Postmortem on Mueller

[Old Hippy]

I know what you said. My point is that characterising a non-political forum .

says the guy posting in the '' Postmortem on Mueller '' thread...

 

[AmazonQueen]

Kill the right wingers isn't ideological? Both wings are frustrated.

Rightwingers deaths aren't part of the ideology, although in the case of extremists they might be a means to the end. For a Nazi killing people he considers unfit to live, Jews, disabled, homosexuals, is the end, not the means.

 

[innonimatu]

I think I can understand what Berzerker means. There are some frankly insane things going on, for example persecuting teachers because they dare make some students uncomfortable (ie, hold opinions the students disagree with) in a field as subjective as art!

However, such insanity has not taken root here. We had, and surely will continue to have, arguments caused by those same ideas of people not wanting to be "uncomfortable". I recall a certain member playing that card repeatedly, against me also. Still, those discussions were not shut down, so don't worry too much about CFC.
I also think that the high tide of this most recent "culture war" in the US has come already, it'll recede. First and foremost because it is has been all about talking and not really changing anything (not could it change anything...). It's just anecdotes and distractions, the modern amusements, which do not last long before being replaced by some other "cultural" fad.

Mueller's report was a political fad. It had real consequences, but it's also spend.

 

[Estebonrober]

Per @onejayhawk 's suggestion; Some interesting questions have arisen since Mueller completed his report:

• Is Trump a lying, tax cheating, womanizing buffoon?
• Did he obstruct justice?
• Is he still obstructing justice?
• Did Barr lie to Congress?
• Did Barr try to mislead the public?
• Should Barr step down?
• Is Trump good for American Democracy?
• Is the President above the law?
• Should those who don't comply with Congressional subpoenas be arrested?
• Is there a path forward that actually helps unite our severely divided politics?
• Should the House use the "power of the purse" to reign in the white House?
• Will the State of NY bring Trump down?
• Should trump's tax returns go to Congress?
• Should right-wing hate sites be banned from social media?

Yes
Yes
Can't tell
Not sure
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No, barring the unlikely caveat that conservatives wake up to the reality of their own manipulation
Situationally sure
Probably
Yes, no president candidate should run ever again without releasing them.
Social media companies are private they can ban who they like and suffer and gain respectively

 

[onejayhawk]

In America at least, there is more far right terrorism and deaths from said terrorism than from any leftwing group or even Muslims.

Or you could be in denial.

Reminds me of those people who think Antifa is equally, if not more, just bad as literal neo nazis and standing up against fascism is inherently fascistic

Republicans don't say something, so the media coins the term dog-whistles. It applies just as well to both sides. The bottom lines is that claiming either side wants to kill/deport/subjugate anyone is pure political spin with only coincidental contact with facts.

For example

Ultimately Antifa don't want to kill/deport/subjugate ethnic,sexual, racial, religious and other minority groups, whilst Neo-nazis, White seperatists, Militia movement etc, do, that's what makes the comparison absurd, one exists to stop the latter but apparently that's bad

I am not sure installing a one party rule is any better. That is something antifa prmotes.

Let us all remember this all is nothing similar to the political speech in the Mid-East. The Muslim countries really do want to kill all the Jews. In this country disgrace and ridicule are sufficient.

J

 

[Estebonrober]

Or you could be in denial.




I am not sure installing a one party rule is any better. That is something antifa prmotes.

Let us all remember this all is nothing similar to the political speech in the Mid-East. The Muslim countries really do want to kill all the Jews. In this country disgrace and ridicule are sufficient.

J

Can you back any of this up?

Also in regards to your comments about the "counter-strike" investigations into FBI campaign investigations, whats your desired end game on that? Do you imagine all your political enemies suddenly disappearing? The FBI being dismantled? Just the "bad guys" in the FBI being taken out? Hillary in jail?

I'm for the IG report on what started this but I also support the FBI investigating a campaign openly requesting foreign assistance with long ties to the foreign entity. Don Jr. should be indicted on campaign finance violations. Trump should be impeached.

