US & NA Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Don't forget the infamous Antifa bikelock...

**Vaktathi**

cuda1179 wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:
when you see people showing up in fatigues and literally wearing class III/IV armor plate in tac-carriers, it's not the "antifa" street kids. Basically you've got a dude running for office elsewhere coming in from out of state across the river to stir up a shitstorm downtown every couple of months.

Unless someone is beating someone over the head with body armor I don't really see how it's hurting anyone. That being said, there's been "body armor" on both sides (some home made). There's also gas masks, batons, asps, chains, and bottles. Can we agree that there are more than enough donkey caves on both sides?

There are donkey-caves on all sides, I will absolutely accept that. There's a lot of people out looking for a fight.

On one side you'll catch glimpses of 5.11 gear and tac-vests while the event manager claims to carry firearms, on another side we have the Burnside Bridge Bum Brigade, and on another we have the police who have actually come closest to killing someone thus far.

That said, of the strictly partisan groups, only one is openly bringing firearms into the equation, possibly having done so in an illegal manner.

**whembly**

LOL...

Joel B. Pollak
✔
@joelpollak
"That may come down to Mr. Cohen's word versus Mr. Trump's."@LannyDavis admitting to @chucktodd on @MSNBC just now that there is no additional evidence he knows about that would corroborate @MichaelCohen212's claim to the judge that @realDonaldTrump directed him to do anything.

4:29 PM - Aug 22, 2018

I figured Cohen had to have something more substantial.

Then this interview:

Meet the Press
‏
Verified account

@MeetThePress
Follow Follow @MeetThePress
More
.@Chucktodd asks Lanny Davis if his client Michael Cohen was in Prague in 2016, as claimed in the Steele dossier.

@LannyDavis responds: "Never, never in Prague...never, never in Prague, ever, ever."

5:31 PM - 22 Aug 2018

About that dossier...

**Wolfblade**

whembly wrote:
LOL...

Joel B. Pollak
✔
@joelpollak
"That may come down to Mr. Cohen's word versus Mr. Trump's."@LannyDavis admitting to @chucktodd on @MSNBC just now that there is no additional evidence he knows about that would corroborate @MichaelCohen212's claim to the judge that @realDonaldTrump directed him to do anything.

4:29 PM - Aug 22, 2018

I figured Cohen had to have something more substantial.

Then this interview:

Meet the Press
‏
Verified account

@MeetThePress
Follow Follow @MeetThePress
More
.@Chucktodd asks Lanny Davis if his client Michael Cohen was in Prague in 2016, as claimed in the Steele dossier.

@LannyDavis responds: "Never, never in Prague...never, never in Prague, ever, ever."

5:31 PM - 22 Aug 2018

About that dossier...

The dossier that has been proven to be right over and over again, while Cohen has been proven to be a liar again and again? That dossier?

**whembly**

Wolfblade wrote:
whembly wrote:
LOL...

Joel B. Pollak
✔
@joelpollak
"That may come down to Mr. Cohen's word versus Mr. Trump's."@LannyDavis admitting to @chucktodd on @MSNBC just now that there is no additional evidence he knows about that would corroborate @MichaelCohen212's claim to the judge that @realDonaldTrump directed him to do anything.

4:29 PM - Aug 22, 2018

I figured Cohen had to have something more substantial.

Then this interview:

Meet the Press
‏
Verified account

@MeetThePress
Follow Follow @MeetThePress
More
.@Chucktodd asks Lanny Davis if his client Michael Cohen was in Prague in 2016, as claimed in the Steele dossier.

@LannyDavis responds: "Never, never in Prague...never, never in Prague, ever, ever."

5:31 PM - 22 Aug 2018

About that dossier...

The dossier that has been proven to be right over and over again, while Cohen has been proven to be a liar again and again? That dossier?

Proven over and over again?

Okay... you run with that.

**Dreadwinter**

cuda1179 wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
We're acting no differently today in our mentality than the native americans did when settlers headed out west.

Brown people are not going to launch armies into the US to exterminate the whites.

Have a read at some of the La Raza websites. Some of their literal goals are to breed whites out.

How do you even "breed whites out" anyways? Like, what does that even mean? Moving in to an area and starting a population boom? Targeting white people to breed with to mix? Are we talking some sor of secret society eugenics stuff here?

