Published response to "reconfiguration of LDS politics"

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Dredging up business investments from the past and using them to imply Russian collusion in the campaign strikes me as a witch hunt. Especially when you pull a quote out of context.

And so far has yielded zip that we know about. I'm old enough to remember Watergate and how quickly that unraveled. The contrast with this is striking.

The first thing any good criminal investigator does is follow the money.

Then you don't remember Watergate very well. The Watergate investigation took years. We're in the Trump administration just over 100 days.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The first thing any good criminal investigator does is follow the money.

Then you don't remember Watergate very well. The Watergate investigation took years. We're in the Trump administration just over 100 days.

The break-in occurred June 17, 1972. The public didn't much care about it then, as evidenced by the fact that Nixon was re-elected by a landslide in November of that year. The scandal didn't really start to impact the administration until after that. The Senate Watergate hearings didn't start until Feb. 7, 1973. Even so, that was less than a month after his inauguration. But the hearings didn't take "years."

Nixon resigned in August 1974. That's less than two years after the election. Nixon was flailing for a long time as his support base quickly dried up.

If you think the Trump-Moscow witch hunt is in any way comparable, it is you who don't remember Watergate very well.

 

Edited May 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To you, everybody to the right of Michael Moore is a white supremacist -- or so it seems.

Tip: If everybody is an extremist, then nobody is an extremist. Think about it.

 

No, people who claim and teach that white people are superior to other races are white supremacists.

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

There's irony in pointing fingers at all. If bullying is the issue then we only need to go back to 2014 to find how the right used fear and intimidation to silence Americans, in Utah no less:

"The right" is a nebulous group and usually people pick out particular people on the fringes of the movement to tar the whole. I think everyone here has agreed what happened at the U was egregious. Indeed I've brought it up numerous times.

Are you saying Shapiro is hypocritical and that he thinks Sarkeesian deserved what happened to her? Because he's been pretty forthright attacking the alt-right. If you don't, then what is the point of what you said as a response to pointing out Shapiro wrote a book attacking bullies? Isn't the way he stood up at great personal cost to the alt-right and Trump a demonstration that he's not hypocritical?

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

The alt right is a specific and well-defined group of white supremacist right wing agitators, affiliated around Trump and Breitbart who seem to have their own lingo full of dog whistles ("globalists", using triple parentheses to identify Jewish people, "deep state", "cucks" etc). Who is the alt left then? Any left winger who behaves poorly on Twitter?

I had a big response I'd posted earlier today but somehow it is missing.

Really quickly, I don't see being less well defined as an argument against a group's existence. The people who are doing these violent protests and the people who support them are the alt left. I'm not sure I need to say much more than that. Clearly they're organized. Just like the alt right they use twitter extensively to encourage people to come. If you read twitter during these events you can see them all talking in real time about it.

Like the alt right I think they're a pretty small group.

About the only difference is they've not really embraced the term alt left. I honestly don't recall if alt right came out of that group or was originally an epithet labeling them that over time they simply embraced -- if the latter I'd not be surprised to find the alt left embracing the term although they also might not simply because of how similar it is to alt left. But the label we use for the group is less significant that the dynamics of the group itself.

Edited May 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Were you alive in the early '70s? I was. I graduated high school and entered college during that period. From the break-in forward, it was clear Nixon was in a free-fall. He very quickly lost even his own party base in Congress. By the time he announced his resignation, the day before I left on my mission in August 1974, it was pretty much foregone.

By contrast, the only ones who say "it doesn't look good for Trump" are those like you who are still smarting over feeling blind-sided by the election results and whose heart's desire is to see a quick end to his presidency.

Do you want to know what I do when I need a bit of entertainment? I go on YouTube and pull up a video of some left-wing pundit or Democratic congressman desperately trying to explain himself when pressed with the fact that the Trump Administration has very recently undertaken some foreign policy actions that severely antagonized Moscow. Odd behavior for someone who supposedly conspired with Putin to rob the American electorate of their vote.

The Watergate break in was in 72, and he didn't resign until 74. Like I said, two years.

Trump is under investigation by the FBI. You seem to think that this is a normal everyday occurrence for a president.

Trump's flailing deflections with Syria seems to have fooled his base, at least.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, people who claim and teach that white people are superior to other races are white supremacists.

