still done bad things, just not explicitly illegal
*expect for the dozen of other investigations

Could have? If Mueller and the full force of the FBI and the massed might of the left couldn't charged President Trump with anything, then he has not done anything bad, criminal, or anything the left can't object too.

Have you ever, EVER thought that he is innocent of any charges?

Son, there are times in your life you just have to accept the L and move on with your life. It is unhealthy for a some one like you to get so wrapped up in this.

>If Muller and the full force of the FBI and the massed might of the left couldn't charged President Trump with anything

First off, its Mueller, not muller. second, he specifically said he has no intention of charging Trump. Trump could have shot someone in front of him, and he still wouldn't have charged him.

> then he has not done anything bad

Yea, because as long as its not illegal, its not bad. So what do you think about Hillary's legal handling of her emails?

>Have you ever, EVER thought that he is innocent of any charges?

Yes

Scary stuff out of New Zealand. You can now go to jail for a decade for merely possessing a copy of the shooter's manifesto.

poochyena said:

Its not.

It is. Society and culture shape individual morality. A person doesn't suddenly get a mental update after they're born that hard code's their morality into them. It's created through their experiences--experiences with the society and culture they live in, which is why you see a gradual change from "enslave the opposing city and kill all the males" to "place economic sanctions so we don't have to fight them." Society is very big and it takes a lot of inertia to affect moral changes in it.

It is an impossibility for an objective morality to exist unless you believe a higher power has an overriding authority on the issue. There's too many societies and cultures and times are always changing.

Some cultures are just morally just wrong.

Morality is merely a system of ethical believes a person or society has. Something may be morally wrong based on your definitions, but it isn't based on another group's. The real question is whether your moral definitions should be considered superior to another's. Historical comparisions are completely silly to make. Thanks to technological advances, we can claim the moral high ground on a lot of issues (POWs, slavery, war, etc.) that previously were incredibly complex and difficult.

And its thanks to that advancement that future civilizations could look back on us with disdain. Think of the moral shifts that would happen if artificial wombs became a thing and the entire abortion debate were rendered extinct. Never assume your morality is the best there can be. There will always inevitably be one that comes along later that solves a difficult issue we are currently struggling with, and makes that issue seem utterly ridiculous in hindsight.

…it was most likely seen as wrong by many people 200 years ago…

And yet it was still morally fine. Like I said, society requires a lot of inertia to change.

What year is the cut off to when I can't just that person's actions?

It depends on what cultural morals have changed since the actions occurred. Murder's been considered morally wrong since the country was founded (and long before), but it wasn't until the 20s that the morals surrounding the age of consent began shifting in the US. Context over the time and place is essential--remember: it's perfectly legal and moral to have sex with a 14 year old in Germany, providing they consent.

The elector…

The voters. Who determine who the electors are obliged to vote for. Failing to do so will see you kicked out of the party at best and face criminal penalties at worst.

What do you mean by "in exchange"?

When you live in a small state, you have a greater say on the electors, but, as a direct result, there are fewer electors, which reduces your overall "influence" in the election. The opposite's true for larger states: you have less say in the electors, but a greater influence in the election.

Its not an official issue with the party.

Party platform only gets changed when the DNC has its convention (that's why Bernie held on to the end, he wanted more influence at shaping the platform at the convention). I can almost guarantee they'll add it next year.

Is it…

The word "then" is used. Please look up its definition for your answer.

How does that work?

The states are individual entities with their own governments, policies, and interests. The purpose of the Senate is to directly represent those entities and their interests at the federal level, while the purpose of the House is to directly represent the population and their interests in the federal government. This is why the Senate does all the important things (approve nominates, pass treaties, etc.) while the House handles the finances (the federal government gets its money directly from the people, not the states).

Take water rights as an example. California interests over the Colorado River could overwhelm Arizona's in the House and Congress could pass an unfair water regulation that benefits California at Arizonia's expense. But since they have equal representation in the Senate and other states that share Arizona's interests might side with it, it checks Calfironia's Congressional powers.

And if you knew your history, you'd know that check is what helped curb the spread of slavery. Without the Senate and its equal representation, the economically powerful and populated slave states would have run roughshod over the smaller northern states and possibly completely altered the course of history in the process.

so you can.

Ah, so I drive my car to the school parking lot, then sit in the bus stop for five minutes waiting, then pay the toll, then wait for it to stop at the library, park, and courthouse before finally stopping at Kroger. Then I can only buy a few things at Kroger because I'm taking the bus before getting back on the bus to go back to the parking lot to get in my car and go home.

Why would I want to do all that when I can just drive my car the additional three miles and park at Kroger?

Doesn't it include land that the general public uses too?

Yes, land that's almost exclusively in rural areas of the country.

tell that to all the people sitting in jail as a result from the investigation

That's like saying Whitewater found something because Clinton got his law license suspended.

Particle Mare said:

I hope the Democrats switch gears now.

I think they saw the writing on the wall when Buzzfeed was BTFO by Mueller and started to switch over to the finances stuff. I do hope they realize the futility of it and switch to actual election messages or they risk repeating the "Trump's deplorable, vote for X instead" message.

Seriously, burning the report that you claim is exonerating is just bad logic.

Also, some counter-investigation against your political opposition:

Robert Mueller is back working at the SCO's office.

Mystery company fighting Mueller has been rejected a hearing by the Supreme Court.

Michael Avenatti has been arrested for extortion attempt.

And to think this guy was being pushed as a major Democrat up and comer not all that long ago.

Now juxtapose that with Mueller exonerating President Trump. It really makes you think now does it?

>And to think this guy was being pushed as a major Democrat up and comer not all that long ago.

literally no one thought that. Everyone thinks he is crazy

>literally no one thought that. Everyone thinks he is crazy

You sure about that?

Then a number of Democrats where crazy last year then as well.

Neither link suggests anyone thinking he has a real chance. The article just mention him thinking about running.

You keep telling yourself that. But considering how crazy the Democrat primaries are going, he might just fit in. At least he can counter the cringey blandness Beto brings.

@Team Arkos
Avenatti already said he isn't running
Not that anyone was asking him to.

Welllllll FECK! The yield curve inverted

The reason why this is bad summarized in one image:

To make it even more succinct whenever the yield curve inverts there is ALWAYS a recession on the way .

@arkos

The extent to which you thought Avenatti had a good shot at the presidential nomination reflects the extent to which your view of what actual Democrats are like is jaundiced by watching waaaaaayy too much cable news.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) March 25, 2019

The thing about the yield curve inverting is the panicking over it GENUINELY is justified. If it holds out for more than say a couple days there genuinely is a recession on the way.

It's not quite time to panic, but it's close to time to panic.

Chill out degenerate and…..

I remember last Christmas and you where flipping out over the market down turn. It turned out alright then and this will be the same.

It's getting worse for Michael Avenatti! Mark Geragos is now charged as Co-Conspirator with him on his crimes!

You can't imagine the levels of smug I am feeling right now.

It's kinda hard to run with ankle chains on in any case. But there was a time not that long ago the Democrats did look to him as a savior.