I dont think you realize how hilarious that sounds.

**Wolfblade**

whembly wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:
whembly wrote:
LOL...

Joel B. Pollak
✔
@joelpollak
"That may come down to Mr. Cohen's word versus Mr. Trump's."@LannyDavis admitting to @chucktodd on @MSNBC just now that there is no additional evidence he knows about that would corroborate @MichaelCohen212's claim to the judge that @realDonaldTrump directed him to do anything.

4:29 PM - Aug 22, 2018

I figured Cohen had to have something more substantial.

Then this interview:

Meet the Press
‏
Verified account

@MeetThePress
Follow Follow @MeetThePress
More
.@Chucktodd asks Lanny Davis if his client Michael Cohen was in Prague in 2016, as claimed in the Steele dossier.

@LannyDavis responds: "Never, never in Prague...never, never in Prague, ever, ever."

5:31 PM - 22 Aug 2018

About that dossier...

The dossier that has been proven to be right over and over again, while Cohen has been proven to be a liar again and again? That dossier?

Proven over and over again?

Okay... you run with that.

If you had any proof of it being incorrect you'd be touting it instead of dismissing it without any evidence to support your position. But any chance to reiterate the party line, eh?

**A Town Called Malus**

Dreadwinter wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
We're acting no differently today in our mentality than the native americans did when settlers headed out west.

Brown people are not going to launch armies into the US to exterminate the whites.

Have a read at some of the La Raza websites. Some of their literal goals are to breed whites out.

How do you even "breed whites out" anyways? Like, what does that even mean? Moving in to an area and starting a population boom? Targeting white people to breed with to mix? Are we talking some sor of secret society eugenics stuff here?

I dont think you realize how hilarious that sounds.

It's just the good old white genocide far right conspiracy theory.

And really, whites are gonna be "bred out" eventually anyway with no need for anybody to actually plan to do it because of the way that we define "whiteness". The only racial pairing which produces a "white" baby is white/white. Couple a white person with any other race and the resultant offspring is classed as that other race.

Worrying about whites being "bred out" is the first step towards anti-miscegenation laws. Got to keep those whites breeding with other whites to keep the white race going! [/sarcasm]

**reds8n**

as political epitaphs go "pet rabbit airline ticket" is not a great one.

Easy E wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
AduroT wrote:
Can’t really do the copy/paste the whole article thing very well on my phone, but...

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/investigations/2018/08/22/mollie-tibbetts-alleged-killer-iowa-legally-lawyer-missing-student-body-found-brooklyn-trump/1064567002/

I just heard on the radio that the identification and Social Security card that he used for the e-verify process were not his, and that his employer knew him by a different name. Not great evidence that he's here legally.

ABC News (an actual source) had a statement from the farm he worked at stating that they used all current and proper Federal Laws to verify his status and employment.

So, if he was illegal, I point to the weak measures the US has to enforce employment law on employers as a major cause of an "crisis" instead of blaming migrants just looking to improve their lives. If we were serious about "doing something" about illegal immigration, we would start be enforcing the rules on the employers, and especially the large corporations. That would do much more than any wall ever could.

Edit: I was wondering exactly how long it would take for someone to try to make political hay out of this tragic story. Not long.

https://www.axios.com/2018-midterm-elections-mollie-tibbetts-republicans-8a33d987-7157-41ec-b1c3-49544a51237c.html

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich emailed Axios' Mike Allen to make sure that we'd be covering this story, which Fox News led with on air and online Tuesday evening, ahead of the Cohen-Manafort news. His take: "If Mollie Tibbetts is a household name by October, Democrats will be in deep trouble. If we can be blocked by Manafort-Cohen, etc., then GOP could lose [the House] badly."

Show less
"We are living in two alternative political universes. In one, Manafort-Cohen is dispositive. In the other, illegal immigrants killing Mollie Tibbetts is dispositive."

**Steve steveson**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
We're acting no differently today in our mentality than the native americans did when settlers headed out west.

Brown people are not going to launch armies into the US to exterminate the whites.

Have a read at some of the La Raza websites. Some of their literal goals are to breed whites out.

How do you even "breed whites out" anyways? Like, what does that even mean? Moving in to an area and starting a population boom? Targeting white people to breed with to mix? Are we talking some sor of secret society eugenics stuff here?

I dont think you realize how hilarious that sounds.

