MinotStateBeav said:
not in the places that mattered
calbear93 said:By this administration, I included the DOJ. I understand that there has to be at least some separation between the white house and the DOJ, but the DOJ is still under the oversight of the president, with the attorney general appointed by the president. As such, this lack of competent PR professionals who should have messaging and Q&A all lined up on something like this, including PR professionals at DOJ, is just consistent with prior poor messaging from the West Wing, East Wing, and pentagon, etc. As you know, crisis management and public credibility are keys to thriving in a disruptive event. This administration as a whole looks incompetent because their messaging is so horrible. Messaging to the public is like an elevator speech to an investor. You don't get a lot of chance to dictate the story and gain credibility before the story takes off, your competitors dictate the story, and the public has turned against you. So, why does it seem like they had no messaging planned?Unit2Sucks said:calbear93 said:Fair points. I do remain bothered and would love for there to be more clarity. I wish this administration had some actual professionals on the PR front. Their messaging has been absolutely horrible on so many fronts on so many big events.Unit2Sucks said:
[I think it's fair to question whether the juice is worth the squeeze, but it rings a bit hollow from a lot of people who are singing a different tune now than they were when Hillary was under investigation. The fact that Trump was POTUS doesn't make him any more above the law than it made Hillary who at the time was the frontrunner for the presidency and former first lady. I don't know whether you argued that Comey shouldn't have made any public statements in 2016 or how you felt about that situation but I think we can both readily agree that there are conservatives taking wildly different positions now. I never found fault with the investigation of Hillary - just with Comey's interference in the election with his ridiculous press conference and his October surprise.
The people involved in the Trump matter apparently attempted to make this as drama-free as possible (chose to do it when Trump wasn't at MAL) but you can only lower the profile so much. They have been waiting for 20 months for him to return this classified information and something triggered this search. We don't yet know exactly what it is but now reports are coming out that a confidential informant was working with the Feds. Yet another one of those people who Trump and MAGA land will have to claim is a bad hombre who hates America. We've seen this time and time again with Trump and know how the story goes. Trump forced the FBI's hand here and is now complaining that they did what he forced them to do. And lying about planting evidence because he knows he's guilty.
I do understand the concern that there are some negative repercussions to enforcing the law and there are a number of different circumstances where the Feds don't - for example, they handle sovereign citizens much differently now than 30 years ago. The fact that the Feds didn't collect all this classified information in early 2021 when it was learned he had taken it is an example of that and could lead to people claiming that Trump was treated as though he was above the law. At some point push comes to shove.
Will this ultimately be helpful to Trump's cause to be re-elected by idiots? I don't know. I do know that there will be a lot of Trump "critics" who will continue to shield him from criticism. Not you, but others here and certainly others out there."Trump is the first POTUS to be raided by the FBI. He's also the first to be impeached twice, the first to be a Kremlin asset, and the first to be a central figure in a transnational crime syndicate for numerous decades while our intel and law enforcement looked the other way."
— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) August 10, 2022
As a point of clarification (as I think I also indicated here at the time), I think what Comey did right before the election with his letter and press conference was horrible violation of norms, showed lack of judgment, and was very CYA and self-serving. And we ended up with Trump. Purists will be the death of us all.
I'm not sure what the Biden administration can do on the PR front. They shouldn't comment on active law enforcement investigations. Trump decided to publicize this for political reasons.
Seems like Biden's hands are tied on this.