Then Coulter doesn't qualify. Neither does Ben Shapiro.

Your credibility is languishing, Gray.

You're reminding me of JulieM, who the other day accused Hugh Nibley of "misogynistic" behavior because he called Fawn Brodie "Mrs. B."

Edited May 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You need look no further than Twitter to behold a cacophany of shrill, witch-hunting voices.

The difference being, of course, that the prior errant polls were all weighted in favor of Clinton -- and heavily so. This time it's Trump -- and from no less a Democratic shill than the Washington Post.

While I agree that Twitter is filled with ranting morons it is in bad taste to mock the President in that way. At least respect the office.

And you have chugged the Kool-Aid if you believe they are biasing their polls. Congratulations on being a perfect receptacle for propaganda I guess.

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, Gray said:

The Watergate break in was in 72, and he didn't resign until 74. Like I said, two years.

I erred when I said Nixon was in a free-fall from the break-in forward. Actually, the scandal didn't really faze him until after the election, which he won by a landslide in 1972.

The free fall started after that. The Senate Watergate hearings began in February 1973, and Nixon resigned by August 1974.

So far, no Trump free fall that I can see.

Quote

Trump is under investigation by the FBI. You seem to think that this is a normal everyday occurrence for a president.

Trump is not under investigation by the FBI.

From the National Review (note the distinction between a criminal investigation and a counter-intelligence investigation, which, as I understand it, is essentially a fishing expedition):

 

 

Quote

 