It's just the good old white genocide far right conspiracy theory.

And really, whites are gonna be "bred out" eventually anyway with no need for anybody to actually plan to do it because of the way that we define "whiteness". The only racial pairing which produces a "white" baby is white/white. Couple a white person with any other race and the resultant offspring is classed as that other race.

Worrying about whites being "bred out" is the first step towards anti-miscegenation laws. Got to keep those whites breeding with other whites to keep the white race going! [/sarcasm]

Interesting and only vagly related fact that I found out the other day, and somethign I feel is important to bring up in and discussion about race. Due to there being several bottle necks in the spread of the human race we are one of the most homogeneous of species. There is more diffrence in genetics between two groups of chimpanzees living 100 miles apart in central africa than there is between a white european living in Berlin or London and a member of the uncontacted Sentinelese people.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

as political epitaphs go "pet rabbit airline ticket" is not a great one.

But "Steak and 30 tequila shots" has to count for something.

**JohnHwangDD**

BaronIveagh wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:
B. Armed guards along a wall every 10 feet on the border

It would be stupidly easy and cheap to set up a fixed line of sentry guns with overlapping fields of fire, and just reload them every week or so. Pair it with smartmines, and you're golden.

Just as killy as the Berlin Wall, but higher tech and Amerikan!

Yes, because violating international treaties and committing crimes against humanity is always the best way to go.

Nowhere did I say it was "always the best way to go" - I said it would be cheap and easy (compared to a massed cadre of armed guards manning the line 24x7).

As for treaties and such - those are for weak countries, not Amerika! If you have a problem with shooting refugee women and children, you can take that up with Wolfblade, not me I'm just doing my job and following orders, to ensure that the system works as efficiently as possible.

**BaronIveagh**

whembly wrote:
Proven over and over again?

Okay... you run with that.

Steele himself said he felt the dossier was mostly correct, and says so, in the dossier. Thus far, the majority of it that could be verified has proven accurate.

Remember that it was intended as a political briefing, not the be all and end all of Donald Trump's activities.

JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm just doing my job and following orders

**tneva82**

So now seems Trump is considering pardoning Paul Manafort...

**Kilkrazy**

Pardoning is a two-edge sword.

On the one hand it gets Manafort out of jail free, which is good showing Trump supporting his old allies.

On the other hand, it confirms that the criminal charges were correct, as you can only pardon people who have been convicted. This is bad showing Trump supporting his old allied criminals.

It's the ultimate expression of Trump's involvement in the swamp he supposedly came to Washington to drain, but we've already seen Trumpists on TV forgiving him in advance, so I don't think it will affect his ratings at all.

It might energise Trump sceptic Republicans and the Democrat base for the November elections, though.

**BaronIveagh**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Thanks for taking the bait. I win a double for both Godwin's Law and Poe's Law.

Not really since Godwin's law was annulled early in this thread, by Godwin, of all people. Poe's law requires the inclusion of a smiley to signal that it's parody.

**Frazzled**

cuda1179 wrote:
Women believing every man is going to hurt them IS irrational. Having healthy skepticism in any human nature is prudent though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:
[ when you see people showing up in fatigues and literally wearing class III/IV armor plate in tac-carriers, it's not the "antifa" street kids. Basically you've got a dude running for office elsewhere coming in from out of state across the river to stir up a shitstorm downtown every couple of months.

Unless someone is beating someone over the head with body armor I don't really see how it's hurting anyone. That being said, there's been "body armor" on both sides (some home made). There's also gas masks, batons, asps, chains, and bottles. Can we agree that there are more than enough donkey caves on both sides?

Says the male poster.

**Stevefamine**

So when do you think Trump will get booted?

Are you ready for our good man Pence

**Frazzled**

Dreadwinter wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
We're acting no differently today in our mentality than the native americans did when settlers headed out west.

Brown people are not going to launch armies into the US to exterminate the whites.

Have a read at some of the La Raza websites. Some of their literal goals are to breed whites out.

How do you even "breed whites out" anyways? Like, what does that even mean? Moving in to an area and starting a population boom? Targeting white people to breed with to mix? Are we talking some sor of secret society eugenics stuff here?

I dont think you realize how hilarious that sounds.

Vegas. Lots of trips to Vegas.