Let's just ignore the fact that we have an electoral college and not just a national popular vote.MinotStateBeav said:You got Trump because more people voted for him. Hillary was an unlikable clown responsible for the deaths of US servicemen because of her own incompetence. Comey can't fix that.calbear93 said:Fair points. I do remain bothered and would love for there to be more clarity. I wish this administration had some actual professionals on the PR front. Their messaging has been absolutely horrible on so many fronts on so many big events.Unit2Sucks said:I think it's fair to question whether the juice is worth the squeeze, but it rings a bit hollow from a lot of people who are singing a different tune now than they were when Hillary was under investigation. The fact that Trump was POTUS doesn't make him any more above the law than it made Hillary who at the time was the frontrunner for the presidency and former first lady. I don't know whether you argued that Comey shouldn't have made any public statements in 2016 or how you felt about that situation but I think we can both readily agree that there are conservatives taking wildly different positions now. I never found fault with the investigation of Hillary - just with Comey's interference in the election with his ridiculous press conference and his October surprise.calbear93 said:
I think this line of reasoning is a bit dangerous.
I am a law and order conservative and I do question the wisdom of a raid of a former president's residence (something that has never been done before) before midterm election and in the midst of digesting the January 6th hearings.
From a practical standpoint and not from a pure black and white purist standpoint, think about the letter that Comey sent to Congress days before the election. One could argue that he was just following what was the procedure and should just enforce the law. That most likely cost Hillary the election even though it should never have been that close if she did not run the worst possible campaign in recent memory. There is a reason why what Comey did was so unorthodox especially right before an election.
We also engage in practicality when enforcing laws.
We don't enforce stupid sodomy laws, stupid fornication laws, etc. that are still in the books. We don't seek out the maximum sentence or seek trial in every single criminal case. That is because of the practical impact, and we balance the pros and cons and strive to achieve a balance that is best for society. We may disagree on that balance, such as whether eliminating bail and allowing repeat offenders back into the street serves social and public justice, but we all do that. The worst type of ignoramus are those who are true believers and engage in purity tests, dictating strict adherence no matter the cost and assigning evil and good based on political allegiance in a black and white fashion.
Now, can we dislike Trump and still think that this has all the potential to set a horrible precedent and to take us down a path we don't want to go down where former presidents are prosecuted in what many may view rightly or wrongly as political and it starts becoming almost acceptable for successor administration to prosecute the former leader? Countries have violent transition of power because by peacefully surrendering power, the current leader thinks the successor will prosecute and imprison them.
Furthermore, now this is the news as opposed to what really happened on January 6th. Trump is probably loving this, and this is probably energizing the far right and even tilting those who may have started questioning Trump back to his camp as someone the far left is abusing (not arguing whether they are right or wrong in that belief).
We have a very special democracy with peaceful transition that was threaten by the selfish acts of Trump and his enablers. I am hoping that this administration, including the DOJ, appreciates the special considerations needed to protect and nurture our democracy against tyrants, tribalist and purist. Wanting caution and not blindly accepting any violation of norm because I want maximum pain for Trump does not make us now a Trump defender. Let's not engage in purity tests but consider the substance.
I am appealing to you because, as much as we disagree on core politics, we agree on decency and we agree on intellectual curiosity.
This only helps Trump and crosses a line that had not been crossed, so I am concerned. But I am still a law and order conservative, just like I was when I was bothered by Comey's letter.
The people involved in the Trump matter apparently attempted to make this as drama-free as possible (chose to do it when Trump wasn't at MAL) but you can only lower the profile so much. They have been waiting for 20 months for him to return this classified information and something triggered this search. We don't yet know exactly what it is but now reports are coming out that a confidential informant was working with the Feds. Yet another one of those people who Trump and MAGA land will have to claim is a bad hombre who hates America. We've seen this time and time again with Trump and know how the story goes. Trump forced the FBI's hand here and is now complaining that they did what he forced them to do. And lying about planting evidence because he knows he's guilty.
I do understand the concern that there are some negative repercussions to enforcing the law and there are a number of different circumstances where the Feds don't - for example, they handle sovereign citizens much differently now than 30 years ago. The fact that the Feds didn't collect all this classified information in early 2021 when it was learned he had taken it is an example of that and could lead to people claiming that Trump was treated as though he was above the law. At some point push comes to shove.