 

[Old Hippy]

I'm for the IG report on what started this but I also support the FBI investigating a campaign openly requesting foreign assistance with long ties to the foreign entity. Don Jr. should be indicted on campaign finance violations. Trump should be impeached.

foreign assistance or foreign interference?... that's what the IG report is all about
shouldn't we wait for the IG report first... we have just spent 2 years arguing about the Russian hoax ... surly you can wait several weeks for the IG report before making up your mind... Transparency and Justice work slowly... especially when dealing with the Washington Swamp...
They were the ones that said Declassifying certain documents would be a red line and would be obstructing justice and the Special council if Trump did it... well he can not obstruct the Mueller investigation now that Mueller has completed it
Trump has said he is going to declassify plenty ... when it suits him at a time of his choosing...
keep an eye open for the name Joseph Mifsud over the coming weeks

 

[Birdjaguar]

Let us all remember this all is nothing similar to the political speech in the Mid-East. The Muslim countries really do want to kill all the Jews. In this country disgrace and ridicule are sufficient.

J

And White supremacists really do want to kill all the folks they hate. They mostly use guns because in the US they don't yet have access to stuff with greater destructive power.

https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2018

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...of-recent-attacks-linked-to-white-supremacism

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-supremacists-most-extremist-killings-us-2017-group/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting

Just sayin'

 

[onejayhawk]

Can you back any of this up?

Also in regards to your comments about the "counter-strike" investigations into FBI campaign investigations, whats your desired end game on that? Do you imagine all your political enemies suddenly disappearing? The FBI being dismantled? Just the "bad guys" in the FBI being taken out? Hillary in jail?

I'm for the IG report on what started this but I also support the FBI investigating a campaign openly requesting foreign assistance with long ties to the foreign entity. Don Jr. should be indicted on campaign finance violations. Trump should be impeached.

Back what up. The quotation process makes it unclear.

Equal treatment before the law is the standard. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump received wildly different treatment, often from exactly the same people. Find out who willfully violated that standard and prosecute them.

J

 

[Estebonrober]

Back what up. The quotation process makes it unclear.

Equal treatment before the law is the standard. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump received wildly different treatment, often from exactly the same people. Find out who willfully violated that standard and prosecute them.

J

Any of it? Notice how @Birdjaguar 's post has links to evidence backing his claims can you do that for any of your claims? "I'm not doing your work for you" in this case would just be an admittance that you cannot.

Equal treatment under the law is not the standard, its the ideal and we are no where near living up to it. Ask the BLM folks about how equal treatment under the law is. Also this would indicate to me that you believe Trump should be indicted since my understanding is that you certainly believe Clinton should be.

 

[Estebonrober]

foreign assistance or foreign interference?... that's what the IG report is all about
shouldn't we wait for the IG report first... we have just spent 2 years arguing about the Russian hoax ... surly you can wait several weeks for the IG report before making up your mind... Transparency and Justice work slowly... especially when dealing with the Washington Swamp...
They were the ones that said Declassifying certain documents would be a red line and would be obstructing justice and the Special council if Trump did it... well he can not obstruct the Mueller investigation now that Mueller has completed it
Trump has said he is going to declassify plenty ... when it suits him at a time of his choosing...
keep an eye open for the name Joseph Mifsud over the coming weeks

I am waiting. The FBI could have acted inappropriately and the President be guilty of literally everything he's been accused of, they are not mutually exclusive. I mean I know you think he is innocent of everything but he could murder people on 5th avenue and you still support him as he likes to point out.

 

[Traitorfish]

I wasn't clear enough and what I did say could be interpreted to mean I was calling CFC a left wing hate site, the response to banning hate speech would include CFC for the left wing hate speech posted here. It doesn't matter what CFC does otherwise, the hate speech would be grounds for legal action.

Your original post simply states:

Thats gonna end well, the response will be banning left wing hate sites and CFC will be no longer.

