(02-05-2018, 11:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Did they? Can you really say that when he didn't win the popular vote? How can it be said the people won when the majority did not vote for him to the extent that he did not even have a plurality of the vote?
Because, they electoral system was set up to take into account high populous States like New York and California. The rest of the Nation matters.
Put that shit on a T-shirt...
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
(02-05-2018, 11:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, there is a reason that in most professional positions that interdepartmental relationships are taboo. Particularly in this situation, when you have two individuals that are supposed to be party neutral, exchanging sentiments that are clearly in opposition to the pending POTUS that they are supposedly sworn to defend, showing bias in text conversation is not a good thing.
I agree it's not a good thing. However I don't expect FBI agents to be party neutral, I just expect them to not let their personal political beliefs influence their professional work. I don't know on what grounds one could credibly accuse the two of that.
I just don't see the huge deal here. They started a relationship, that's not good but it does probably happen from time to time and is hard to avoid, the guy got removed from the investigation, and that's that. Seems appropriate to me. It's not like that Russia thing was just hanging on those two.
(02-05-2018, 11:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: One of those may have been neutral in their own right, but due to the relationship, they may show bias to appease the mate.
Eh, but that's mere speculation, and I don't even feel that's a particular strong theoretical argument to begin with. They're FBI agents, not teenagers.
(02-05-2018, 11:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: I agree it's not a good thing. However I don't expect FBI agents to be party neutral, I just expect them to not let their personal political beliefs influence their professional work. I don't know on what grounds one could credibly accuse the two of that.
I just don't see the huge deal here. They started a relationship, that's not good but it does probably happen from time to time and is hard to avoid, the guy got removed from the investigation, and that's that. Seems appropriate to me. It's not like that Russia thing was just hanging on those two.
Eh, but that's mere speculation, and I don't even feel that's a particular strong theoretical argument to begin with. They're FBI agents, not teenagers.
Of course I'm speculating. However, guidelines for professional organizations are generally based on experience from past situations.
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
(02-05-2018, 10:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because of some of the retirements, there is going to be a lot of money and effort pumped into his district to get him out of office. His district went to Trump at 53% last year, so it's going to be a struggle and they were going to ignore it, but with recent events they are going to focus more on him.
That's no surprise. What a man, he sacrificed his reputation for his president so he could shortly bath in fake vindication. Now that's devotion, and it's also disgusting and I'd hope it makes him vulnerable.
(I think it would be kind of cool though if Nunes was some kind of double agent who just publicly faked alliance to get to Trump, so he could finally reveal his secrets and in the end turn out be democracy's hero in all this.)
(02-05-2018, 11:40 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Of course I'm speculating. However, guidelines for professional organizations are generally based on experience from past situations.
I reiterate that it's not good that these two had an affair. But let's keep that in perspective. There's no evidence that this lead to any of them forgetting about their professional duty. And even if what you speculate about were true and one tried to impress the other by being extra-dedicated to show fault on team Trump's part. It wouldn't mean that the Russia investigation is a scam or that Trump is "totally vindicated". Realitically speaking this affair means little to nothing, and still Trump's media defense has to go with that as currently their best option to discredit the whole investigation. That's just quite weak.
(02-06-2018, 12:03 AM)hollodero Wrote: I reiterate that it's not good that these two had an affair. But let's keep that in perspective. There's no evidence that this lead to any of them forgetting about their professional duty. And even if what you speculate about were true and one tried to impress the other by being extra-dedicated to show fault on team Trump's part. It wouldn't mean that the Russia investigation is a scam or that Trump is "totally vindicated". Realitically speaking this affair means little to nothing, and still Trump's media defense has to go with that as currently their best option to discredit the whole investigation. That's just quite weak.
Republican mind tricks.
Private text messages expressing political opinions are bad...
Giant production of a top secret memo that was intentionally misleading for political reasons is good.
Trash the FBI.
Make the kremlin informant out to be the victim.
God damn disgusting.
Oh and dear leader is now calling people who didnt stand and clap for him treasonous.
(02-05-2018, 08:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: lol. "Kept her issues quiet."
Had Comey did his job from the beginning there wouldn’t be secret meeting between Lynch and Clinton. Dems would have probably nominated Bernie . Ofc that is if the DNC would allow it. They probably wouldn’t because they are corrupt
Quote:The central, and most damaging, accusation in the memo published Friday by House Republicans is that the FBI failed to disclose the bias of one of its sources when it applied to wiretap Carter Page. “Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding [British agent Christopher] Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials,” charged the memo. That was hardly explosive, or the kind of damning failure that would send people to prison or be worse than Watergate, as Trump defenders charged. But it was something. If true.
It’s not true. As the Ellen Nakashima reported, the application to wiretap Page did disclose that one of the sources of intelligence to generate suspicion that Page might be acting illegally came from a political source. It was mentioned in a footnote on the FISA application. Nunes was asked about this on Fox & Friends. He did not deny the point. Instead he insisted that it wasn’t good enough because the disclosure was merely a footnote. “A footnote saying something may be political is a far cry from letting the American people know that the Democrats and the Hillary campaign paid for dirt that the FBI then used to get a warrant on an American citizen to spy on another campaign,” the distinguished Republican explained.
Notice how The FBI LIED about the Steele dossier has been scaled back to, The FBI did not highlight the truth about the Steele Dossier in the part of the application we bothered to read. So now the main attack on the FBI is about font size. No doubt all the subsequent memos Nunes is promising to release will have additional bombshells.