Will this ultimately be helpful to Trump's cause to be re-elected by idiots? I don't know. I do know that there will be a lot of Trump "critics" who will continue to shield him from criticism. Not you, but others here and certainly others out there."Trump is the first POTUS to be raided by the FBI. He's also the first to be impeached twice, the first to be a Kremlin asset, and the first to be a central figure in a transnational crime syndicate for numerous decades while our intel and law enforcement looked the other way."
— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) August 10, 2022
As a point of clarification (as I think I also indicated here at the time), I think what Comey did right before the election with his letter and press conference was horrible violation of norms, showed lack of judgment, and was very CYA and self-serving. And we ended up with Trump. Purists will be the death of us all.
The polls favoring dems is a pattern, not an outlier.calbear93 said:Let's just ignore the fact that we have an electoral college and not just a national popular vote.MinotStateBeav said:You got Trump because more people voted for him. Hillary was an unlikable clown responsible for the deaths of US servicemen because of her own incompetence. Comey can't fix that.calbear93 said:Fair points. I do remain bothered and would love for there to be more clarity. I wish this administration had some actual professionals on the PR front. Their messaging has been absolutely horrible on so many fronts on so many big events.Unit2Sucks said:I think it's fair to question whether the juice is worth the squeeze, but it rings a bit hollow from a lot of people who are singing a different tune now than they were when Hillary was under investigation. The fact that Trump was POTUS doesn't make him any more above the law than it made Hillary who at the time was the frontrunner for the presidency and former first lady. I don't know whether you argued that Comey shouldn't have made any public statements in 2016 or how you felt about that situation but I think we can both readily agree that there are conservatives taking wildly different positions now. I never found fault with the investigation of Hillary - just with Comey's interference in the election with his ridiculous press conference and his October surprise.calbear93 said:
I think this line of reasoning is a bit dangerous.
I am a law and order conservative and I do question the wisdom of a raid of a former president's residence (something that has never been done before) before midterm election and in the midst of digesting the January 6th hearings.
From a practical standpoint and not from a pure black and white purist standpoint, think about the letter that Comey sent to Congress days before the election. One could argue that he was just following what was the procedure and should just enforce the law. That most likely cost Hillary the election even though it should never have been that close if she did not run the worst possible campaign in recent memory. There is a reason why what Comey did was so unorthodox especially right before an election.
We also engage in practicality when enforcing laws.
We don't enforce stupid sodomy laws, stupid fornication laws, etc. that are still in the books. We don't seek out the maximum sentence or seek trial in every single criminal case. That is because of the practical impact, and we balance the pros and cons and strive to achieve a balance that is best for society. We may disagree on that balance, such as whether eliminating bail and allowing repeat offenders back into the street serves social and public justice, but we all do that. The worst type of ignoramus are those who are true believers and engage in purity tests, dictating strict adherence no matter the cost and assigning evil and good based on political allegiance in a black and white fashion.
Now, can we dislike Trump and still think that this has all the potential to set a horrible precedent and to take us down a path we don't want to go down where former presidents are prosecuted in what many may view rightly or wrongly as political and it starts becoming almost acceptable for successor administration to prosecute the former leader? Countries have violent transition of power because by peacefully surrendering power, the current leader thinks the successor will prosecute and imprison them.
Furthermore, now this is the news as opposed to what really happened on January 6th. Trump is probably loving this, and this is probably energizing the far right and even tilting those who may have started questioning Trump back to his camp as someone the far left is abusing (not arguing whether they are right or wrong in that belief).
We have a very special democracy with peaceful transition that was threaten by the selfish acts of Trump and his enablers. I am hoping that this administration, including the DOJ, appreciates the special considerations needed to protect and nurture our democracy against tyrants, tribalist and purist. Wanting caution and not blindly accepting any violation of norm because I want maximum pain for Trump does not make us now a Trump defender. Let's not engage in purity tests but consider the substance.
I am appealing to you because, as much as we disagree on core politics, we agree on decency and we agree on intellectual curiosity.