That CFC is a "left-wing hate site" is presented as a matter of fact. If you intended to suggest that some observers would incorrectly regard CFC as a "left-wing hate site", this wasn't clearly qualified. In the context of your general complaint about conservative victimisation, it appears plausible that you meant to say what you said- whether or not you sincerely believe it- and, frankly, I don't think you're standing around here is such that you should expect the benefit of the doubt. The post, as written, appears wilfully provocative, and I don't think you have the right to bemoan provocative statements from others while making them yourself.

 

[onejayhawk]

Any of it? Notice how @Birdjaguar 's post has links to evidence backing his claims can you do that for any of your claims? "I'm not doing your work for you" in this case would just be an admittance that you cannot.

Equal treatment under the law is not the standard, its the ideal and we are no where near living up to it. Ask the BLM folks about how equal treatment under the law is. Also this would indicate to me that you believe Trump should be indicted since my understanding is that you certainly believe Clinton should be.

Equal treatment is the standard. It may be badly acheived, but it is the Platonic form we aspire toward.

Again, what did I claim? Are you seriously contesting the premise that Antifa is violent? Or claiming they are not using violence to silence political opposition? Any news story at random will establish that much.

J

 

[Tristan_C]

Also in regards to your comments about the "counter-strike" investigations into FBI campaign investigations, whats your desired end game on that? Do you imagine all your political enemies suddenly disappearing? The FBI being dismantled? Just the "bad guys" in the FBI being taken out? Hillary in jail?

The FBI has a strong apolitical reputation. So when its Washington office suddenly becomes so political that it deploys against the party opposing the outgoing president, as it did in 2016, there should be an investigation to ascertain that president's role, if any, in an extraordinary abuse of power. Given how he used the IRS, it would make him a repeat offender.

Nixon was implicated for covering up an RNC attempt to spy on the Democrats, and while he was not criminally involved, it was catastrophic; he had to resign the presidency. Journalists exposed him at the time and have taken every possible opportunity in the intervening fifty years to remind us of these glory days.

Weaponizing the FBI, CIA, and DOJ for the same purpose is far worse, no matter how you look at it. These apparatus are not for use against people the president or his anointed successor finds inconvenient. But this time, the journalists are shilling for the authorities and the apparatus, and this includes the very same two journalists who broke Watergate. So this scandal calls the media's journalistic integrity into question as well, even as far back as Watergate. The media itself is one of the perpetrators.

Just off the cuff, I can think of several problems facing us with a "counterstrike": like Nixon, Obama is unlikely to have committed a serious crime himself or even made any direct orders, since corruption is not necessarily criminal, and he wouldn't have to give orders if he already had his Lois Lerners in place. But unlike Nixon, he's no longer in a position to be destroyed politically and his party made to feel a fraction of what fell out of Watergate. The media is in on the scheme this time, too, and will be protecting him and themselves, just as they are protecting the FBI and CIA's activities. So the best we can hope for is for people to learn the story and see all these scum disgraced. Hope this answer helps.

 

[Estebonrober]

The FBI has a strong apolitical reputation. So when its Washington office suddenly becomes so political that it deploys against the party opposing the outgoing president, as it did in 2016, there should be an investigation to ascertain that president's role, if any, in an extraordinary abuse of power. Given how he used the IRS, it would make him a repeat offender.

Nixon was implicated for covering up an RNC attempt to spy on the Democrats, and while he was not criminally involved, it was catastrophic; he had to resign the presidency. Journalists exposed him at the time and have taken every possible opportunity in the intervening fifty years to remind us of these glory days.

Weaponizing the FBI, CIA, and DOJ for the same purpose is far worse, no matter how you look at it. These apparatus are not for use against people the president or his anointed successor finds inconvenient. But this time, the journalists are shilling for the authorities and the apparatus, and this includes the very same two journalists who broke Watergate. So this scandal calls the media's journalistic integrity into question as well, even as far back as Watergate. The media itself is one of the perpetrators.