**AndrewGPaul**

Steve steveson wrote:

And really, whites are gonna be "bred out" eventually anyway with no need for anybody to actually plan to do it because of the way that we define "whiteness". The only racial pairing which produces a "white" baby is white/white. Couple a white person with any other race and the resultant offspring is classed as that other race.

An interesting bit of racism, that. After all, it makes as much sense to call Barack Obama (chosen simply as the first example that came to mind of someone with one black and one white parent*) "white" as it does "black", if it wasn't for the One Drop rule. It makes even less sense for other people with more European genes than African (in terms of skin pigmentation, anyway) who are still "black".

(my understanding of genetic diversity n homo sapiens is that there's more diversity amongst the population of sub-Saharan Africa - all usually lumped into "black" - than there is amongst the entire rest of the world's population, from Australian aborigines to arctic Eskimos (or whatever they prefer to be called; apologies for my ignorance on the matter). Then you get oddities like the population of Madagascar actually being descended from Polynesians (on their way back, if you like)

)rather than from the population of nearby south-east Africa.)

* and to make the discussion easier, both parents are themselves not interracial to any great degree

**cuda1179**

Frazzled wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Women believing every man is going to hurt them IS irrational. Having healthy skepticism in any human nature is prudent though.

Says the male poster.

I do think that every person should be aware of their physical surroundings and physical limitations. However, saying every man is a potential rapist/murderer is like assuming every African American in a bad neighborhood is a potential mugger/drug dealer, or every police officer is a potential racist ready to shoot a minority.

**Frazzled**

cuda1179 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Women believing every man is going to hurt them IS irrational. Having healthy skepticism in any human nature is prudent though.

Says the male poster.

I do think that every person should be aware of their physical surroundings and physical limitations. However, saying every man is a potential rapist/murderer is like assuming every African American in a bad neighborhood is a potential mugger/drug dealer, or every police officer is a potential racist ready to shoot a minority.

It's not your fault you can't acknowledge reality.

**Asherian Command**

President Donald Trump continued working to fortify himself against accusations of legal misdeeds on Thursday, defending himself on Twitter in the dark morning hours and telling an interviewer he'd done nothing wrong.
But as the swirl of legal questions continues to mount, neither the President nor his aides have been able to quell the fallout.
Trump's latest attempt came in a friendly taped interview with Fox News, which was conducted on Wednesday but aired a day later. Trump sought to put distance between himself and his former lawyer Michael Cohen, who admitted to campaign finance crimes in federal court on Tuesday and implicated the President by saying he'd directed the action.

And he sharply decried those who testify against former confidants to ease legal troubles, bemoaning the longstanding practice.
"It's called flipping and it almost ought to be illegal," Trump said in the interview, adding he's witnessed similar scenarios over his decades in public life. "I know all about flipping, 30, 40 years I have been watching flippers. Everything is wonderful and then they get 10 years in jail and they flip on whoever the next highest one is or as high as you can go."
Suspects cooperating with prosecutors in exchange for a reduced sentence is a central feature of the criminal justice system, but Trump has long valued loyalty over legal precedent or practice.

Cohen pleaded guilty to myriad financial crimes this week in federal court in Manhattan, including campaign finance violations involving his attempt to buy the silence of women who claim they had sexual affairs with Trump.
"If you can say something bad about Donald Trump and you will go down to two years or three years, which is the deal he made, in all fairness to him, most people are going to do that," Trump said of Cohen, who he described as only a "part-time" lawyer. "And I have seen it many times. I have had many friends involved in this stuff. It's called flipping and it almost ought to be illegal."
While the President was aware for weeks of the possible damage Cohen could do in his dealings with federal prosecutors, Trump did not know until Tuesday afternoon that he would be so explicitly implicated in the campaign finance charges.
He sought to downplay the seriousness of the charges on Thursday, saying incorrectly they weren't actual crimes. Campaign law requires the disclosure of campaign donations and limits their size.

"What Michael Cohen pled to weren't crimes," Trump told Fox News, suggesting Cohen accepted a plea deal on the campaign finance violations because the other crimes he admitted to were more serious.
"He made a great deal. He was in another business totally unrelated to me where I guess there was fraud involved," Trump said.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/23/politics/trump-flipping-outlawed/

Gosh this is getting crazier and crazier....

then this :

A juror who sat on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's case said on Fox News Wednesday night that only one juror prevented a ruling on all 18 counts against Manafort

Paula Duncan said a lone juror could not come to a guilty verdict on 10 charges, ultimately leading T.S. Ellis III to declare a mistrial on 10 of Manafort's 18 counts.