This only helps Trump and crosses a line that had not been crossed, so I am concerned. But I am still a law and order conservative, just like I was when I was bothered by Comey's letter.
The people involved in the Trump matter apparently attempted to make this as drama-free as possible (chose to do it when Trump wasn't at MAL) but you can only lower the profile so much. They have been waiting for 20 months for him to return this classified information and something triggered this search. We don't yet know exactly what it is but now reports are coming out that a confidential informant was working with the Feds. Yet another one of those people who Trump and MAGA land will have to claim is a bad hombre who hates America. We've seen this time and time again with Trump and know how the story goes. Trump forced the FBI's hand here and is now complaining that they did what he forced them to do. And lying about planting evidence because he knows he's guilty.
I do understand the concern that there are some negative repercussions to enforcing the law and there are a number of different circumstances where the Feds don't - for example, they handle sovereign citizens much differently now than 30 years ago. The fact that the Feds didn't collect all this classified information in early 2021 when it was learned he had taken it is an example of that and could lead to people claiming that Trump was treated as though he was above the law. At some point push comes to shove.
Will this ultimately be helpful to Trump's cause to be re-elected by idiots? I don't know. I do know that there will be a lot of Trump "critics" who will continue to shield him from criticism. Not you, but others here and certainly others out there."Trump is the first POTUS to be raided by the FBI. He's also the first to be impeached twice, the first to be a Kremlin asset, and the first to be a central figure in a transnational crime syndicate for numerous decades while our intel and law enforcement looked the other way."
— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) August 10, 2022
As a point of clarification (as I think I also indicated here at the time), I think what Comey did right before the election with his letter and press conference was horrible violation of norms, showed lack of judgment, and was very CYA and self-serving. And we ended up with Trump. Purists will be the death of us all.
We were getting to the root cause of the shift in the last few days from Hillary being up by a large margin to being almost even, with the only intervening event being the Comey sideshow. Of course, the press had a lot to do with this by blowing up the Comey sideshow as the press will do for clicks and revenues. The press couldn't stop covering Trump during the primary because he was a clown entertainer, and the press took it's role seriously as source of junk entertainment.
But your post is like responding to an analysis of why the game was lost in the last three minutes, including discussion on turnovers and poor play calling, with a "um, no - they lost because the other team scored more points." Well, duh. Not a counterpoint. But the unorthodox acts by Comey turned sentiment at the last moment. It isn't as if Benghazi was discussed for the first time during the last few days before the election.
Oh, I see. The polls turn from Dem being up by a large margin to being even just the few days before election in every presidential election. Interesting. I suppose that is backed by actual data?MinotStateBeav said:The polls favoring dems is a pattern, not an outlier.calbear93 said:Let's just ignore the fact that we have an electoral college and not just a national popular vote.MinotStateBeav said:You got Trump because more people voted for him. Hillary was an unlikable clown responsible for the deaths of US servicemen because of her own incompetence. Comey can't fix that.calbear93 said:Fair points. I do remain bothered and would love for there to be more clarity. I wish this administration had some actual professionals on the PR front. Their messaging has been absolutely horrible on so many fronts on so many big events.Unit2Sucks said:I think it's fair to question whether the juice is worth the squeeze, but it rings a bit hollow from a lot of people who are singing a different tune now than they were when Hillary was under investigation. The fact that Trump was POTUS doesn't make him any more above the law than it made Hillary who at the time was the frontrunner for the presidency and former first lady. I don't know whether you argued that Comey shouldn't have made any public statements in 2016 or how you felt about that situation but I think we can both readily agree that there are conservatives taking wildly different positions now. I never found fault with the investigation of Hillary - just with Comey's interference in the election with his ridiculous press conference and his October surprise.calbear93 said:
I think this line of reasoning is a bit dangerous.
I am a law and order conservative and I do question the wisdom of a raid of a former president's residence (something that has never been done before) before midterm election and in the midst of digesting the January 6th hearings.