There is no ongoing criminal investigation of President Trump or his campaign. I realize that may not be what you expect to hear, if you’re only casually consuming the news. But it’s what FBI director Jim Comey told Congress, and no available evidence contradicts it. Democrats are desperate to draw a parallel between Comey’s testimony Monday before the House Intelligence Committee — about an ongoing FBI investigation that includes any connections between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election — and Comey’s statements in July and October 2016 about the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server. But if you listen to what Comey actually told Congress under oath, you get a very different picture. Let’s quote the key portion: As you know, our practice is not to confirm the existence of ongoing investigations, especially those investigations that involve classified matters, but in unusual circumstances where it is in the public interest, it may be appropriate to do so as Justice Department policies recognize. This is one of those circumstances. I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed. Because it is an open ongoing investigation and is classified, I cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we are examining. At the request of congressional leaders, we have taken the extraordinary step in coordination with the Department of Justice of briefing this Congress’ leaders, including the leaders of this committee, in a classified setting in detail about the investigation but I can’t go into those details here. [Emphasis added.] In short, the investigation Comey references is not a criminal investigation; it’s a counterintelligence investigation, and crimes will be investigated or charged only if they happen to be uncovered in the process. Where does that leave us? First, it means that nobody determined that there was a basis to think a crime may have been committed — or that investigators were likely to uncover a crime — before starting an investigation. That’s not what people usually assume when they hear “FBI investigation.” Second, it means that the investigation has no target and no standards, and that there is no expectation it will have a public endpoint. Criminal investigations may be broad-ranging, but they are ultimately creatures of law: A crime may have been committed; investigators look to build an evidence-based case that one was, and by whom. There are witnesses, testimony, legal elements to satisfy, and often a statute of limitations that argues for wrapping things up. At the end, there’s a public accounting: an indictment and a trial or plea. If the investigation becomes publicly known, the FBI and DOJ may break from their usual practice in confidential grand-jury investigations and announce that it’s over. A counterintelligence investigation, on the other hand, seeks only information, which may be developed over a lengthy period of time, and because it carries no possibility of charges, it can never clear anyone of wrongdoing. Third, because they have no expected public endpoint, counterintelligence investigations can drag on more or less indefinitely, for years and years, without witnesses being called or a case being built. This Q&A with a couple of the committee’s Democrats is illustrative: HIMES: This committee, of course, is engaged in investigation about links, as you said, between the Trump campaign and the Russians, should there be any possible collusion. We’ve had a number of statements very early in the investigation that there was no evidence of collusion. This is still very early in our investigation, is it fair to say that you’re still relatively early in your investigation? COMEY: It’s hard to say because I don’t how much longer it will take. But we’ve been doing this — this investigation began in late July, so for counterintelligence investigation that’s a fairly short period of time. HIMES: So, you used the word coordination which to me suggests that you are in fact investigating whether there was coordination between U.S. persons and the Russians. Is it fair for me to assume that we shouldn’t simply dismiss the possibility that there was coordination or collusion between the Russian efforts and U.S. persons as an investigatory body? COMEY: Well all I can tell you is what we’re investigating which includes whether there was any coordination between people associated with the Trump campaign and the Russians. . . . SEWELL: Can you say with any specificity what kinds of coordination or contacts you’re looking at in your investigation generally when confronted with something like this? COMEY: I can’t. SEWELL: Can you discuss whether or not there was any knowledge by any Trump- related person and the Russians? COMEY: I can’t. SEWELL: So with respect to any ongoing investigation, whether the specificity of the person, U.S. person or otherwise, you can’t comment on any of that. COMEY: Correct. SEWELL: OK. Can you characterize what the nature of your investigation generally, wouldn’t — when you do an investigation of this sort, can you talk a little bit about the process, generally? COMEY: Not a whole lot. I can tell you we . . . coordinate with our brothers and sisters in other parts of the intelligence community to see what they may know from around the world that might be useful to us and we use all the different tools and techniques that we use in all of our investigations. That’s probably the most — I’m not sure that’s useful to you, but that’s the most I can say. SEWELL: How long does a counterintelligence investigation like this usually take? You said that it started in July. COMEY: There is no “usually.” It’s hard — it’s impossible to say, frankly. [Emphasis added.] All of this is why the FBI would normally never reveal to the public that it is conducting a counterintelligence investigation. Such an investigation is a matter of “Spy vs. Spy,” aimed not at a resolution but at evaluating vulnerabilities and probing potential assets. Because national security is at stake, innocent people can be freely investigated, there’s no due process, and there are effectively no rules. The only protection is that these investigations don’t become public. Until now. This is not to say that the Trump campaign is wholly innocent here, or that no investigation should happen. Counterintelligence investigations are opened for a reason, too. But those reasons are fundamentally political rather than legal in nature. Which is why the voters, who on the Democratic side are drinking deeply of conspiracy theories about the 2016 election, deserve a public accounting by Congress rather than vague declarations