A jury convicted Manafort on Tuesday of eight counts of tax and bank fraud, including five charges of filing false income tax returns, one count of failing to report foreign bank accounts and two counts of bank fraud. Ellis declared a mistrial on three counts of failing to report foreign bank accounts, five counts of bank fraud conspiracy and two counts of bank fraud.

Duncan identified herself as a Trump supporter and said she had hoped Manafort was innocent. But, Duncan said she was convinced of Manafort's guilt after seeing four full boxes of evidence from special counsel Robert Mueller’s legal team.

Duncan, who said she is a Trump supporter and that she had hoped Manafort would not be found guilty, said deliberations were heated, evening bringing some jurors to tears.

Though Duncan said the jury was not political in its conviction, she said she was skeptical of prosecutors’ intentions, which she implied were political.

Duncan said jurors never explicitly deliberated on Manafort's ties to Trump.

“Certainly Mr. Manafort got caught breaking the law, but he wouldn’t have gotten caught if they weren’t after President Trump," Duncan said, referencing Mueller's probe, which she described as a "witch hunt to try to find Russian collusion." The president frequently derides Mueller's investigation as a "witch hunt."

“Something that went through my mind is, this should have been a tax audit,” she said.

Trump praised Manafort as “brave” shortly after his conviction and suggested that Mueller brought an unfair case against Manafort in order to compel damaging testimony against him.

“I feel very badly for Paul Manafort and his wonderful family. ‘Justice’ took a 12 year old tax case, among other things, applied tremendous pressure on him and, unlike Michael Cohen, he refused to 'break' - make up stories in order to get a ‘deal.’ Such respect for a brave man!” Trump tweeted.

The day after Manafort's conviction, Trump pointed to the mistrial as evidence that he was being improperly targeted by Mueller.

“A large number of counts, ten, could not even be decided in the Paul Manafort case. Witch Hunt!” he tweeted Wednesday morning.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/403197-manafort-juror-one-holdout-prevented-ruling-on-all-18-counts

"Oh he only got convicted on 8 of the 18 counts of robbery that means he isn't a robber!"

The hell type of logic is that?

That juror is also completely insane. I am surprised they didn't throw that juror out completely.

Highlights:

"If I ever got impeached, I think the market would crash, I think everybody would be very poor," Trump said. "You would see numbers that you wouldn't believe."

"It's called flipping and it almost ought to be illegal," Trump said in the interview, adding he's witnessed similar scenarios over his decades in public life. "I know all about flipping, 30, 40 years I have been watching flippers. Everything is wonderful and then they get 10 years in jail and they flip on whoever the next highest one is or as high as you can go."

I think reality is starting to sink into our president.

**tneva82**

Ah so people should keep mouth shut their superiors escape law for their crimes? Yup sounds just like trump the clown

It's the big fish that's more important. Drug user less of interest than courier who is of lesser interest compared to producer and again organizer beats up even that

**Elemental**

cuda1179 wrote:
I do think that every person should be aware of their physical surroundings and physical limitations. However, saying every man is a potential rapist/murderer is like assuming every African American in a bad neighborhood is a potential mugger/drug dealer, or every police officer is a potential racist ready to shoot a minority.

The thing is, assuming a random man is harmless will be right over 99% of the time. But that fraction of a percentile casts a long shadow--it's why you have to check that your drink wasn't tampered with if you look away from it in a club, you have to check that your taxi drive is legit, it's why you need to stay in well-lit areas when walking home. When dealing with a strange man, you have to be aware that he could be a bad guy and not take risks until you have a firm reason to trust him.

Because the possible consequences of being caught out when that male stranger is one of that fraction are too dreadful to risk.

**whembly**

BaronIveagh wrote:
whembly wrote:
Proven over and over again?

Okay... you run with that.

Steele himself said he felt the dossier was mostly correct, and says so, in the dossier. Thus far, the majority of it that could be verified has proven accurate.

Remember that it was intended as a political briefing, not the be all and end all of Donald Trump's activities.

The majority was not verified as proven as accurate. In fact, the only thing that was absolutely verified was Carter Page's trip to Moscow (however his meeting with a GRU contact was hearsay).