From a practical standpoint and not from a pure black and white purist standpoint, think about the letter that Comey sent to Congress days before the election. One could argue that he was just following what was the procedure and should just enforce the law. That most likely cost Hillary the election even though it should never have been that close if she did not run the worst possible campaign in recent memory. There is a reason why what Comey did was so unorthodox especially right before an election.
We also engage in practicality when enforcing laws.
We don't enforce stupid sodomy laws, stupid fornication laws, etc. that are still in the books. We don't seek out the maximum sentence or seek trial in every single criminal case. That is because of the practical impact, and we balance the pros and cons and strive to achieve a balance that is best for society. We may disagree on that balance, such as whether eliminating bail and allowing repeat offenders back into the street serves social and public justice, but we all do that. The worst type of ignoramus are those who are true believers and engage in purity tests, dictating strict adherence no matter the cost and assigning evil and good based on political allegiance in a black and white fashion.
Now, can we dislike Trump and still think that this has all the potential to set a horrible precedent and to take us down a path we don't want to go down where former presidents are prosecuted in what many may view rightly or wrongly as political and it starts becoming almost acceptable for successor administration to prosecute the former leader? Countries have violent transition of power because by peacefully surrendering power, the current leader thinks the successor will prosecute and imprison them.
Furthermore, now this is the news as opposed to what really happened on January 6th. Trump is probably loving this, and this is probably energizing the far right and even tilting those who may have started questioning Trump back to his camp as someone the far left is abusing (not arguing whether they are right or wrong in that belief).
We have a very special democracy with peaceful transition that was threaten by the selfish acts of Trump and his enablers. I am hoping that this administration, including the DOJ, appreciates the special considerations needed to protect and nurture our democracy against tyrants, tribalist and purist. Wanting caution and not blindly accepting any violation of norm because I want maximum pain for Trump does not make us now a Trump defender. Let's not engage in purity tests but consider the substance.
I am appealing to you because, as much as we disagree on core politics, we agree on decency and we agree on intellectual curiosity.
This only helps Trump and crosses a line that had not been crossed, so I am concerned. But I am still a law and order conservative, just like I was when I was bothered by Comey's letter.
The people involved in the Trump matter apparently attempted to make this as drama-free as possible (chose to do it when Trump wasn't at MAL) but you can only lower the profile so much. They have been waiting for 20 months for him to return this classified information and something triggered this search. We don't yet know exactly what it is but now reports are coming out that a confidential informant was working with the Feds. Yet another one of those people who Trump and MAGA land will have to claim is a bad hombre who hates America. We've seen this time and time again with Trump and know how the story goes. Trump forced the FBI's hand here and is now complaining that they did what he forced them to do. And lying about planting evidence because he knows he's guilty.
I do understand the concern that there are some negative repercussions to enforcing the law and there are a number of different circumstances where the Feds don't - for example, they handle sovereign citizens much differently now than 30 years ago. The fact that the Feds didn't collect all this classified information in early 2021 when it was learned he had taken it is an example of that and could lead to people claiming that Trump was treated as though he was above the law. At some point push comes to shove.
Will this ultimately be helpful to Trump's cause to be re-elected by idiots? I don't know. I do know that there will be a lot of Trump "critics" who will continue to shield him from criticism. Not you, but others here and certainly others out there."Trump is the first POTUS to be raided by the FBI. He's also the first to be impeached twice, the first to be a Kremlin asset, and the first to be a central figure in a transnational crime syndicate for numerous decades while our intel and law enforcement looked the other way."
— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) August 10, 2022
As a point of clarification (as I think I also indicated here at the time), I think what Comey did right before the election with his letter and press conference was horrible violation of norms, showed lack of judgment, and was very CYA and self-serving. And we ended up with Trump. Purists will be the death of us all.