that “an investigation is ongoing” from the FBI, followed by no public outcome or reckoning, ever. Of course, Comey added that “as with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.” But that’s just FBI-speak for “if we find anything, we’ll go after it.” It’s not a statement that they have any reason to expect that they’ll find anything, much less that they have any evidence. The contrast with the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton and her inner circle in 2015–16 could not be more stark. That investigation involved a discrete, deliberate, publicly known event (the unprecedented establishment and use of an unsecure private e-mail server to handle a large volume of the official e-mail traffic to and from the secretary of state and her key advisers) and whether anyone involved had violated a specific federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 793(f): Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense . . . through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. There being no dispute that Clinton had signed off on creation of the server and its use in conducting State Department business, the key questions were whether (1) e-mails on the server contained information “relating to the national defense” and (2) anyone involved had acted “through gross negligence.” These were questions governed by law, the answers to which could result in criminal prosecutions, as had happened in similar past cases. Testimony was taken, documents were examined. This is lawyers’ work. By contrast, nearly nobody has suggested even a vague idea of what crimes the FBI might be investigating now, who might have committed them, or what evidence might prove them or fail to do so. Only one Democrat, Connecticut congressman Jim Himes, raised a theory at the hearing, which Comey refused to touch: HIMES: First, Director Comey, can you tell me what the Foreign Agents Registration Act is? COMEY: Sure. Not in an expert way, but it’s a statute that requires people who are acting as agents of a non-U.S. government to register with the United States. HIMES: . . . [T]he National Security Division of the Department of Justice writes [in] their manual. The purpose of FARA . . . is to ensure that the U.S. government and the people of the United States are informed of the source of information and the identity of persons attempting to influence U.S. public opinion, policy, and laws. . . . Would you agree that guarding against foreign espionage or foreign influence measures falls under this heading? COMEY: Yes. HIMES: In general, is willful violation or failure to register pursuant to this law in some circumstances a crime? COMEY: I believe it is. I’m not an expert on FARA, but I believe it is. HIMES: And it could lead, certainly, to counterintelligence concerns, right? COMEY: Yes. HIMES: Now, Paul Manafort, as reported in the New York Times and other outlets and his deputy, Rick Gates ran a campaign in Washington to lobby government officials and push positive press coverage of pro Russian-Ukrainian officials. Paul Manafort began officially working for former Ukrainian President Yanukovych at least as far back as 2007, according to the Washington Post. The lobbying was only discovered by Ukraine’s new National Anti- Corruption Bureau, which found secret ledgers in Kiev, indicating almost $13 million in undisclosed cash payments from Ukrainian government coffers . . . to Paul Manafort for lobbying done between 2007 and 2012, for Mr. Yanukovych. . . . Director Comey, did Paul Manafort ever register as a foreign agent under FARA? COMEY: That’s not something I can comment on. . . . I really don’t wanna get into answering questions about any individual U.S. person. . . . Look, I’m — it’s obvious from the public record. But I don’t wanna start down the road of answering questions about somebody. HIMES: . . . I think the facts would show that he never did register. . . . It appears, from our standpoint, that we . . . had perhaps somebody who should’ve registered under FARA pulling the strings [in the Republican platform]. . . . is it fair to say that the line that exists in the United States between government officers and government officials, is blurred in Russia? That there may be oligarchs or other individuals who on the surface appear to be private citizens, but who have connections to this close-knit cabal who might be agents of influence or might be doing the Kremlin’s bidding in contact with others? COMEY: That’s fair to say and one of our counterintelligence missions is to try to understand who are those people and are they acting on behalf of the Russian government, those Russian citizens. [Emphasis added.] That sort of fact-gathering is useful work, but a far cry from a criminal investigation. Other theories of criminality are even more far-fetched, and advanced in the complete absence of evidence: violations of the Logan Act (as Jim Geraghty has noted, nobody has ever been prosecuted under it), or conspiracy, or aiding and abetting WikiLeaks’s publication of the stolen Podesta e-mails. In reality, Trump’s detractors are left hoping that the FBI might either find a crime, create one by prosecuting someone for lying to investigators or perjuring themselves, or just never declare the investigation closed. At some level, Democrats and liberal commentators know this. Indeed, they are counting on the fact that there will never be a public end to such an investigation, nor any need to back up insinuations of wrongdoing with facts or evidence (as would be the case for either an FBI criminal investigation or a congressional inquiry). That’s why Chuck Schumer is making this the centerpiece of his argument for filibustering Judge Gorsuch, an exercise in pure trolling: It’s an all-purpose get-out-of-governing-free card for Democrats, allowing them to exercise their id on the assumption that their voting base neither knows better nor cares. Trump, through a variety of exercises of bad judgment, has earned a thorough and public investigation of what (if anything) his campaign did to encourage or collaborate with Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. If you care about the integrity of American elections and government, you should want that. But if your goal is merely to throw a tantrum over Clinton’s loss, an investigation that never ends and never requires any evidence of a crime is an ideal excuse to avoid responsibility for governing. — Dan McLaughlin is an attorney in New York City and an NRO contributing columnist.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446068/donald-trump-fbi-russia-investigation-counterintelligence-not-criminal