However we have Steele admitting parts are unverified (which screams to me as a defensive posture, so we don't know how much, if any *he* verified the contents) and more importantly, BOTH James Comey and Andrew McCabe testified under oath to congress that the content of the Steele Dossier was never verified for accuracy by the FBI. That's problem #1, which was required by the FISA application. Now that they're both fired for cause... their credibility is called into question. But, if they're lying... I can't fathom a reason why they would lie about NOT verifying the content. Furthermore, the OIG is currently reviewing the actions over this ordeal.

The biggest issue i have over this ordeal... is not the fact that Steele got these opposition research from foreign sources, nor do I really care about that the HRC/DNC actually paid for with (without documenting the expense as a campaign expense)... to me, this is de jour of any campaign activities and usually when caught a fine is levied. My issue is if this dossier was used as a pretext to monitor an active campaign with the full might of the government and I'm more concerned of the precedent this sets in the future.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Pardoning is a two-edge sword.

On the one hand it gets Manafort out of jail free, which is good showing Trump supporting his old allies.

On the other hand, it confirms that the criminal charges were correct, as you can only pardon people who have been convicted. This is bad showing Trump supporting his old allied criminals.

It's the ultimate expression of Trump's involvement in the swamp he supposedly came to Washington to drain, but we've already seen Trumpists on TV forgiving him in advance, so I don't think it will affect his ratings at all.

It might energise Trump sceptic Republicans and the Democrat base for the November elections, though.

Not really...

Joe Fething Arapio was pardoned, and Trump suffered ziltch.

Arapio was convicted criminal contempt related to his hard-line tactics going after illegal immigrants in total disregard to their Civil Rights. To me, that's worst than any white collar crimes that Manafort may be pardoned for... (furthermore, a Manafort pardon doesn't shield him from NY state charges).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stevefamine wrote:
So when do you think Trump will get booted?

Are you ready for our good man Pence

I would flip my gak in total excitement for Pence.

Mike's "I don't go out to dinner with other women without my wife" policy would be a nice change from Trump's past lotharios...

**Easy E**

Someone is still talking about the Steele Dossier?

Considering what has transpired since, is it even relevant anymore? Perhaps, if you are trying to create a greater noise to signal ratio ? Who would want to do that before a mid-term?

**NinthMusketeer**

Elemental wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
I do think that every person should be aware of their physical surroundings and physical limitations. However, saying every man is a potential rapist/murderer is like assuming every African American in a bad neighborhood is a potential mugger/drug dealer, or every police officer is a potential racist ready to shoot a minority.

The thing is, assuming a random man is harmless will be right over 99% of the time. But that fraction of a percentile casts a long shadow--it's why you have to check that your drink wasn't tampered with if you look away from it in a club, you have to check that your taxi drive is legit, it's why you need to stay in well-lit areas when walking home. When dealing with a strange man, you have to be aware that he could be a bad guy and not take risks until you have a firm reason to trust him.

Because the possible consequences of being caught out when that male stranger is one of that fraction are too dreadful to risk.

Which creates a certain irony to men defending men who cast a bad light on the entire gender. It would be in the average man's best interest to condemn such activity immediately to say 'no, this is not how men are' but so many instead make excuses and thus create the culture of 'oh, this IS how men are' that they then complain about, ignorant to how they themselves have made that attitude mainstream. Taking a step back it is an amusing little cycle of self-flagellation. Of course cycles of social self-harm are kind of humanity's schtick.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
In other news, Federal aid to help out the oil industry against the effects of climate change that do not exist:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/big-oil-asks-government-to-protect-it-from-climate-change/ar-BBMhR6s?li=BBnbfcN

Added bonus of Republicans against welfare and federal spending readily promoting welfare and federal spending.

**whembly**

Easy E wrote:
Someone is still talking about the Steele Dossier?

Yes because it seems to be the bulk of the justification for the FISA warrants on the Trump campaign. The FISA law mandates that the government verifies the sourcing used to justify the warrants.

Considering what has transpired since, is it even relevant anymore? Perhaps, if you are trying to create a greater noise to signal ratio ? Who would want to do that before a mid-term?

You mean the Cohen/Manafort legal cases? Eh...