Just off the cuff, I can think of several problems facing us with a "counterstrike": like Nixon, Obama is unlikely to have committed a serious crime himself or even made any direct orders, since corruption is not necessarily criminal, and he wouldn't have to give orders if he already had his Lois Lerners in place. But unlike Nixon, he's no longer in a position to be destroyed politically and his party made to feel a fraction of what fell out of Watergate. The media is in on the scheme this time, too, and will be protecting him and themselves, just as they are protecting the FBI and CIA's activities. So the best we can hope for is for people to learn the story and see all these scum disgraced. Hope this answer helps.

It does. It reminds me that all the right has these days is petty smear campaigns based on conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality. The sad part of this reality is that we are slow marching toward civil war because of this inability to grasp basic reality on the right.

Insofar as the Obama administration was corrupt it was mild compared to what this president is doing and mainly mid level compared to the reality that this administration right up to the president is selling out nuclear secrets to the House of Saud, giving cover to Russian aggression, and generally profiting off the office every day.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Ah yes those infamously liberal institutions that are the Fbi and Cia

 

[Estebonrober]

Equal treatment is the standard. It may be badly acheived, but it is the Platonic form we aspire toward.

Again, what did I claim? Are you seriously contesting the premise that Antifa is violent? Or claiming they are not using violence to silence political opposition? Any news story at random will establish that much.

J

Antifas is not in support of one party rule, muslims do not all desire for the extermination of Jews. Both claims are ridiculously hyperbolic.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Again, the end goal of antifa isn't the wholesale elimination of entire minorities, but for the right wing that is their goal, I can't imagine many lgbt people, people of colour etc living contentedly in a society dominated by the right wing and historically they haven't.

 

[El_Machinae]

Are you actually describing fascism, here, or simply zealotry? Is the implication that fascism is not a distinct political tradition, but just a word we use to describe zealotry in a political context?

Yeah, I am more referring to popular despotism. Not fascist. The subset of people will behave as proto authoritarian thugs

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes, every congressional district should be drawn for one purpose, competition. No safe seats, no partisan gerrymandering, no intentional concentration of voters based on ideology. Make these people represent both sides.

Scrap first past the post, winner take all voting outright. Do this and gerrymandering becomes irrelevant and candidates representative of their population have a much better chance.

CFC is actually pretty good at allowing people to defend whatever their positions. There are majorities and it's "hard" to go against there majorities, but seldom are people who argue honestly their things being slapped down.

Anything can be labeled a "hate site", either directly or by association. And social media has clearly shown it needs to pay no heed to whether its enforcement of CoC is applied consistently. In fact they have been blatantly inconsistent and lied about it, seemingly without much consequence so far. Posts/tweets with literally nothing but factual information have been banned. Re-tweets have been banned, with the originators of the message still seeing no consequences/having what they posted visible.

In such an environment I see no serious restraint from simply declaring CFC a hate speech website. If one practices no standards, how could CFC possibly meet said "standards"?

And yeah obviously Barr lied.

Mueller said otherwise, and instead stated that the media's conclusions based on Barr's summary were misleading. But that's an indictment of the media's practices.

What is the definition of "hate site"? "Social media" is not public commons, its owned by corporations so they can ban whoever they want.

Utilities, banking, phone services could make similar cases historically. It's true that banks/payment processors tandem-dropping people they don't like reeks of conspiracy, but it's not a good place for the country to be there either. Imagine if all phone networks just dropped everybody registered with the Democratic party as soon as they were not contractually bound. They're corporations so they can do that right? Or better yet, end contracts early for half of all Democrats citing "terms of service" violations, about which they apparently have no obligation to specify (YouTube, FaceBook, Twitter all do this presently).

Berzerker is undoubtedly taking stuff out of context and playing for pity points. I recently said that the only likely way to salvage the US at this point was to put all the conservatives to the sword. That wasn't advocating anything, since I don't really give a rap about salvaging the US, it was just an observation. But undoubtedly that is at least part of what he is whining about.

Still easy to sensationalize as hate speech. Mainstream media has taken a mile from fewer inches many times. "CFC banned as hate site" gogo.