 

 

 

 

Quote

Trump's flailing deflections with Syria seems to have fooled his base, at least.

You're saying Trump undertook a military action and risked war just to throw the witch hunting hounds off the scent?*

You're as silly as the leftist pundits and partisan Democrats I spoke of earlier.

(*And it would have worked, too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids and their mangy dog.")

Edited May 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

While I agree that Twitter is filled with ranting morons it is in bad taste to mock the President in that way. At least respect the office.

And you have chugged the Kool-Aid if you believe they are biasing their polls. Congratulations on being a perfect receptacle for propaganda I guess.

You're getting me wrong. I don't believe the Washington Post biased their poll. Though they would have dearly loved to report otherwise, the poll showed what it showed, and I believe the Post reported it accurately.

And I've mocked the president? You lost me there, bro. How have I done that?

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The break-in occurred June 17, 1972. The public didn't much care about it then, as evidenced by the fact that Nixon was re-elected by a landslide in November of that year. The scandal didn't really start to impact the administration until after that. The Senate Watergate hearings didn't start until Feb. 7, 1973. Even so, that was less than a month after his inauguration. But the hearings didn't take "years."

Nixon resigned in August 1974. That's less than two years after the election. Nixon was flailing for a long time as his support base quickly dried up.

If you think the Trump-Moscow witch hunt is in any way comparable, it is you who don't remember Watergate very well.

 

The vast majority of Americans were unaware of the machinations of the Nixon White House in the lead up to the election. "Deep throat" was an inside man. True, but irrelevant. Much of the criminal actions of the Nixon Administration were done before the election became generally aware of it. The attempts at a coverup of a "Third Rate Burglary" is what finally doomed it. 

The Republican response to the investigation of the attempt at a coverup is what finally brought Nixon down.

Hummm Some "Witch Hunt" you've got there. Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Roger Stone, Donald Trump's sons, son-in-law, and at least 20 more intimates of the Trump campaign, under FBI investigation for possible collusion with Russia. I'm not saying whether they are guilty of not. No jury has been impaneled yet. We have Michael Flynn asking for full immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony. In his own words: "Getting immunity means you probably committed a crime".

[Gray]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I had a big response I'd posted earlier today but somehow it is missing.

Really quickly, I don't see being less well defined as an argument against a group's existence. The people who are doing these violent protests and the people who support them are the alt left. I'm not sure I need to say much more than that. Clearly they're organized. Just like the alt right they use twitter extensively to encourage people to come. If you read twitter during these events you can see them all talking in real time about it.

Like the alt right I think they're a pretty small group.

About the only difference is they've not really embraced the term alt left. I honestly don't recall if alt right came out of that group or was originally an epithet labeling them that over time they simply embraced -- if the latter I'd not be surprised to find the alt left embracing the term although they also might not simply because of how similar it is to alt left. But the label we use for the group is less significant that the dynamics of the group itself.

The problem with that is that it's only your personal definition that you've come up with on your own.

The term alt right was coined by Richard Spencer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

There's no wiki page on the "alt left", apparently.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then Coulter doesn't qualify. Neither does Ben Shapiro.

Your credibility is languishing, Gray.

You're reminding me of JulieM, who the other day accused Hugh Nibley of "misogynistic" behavior because he called Fawn Brodie "Mrs. B."

Coulter does quality - she's been sharply critical of non-white groups for years. Ben Shapiro apparently not.

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/05/ann-coulter-is-having-a-day-on-twitter/

(Tip: it's laughable to talk about credibility on message boards. It's an insult with no substance. Let's act like adults, not teenagers.)

 

Edited May 9, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I erred when I said Nixon was in a free-fall from the break-in forward. Actually, the scandal didn't really faze him until after the election, which he won by a landslide in 1972.

The free fall started after that. The Senate Watergate hearings began in February 1973, and Nixon resigned by August 1974.

So far, no Trump free fall that I can see.

100 days vs two years. Not much of a comparison.

 

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Trump is not under investigation by the FBI.

Actually he is.

 

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From the National Review (note the distinction between a criminal investigation and a counter-intelligence investigation, which, as I understand it, is essentially a fishing expedition):

I'm sure your right wing sources will continue to send soothing messages. Meanwhile, Trump is still under investigation.

 

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

You're saying Trump undertook a military action and risked war just to throw the witch hunting hounds off the scent?*

Indeed he did. His escalation with North Korea was for the same reason.

It's also the same reason he tried to intimidate Sally Yeats over twitter yesterday, on the day she was testifying. This is what Trump does.

 

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're as silly as the leftist pundits and partisan Democrats I spoke of earlier.

(*And it would have worked, too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids and their mangy dog.")

Like I said, you're free to stick your head in the sand if you like.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The vast majority of Americans were unaware of the machinations of the Nixon White House in the lead up to the election. "Deep throat" was an inside man. True, but irrelevant. Much of the criminal actions of the Nixon Administration were done before the election became generally aware of it. The attempts at a coverup of a "Third Rate Burglary" is what finally doomed it. 

The Republican response to the investigation of the attempt at a coverup is what finally brought Nixon down.

Hummm Some "Witch Hunt" you've got there. Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Roger Stone, Donald Trump's sons, son-in-law, and at least 20 more intimates of the Trump campaign, under FBI investigation for possible collusion with Russia. I'm not saying whether they are guilty of not. No jury has been impaneled yet. We have Michael Flynn asking for full immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony. In his own words: "Getting immunity means you probably committed a crime".