If Trump were to declassify the FISA warrants and any classified documents use thereof in October... yeah, you'd be correct.

And yes, he tweeted that he's looking for the "right time" to do just that.

**Wolfblade**

whembly wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
whembly wrote:
Proven over and over again?

Okay... you run with that.

Steele himself said he felt the dossier was mostly correct, and says so, in the dossier. Thus far, the majority of it that could be verified has proven accurate.

Remember that it was intended as a political briefing, not the be all and end all of Donald Trump's activities.

The majority was not verified as proven as accurate. In fact, the only thing that was absolutely verified was Carter Page's trip to Moscow (however his meeting with a GRU contact was hearsay).

However we have Steele admitting parts are unverified (which screams to me as a defensive posture, so we don't know how much, if any *he* verified the contents) and more importantly, BOTH James Comey and Andrew McCabe testified under oath to congress that the content of the Steele Dossier was never verified for accuracy by the FBI. That's problem #1, which was required by the FISA application. Now that they're both fired for cause... their credibility is called into question. But, if they're lying... I can't fathom a reason why they would lie about NOT verifying the content. Furthermore, the OIG is currently reviewing the actions over this ordeal.

The biggest issue i have over this ordeal... is not the fact that Steele got these opposition research from foreign sources, nor do I really care about that the HRC/DNC actually paid for with (without documenting the expense as a campaign expense)... to me, this is de jour of any campaign activities and usually when caught a fine is levied. My issue is if this dossier was used as a pretext to monitor an active campaign with the full might of the government and I'm more concerned of the precedent this sets in the future.

It was the Australian diplomat who was the real start of the investigation when he brought some info to the FBI when Papadopoulos got drunk and let some stuff slip while talking to him. On top of that, it was a conservative group who initially funded the dossier, and then it was later bought/funded further by the Democrats.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html

**whembly**

Wolfblade wrote:
whembly wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
whembly wrote:
Proven over and over again?

Okay... you run with that.

Steele himself said he felt the dossier was mostly correct, and says so, in the dossier. Thus far, the majority of it that could be verified has proven accurate.

Remember that it was intended as a political briefing, not the be all and end all of Donald Trump's activities.

The majority was not verified as proven as accurate. In fact, the only thing that was absolutely verified was Carter Page's trip to Moscow (however his meeting with a GRU contact was hearsay).

However we have Steele admitting parts are unverified (which screams to me as a defensive posture, so we don't know how much, if any *he* verified the contents) and more importantly, BOTH James Comey and Andrew McCabe testified under oath to congress that the content of the Steele Dossier was never verified for accuracy by the FBI. That's problem #1, which was required by the FISA application. Now that they're both fired for cause... their credibility is called into question. But, if they're lying... I can't fathom a reason why they would lie about NOT verifying the content. Furthermore, the OIG is currently reviewing the actions over this ordeal.

The biggest issue i have over this ordeal... is not the fact that Steele got these opposition research from foreign sources, nor do I really care about that the HRC/DNC actually paid for with (without documenting the expense as a campaign expense)... to me, this is de jour of any campaign activities and usually when caught a fine is levied. My issue is if this dossier was used as a pretext to monitor an active campaign with the full might of the government and I'm more concerned of the precedent this sets in the future.

It was the Australian diplomat who was the real start of the investigation when he brought some info to the FBI when Papadopoulos got drunk and let some stuff slip while talking to him.

And? That's just the initial beginning of Operation Crossfire... a counter-intelligence operation, not a criminal investigation. So who headed this operation? None other than the lead Counter-Intelligence FBI agent Peter Strzok:

(for days I thought this was faked... but, alas... it's not)

Ya know, an agent that was fired for cause for lying to internal investigators and for using FBI resources in obvious bias.

On top of that, it was a conservative group who initially funded the dossier,

Incorrect. Freebeacon hired Fusion GPS during the GOP primary... once Trump won the GOP primary, Freebeacon ended their relationship with Fusion GPS.

and then it was later bought/funded further by the Democrats.

It was after the GOP primary, where the DNC/HRC engaged Fusion GPS, who then hired Steele to draft up that dossier.

That is: DNC/HRC engaged with a law firm Perkin Coie to pay for Fusion GPS's efforts in gathering opposition research. It was Fusion GPS who then hired Christopher Steele to use his connections to write up a largely unverified, raw intelligence dossier.