I had to explain to some of my son's friends what a "toadie" was (unrelated to this or politics) but Nunes is a toadie to the nth degree.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Without the Steele file the fisa warrant on carter page is never given. The Steele file was bought and paid for by Hillary and the DNC. It should never have been used to get a fisa warrant.
The corruption is in regards to Hillary Clinton investigation. That needs it’s own special counsel or sessomns needs to go after it .
(02-05-2018, 09:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You don't believe that having emotional relationship effects one's judgement???
I think every single human has emotional relationships. It's what sets us apart from other animals. I don't believe that this means no one is capable of doing their job without it affecting their judgement.
(02-05-2018, 11:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Because, they electoral system was set up to take into account high populous States like New York and California. The rest of the Nation matters.
Put that shit on a T-shirt...
But you're still saying the people won when the people didn't vote for Trump. The candidate that was supported more by the people was Clinton. Period. You can talk all you like about the reasoning behind the EC; that doesn't matter. The people voted for Clinton over Trump. So the people did not win.
(02-06-2018, 12:26 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Had Comey did his job from the beginning there wouldn’t be secret meeting between Lynch and Clinton. Dems would have probably nominated Bernie . Ofc that is if the DNC would allow it. They probably wouldn’t because they are corrupt
Actually, had Comey done his job, no public statement would have been made. His statement about Clinton was outside of the normal operations of the DoJ/FBI. In sending his letter and making his statement, he put the thumb of the DoJ/FBI on the electoral scales. This is a section of government that is not supposed to be involved in the politics like that.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(02-05-2018, 11:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Because, they electoral system was set up to take into account high populous States like New York and California. The rest of the Nation matters.
Put that shit on a T-shirt...
This modern misconception makes sense if you believe that the way the electoral college works today was how it worked in 1788.
The worry about Virginia (the biggest state) dominating the vote wasn't really the major concern. They prevented electors (before the 12th Amendment) from casting two votes for someone in their home state. The use of electors tied to representation was to appease slave states that benefitted from this system thanks to the 3/5th's compromise.
Also, in the original system you voted for electors not candidates. The original system had electors assigned at the state's choosing. Some states tied them to districts, some tied them to the winner of the state's popular vote, and some assigned some to be chosen by the legislature. These electors mostly stated their support of a candidate, but were free to choose whoever they wanted. There was no concern for the will of the people. Electors existed to ensure that only a qualified individual was elected.
(02-06-2018, 09:34 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: But you're still saying the people won when the people didn't vote for Trump. The candidate that was supported more by the people was Clinton. Period. You can talk all you like about the reasoning behind the EC; that doesn't matter. The people voted for Clinton over Trump. So the people did not win.
What I'm saying is that the framer's of the Constitution had the foresight to ensure that folks in rural areas wouldn't be subjugated in favor of the views of those in a few population centers.
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
(02-06-2018, 02:55 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Without the Steele file the fisa warrant on carter page is never given. The Steele file was bought and paid for by Hillary and the DNC. It should never have been used to get a fisa warrant.
The corruption is in regards to Hillary Clinton investigation. That needs it’s own special counsel or sessomns needs to go after it .
This is a complete misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what actually happened and barely deserves a response other than to point that out.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(02-06-2018, 09:54 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What I'm saying is that the framer's of the Constitution had the foresight to ensure that folks in rural areas wouldn't be subjugated in favor of the views of those in a few population centers.
Yea, this is wrong. The largest state was Virginia which was rural and did not have one of the few population centers. Same with the 3rd largest state, North Carolina. Not to mention cities at the time were not the same as we understand them today.
(02-06-2018, 09:54 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What I'm saying is that the framer's of the Constitution had the foresight to ensure that folks in rural areas wouldn't be subjugated in favor of the views of those in a few population centers.
But that does not refute my statement. You're argument is that this is the way it was intended, which is not an argument I am making. My argument is that you can't say the people won when the people voted for someone else.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(02-06-2018, 09:50 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This modern misconception makes sense if you believe that the way the electoral college works today was how it worked in 1788.
The worry about Virginia (the biggest state) dominating the vote wasn't really the major concern. They prevented electors (before the 12th Amendment) from casting two votes for someone in their home state. The use of electors tied to representation was to appease slave states that benefitted from this system thanks to the 3/5th's compromise.
Also, in the original system you voted for electors not candidates. The original system had electors assigned at the state's choosing. Some states tied them to districts, some tied them to the winner of the state's popular vote, and some assigned some to be chosen by the legislature. These electors mostly stated their support of a candidate, but were free to choose whoever they wanted. There was no concern for the will of the people. Electors existed to ensure that only a qualified individual was elected.
They kind of shit the bed on that one, huh?
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(02-06-2018, 10:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: They kind of shit the bed on that one, huh?
Well, to be fair the system is so different now that many states now compel them to vote a certain way.
We have a document based essay on the electoral college that we've had to edit. One document shows all of the times the popular vote winner lost, so we had to add one more. Another has a quote defending the EC by stating that it protects the two party system and prevents eccentric millionaires and single issue demagogues from jumping in.
The NYT is reporting that Trump's lawyers are trying to convince him to not go under oath with Mueller as they're afraid he will catch Trump lying. This concern seems warranted given the sheer amount of patently false statements he makes on a regular basis for no apparent reason.
(02-06-2018, 11:31 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The NYT is reporting that Trump's lawyers are trying to convince him to not go under oath with Mueller as they're afraid he will catch Trump lying. This concern seems warranted given the sheer amount of patently false statements he makes on a regular basis for no apparent reason.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