Read the link in my last post about this not being a criminal investigation, but rather, a counter-intelligence investigation. I'm not sure you understand the difference.

As I said in my prior post, a counter-intelligence investigation is essentially a fishing expedition, where there is no certainty that a crime has been committed, much less a suspect in the commission of a crime. So there is very good reason why you cannot say "whether they are guilty or not." There is, as far as can be known at this point, no basis for believing anyone is guilty of anything. There may never be any such basis, unless the investigation uncovers something. It may continue on indefinitely without turning up anything. The only reason it is going on at all is that some congressional Democrats are determined to bring down the Trump presidency because they are still pissed off about being blindsided by the election results. An understandable motive, but not a respectable one.

Do you have documentation and context for your quote from Michael Flynn? You must know by now how I detest out-of-context quotation.

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, Gray said:

Coulter does quality - she's been sharply critical of non-white groups for years. Ben Shapiro apparently not.

 

Being "critical of non-whilte groups" does not make one a white supremacist. Surely you must recognize this.

To give an example, I can find the "Black LIves Matter" movement contemptible (in fact, I do), but that doesn't make me a white supremacist. My basis for holding them in contempt is not race, but their ideology and behavior.

The sheriff of Milwaukee County in Wisconsin, Don Clark, is black, and he is even more contemptuous of them than I am. Does that make him a "white supremacist"?

Quote

(Tip: it's laughable to talk about credibility on message boards. It's an insult with no substance. Let's act like adults, not teenagers.)

Determining credibility is a legitimate part of a debate, whether it be on a message board or not. It has nothing to do with being a teenager.

In courtroom trials, jurors are instructed to weigh the credibility of witnesses. It is very much adult behavior.

Making too frequent accusations such as "white supremacy" that lack substance does impact one's credibility. I am entitled to point that out.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

100 days vs two years. Not much of a comparison.

As I've said, things were looking bad for Nixon long before his resignation.

It's not looking bad for Trump, as much as you wish it were otherwise.

Quote

Actually he is.

Did you not bother to read my link? He is not under criminal investigation, because there is no such investigation going on. It is a counter-intelligence investigation, a fact-finding mission, with no criminal activity having been identified, and hence, no criminal suspect.

Quote

I'm sure your right wing sources will continue to send soothing messages. Meanwhile, Trump is still under investigation.

 

Constantly repeating it doesn't make it so. At some point, you must face facts.

Quote

 

Indeed he did. His escalation with North Korea was for the same reason.

It's also the same reason he tried to intimidate Sally Yeats over twitter yesterday, on the day she was testifying. This is what Trump does.

 

This is getting more than a little nutty.

Quote

Like I said, you're free to stick your head in the sand if you like.

Thank you. In case I ever decide to do so, can I regard that as standing permission?

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

The problem with that is that it's only your personal definition that you've come up with on your own.

The term alt right was coined by Richard Spencer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

There's no wiki page on the "alt left", apparently.

There's two questions. Whether there is a group such as I described and whether it's fair to call them the alt-left. The former seems undeniable so I take it you aren't disputing that there are organized groups like antifa engaged in these actions. So I assume your problem is with the label "alt left." Is that right?

I didn't know that about Richard Spencer. That's interesting.

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I've said, things were looking bad for Nixon long before his resignation.

It's not looking bad for Trump, as much as you wish it were otherwise.

Did you not bother to read my link? He is not under criminal investigation, because there is no such investigation going on. It is a counter-intelligence investigation, a fact-finding mission, with no criminal activity having been identified, and hence, no criminal suspect.

Constantly repeating it doesn't make it so. At some point, you must face facts.

This is getting more than a little nutty.

Thank you. In case I ever decide to do so, can I regard that as standing permission?

And now Trump just fired the person leading the investigation into his collusion with Russia. But there's probably nothing to see here. 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're getting me wrong. I don't believe the Washington Post biased their poll. Though they would have dearly loved to report otherwise, the poll showed what it showed, and I believe the Post reported it accurately.

And I've mocked the president? You lost me there, bro. How have I done that?

But you implied they biased the polls saying Clinton would win before the election. They are scrupulously honest when they agree with you and leftist shills when they do not.

I guess I was too subtle. I was saying that mocking angry lunatics on Twitter is mocking the President because he is an angry loon on Twitter.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

But you implied they biased the polls saying Clinton would win before the election. They are scrupulously honest when they agree with you and leftist shills when they do not.

I guess I was too subtle. I was saying that mocking angry lunatics on Twitter is mocking the President because he is an angry loon on Twitter.

No, I never implied they biased the polls. I only know that the polls were wrong. I never claimed to know why. 

[Rajah Manchou]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

"The right" is a nebulous group and usually people pick out particular people on the fringes of the movement to tar the whole. I think everyone here has agreed what happened at the U was egregious. Indeed I've brought it up numerous times.

I cannot find a single instance of any pundit on the right condemning the GamerGate threats. Milo Yiannapoulis' unwavering support and encouragement of GamerGaters is the main reason he is now so popular with the alt-right. Here's how he immediately responded to the USU shooter threats:

Incredibly, GamerGate Is Winning – But You Won't Read that Anywhere In the Terrified Liberal Media
The Authoritarian Left Was on Course to Win the Culture Wars… then Along Came #GamerGate
Feminist Bullies Tearing the Video Game Industry Apart
Sneaky Little Hobbitses: How Gamers Transformed The Culture Wars

After bomb threats were made and events were cancelled, instead of condemnation from the right, we got laughable stuff like this praising and encouraging the movement...

"It has been a year since I wrote my first article on GamerGate, the remarkable online uprising against atrocious journalism and wacky social justice warriors in the world of video games. What a year it’s been!...The more I consider what gamers have done over the past twelve months – how they have struck fear into the previously unchallenged bullies of the authoritarian Left, with their kooky, discredited, preposterous theories and terrible journalism – the more I am convinced: gamers are something like the hobbits of the culture wars....So, here’s a confession. I don’t just call myself a reporter covering GamerGate any more. I am a proud member of the movement myself. And it’s a wonderful, remarkable group to be in, packed full of some of the quirkiest, smartest, funniest, most welcoming, tolerant and warm people I’ve ever met. Here’s to another terrific 12 months, s***lords!" - Milo Yiannapoulis

Edited May 10, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I never implied they biased the polls. I only know that the polls were wrong. I never claimed to know why. 

You said they were "weighted in favor of Clinton". Nice try at a dodge though.

[Rajah Manchou]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Are you saying Shapiro is hypocritical and that he thinks Sarkeesian deserved what happened to her? Because he's been pretty forthright attacking the alt-right. If you don't, then what is the point of what you said as a response to pointing out Shapiro wrote a book attacking bullies? Isn't the way he stood up at great personal cost to the alt-right and Trump a demonstration that he's not hypocritical?

I don't think Shapiro thinks Sarkeesian deserved what happened to her. More than likely he hasn't even thought very deeply about the incident since it does not support his argument that all the bullies are on the left. I can't find any statement from him or anybody else on the right condemning GamerGate's use of intimidation and threats to shut down her speaking event. The only comment I could find about it on Shapiro's Daily Wire was this from an article about feminist failures: "Gamergate. Basically, feminists tried to belittle and shame gamers for their “sexist” and “misogynistic” videogames. This was a complete fail because they probably did not anticipate their worst nightmare coming to the defense of the gamers who just wanted to be left alone, Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos."

That's far from a condemnation of alt-right bullying. Sounds more like a ringing endorsement of GamerGate's methods.

I'm not sure if that constitutes hypocrisy or not, but if Shapiro thinks he was slighted for not being approved to speak at DePaul then he needs to consider all the events that led to that decision. Again, it was a consequence of Milo's Dangerous F***** tour stop at DePaul. 

Shapiro may speak out against alt-right ideology, but if he fails to also condemn alt-right methods of bullying, intimidation and violent threats to shut down liberal free speech, I don't know how effectively he can criticize the crazies on the left who use those same methods to shut down conservative free speech. 

Edited May 10, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

And now Trump just fired the person leading the investigation into his collusion with Russia. But there's probably nothing to see here. 

It is like he is trying to reenact Watergate now. I like John Oliver's description of the whole thing when he called it "Stupid Watergate":

"And that is why this story is Stupid Watergate: It could very well take down the government, but nobody involved understands why or how to cover it up or what the government ****ing is or possibly how to breathe without getting regular reminders.”