We were getting to the root cause of the shift in the last few days from Hillary being up by a large margin to being almost even, with the only intervening event being the Comey sideshow. Of course, the press had a lot to do with this by blowing up the Comey sideshow as the press will do for clicks and revenues. The press couldn't stop covering Trump during the primary because he was a clown entertainer, and the press took it's role seriously as source of junk entertainment.
But your post is like responding to an analysis of why the game was lost in the last three minutes, including discussion on turnovers and poor play calling, with a "um, no - they lost because the other team scored more points." Well, duh. Not a counterpoint. But the unorthodox acts by Comey turned sentiment at the last moment. It isn't as if Benghazi was discussed for the first time during the last few days before the election.
calbear93 said:Oh, I see. The polls turn from Dem being up by a large margin to being even just the few days before election in every presidential election. Interesting. I suppose that is backed by actual data?MinotStateBeav said:
The polls favoring dems is a pattern, not an outlier.
I get that the polls and the results may differ, and may explain why the last poll showed even despite Hillary losing in some key states.DiabloWags said:calbear93 said:Oh, I see. The polls turn from Dem being up by a large margin to being even just the few days before election in every presidential election. Interesting. I suppose that is backed by actual data?MinotStateBeav said:
The polls favoring dems is a pattern, not an outlier.
There is a nuance at play here that hasnt been mentioned.
Polls of all registered voters are more likely to overstate the performance of Democratic candidates.
Polls of likely voters have had almost no long-term bias.
Registered Voter Polls Will (Usually) Overrate Democrats | FiveThirtyEight
Voter suppression could explain underperformance. The GOP has made a concerted effort to prevent democrats from voting.calbear93 said:I get that the polls and the results may differ, and may explain why the last poll showed even despite Hillary losing in some key states.DiabloWags said:calbear93 said:Oh, I see. The polls turn from Dem being up by a large margin to being even just the few days before election in every presidential election. Interesting. I suppose that is backed by actual data?MinotStateBeav said:
The polls favoring dems is a pattern, not an outlier.
There is a nuance at play here that hasnt been mentioned.
Polls of all registered voters are more likely to overstate the performance of Democratic candidates.
Polls of likely voters have had almost no long-term bias.
Registered Voter Polls Will (Usually) Overrate Democrats | FiveThirtyEight
What I was getting at were the comparison of polls (not against actual results) right before the Comey ex machina and the polls right after the Comey event. I assume the polls were of the same type of voters.
I just did a quick search and found another article from the same source. Did not read the whole thing but it seems to support that the polls (not the underperformance from the last poll to actual results) themselves sank from before the Comey letter to right after the Comey letter. Of course, the results were even worse than the last poll for the reasons you and Wags stated but the polls themselves sank following the letter.Unit2Sucks said:Voter suppression could explain underperformance. The GOP has made a concerted effort to prevent democrats from voting.calbear93 said:I get that the polls and the results may differ, and may explain why the last poll showed even despite Hillary losing in some key states.DiabloWags said:calbear93 said:Oh, I see. The polls turn from Dem being up by a large margin to being even just the few days before election in every presidential election. Interesting. I suppose that is backed by actual data?MinotStateBeav said:
The polls favoring dems is a pattern, not an outlier.
There is a nuance at play here that hasnt been mentioned.
Polls of all registered voters are more likely to overstate the performance of Democratic candidates.
Polls of likely voters have had almost no long-term bias.
Registered Voter Polls Will (Usually) Overrate Democrats | FiveThirtyEight
What I was getting at were the comparison of polls (not against actual results) right before the Comey ex machina and the polls right after the Comey event. I assume the polls were of the same type of voters.
Trump was only referring to draining the swamps in the Everglades.DiabloWags said:
Looks like Minot State is now 0 for 3 when it comes to answering whether he thinks Exxon, Goldman Sachs, and Boeing arent part of The Swamp.
I think we know why he isnt answering.
I have no doubt that the Comey BS in and of itself was enough to cost Clinton the election. She had a big advantage over Trump and squandered much of it through unforced errors - like not spending enough energy on the upper midwest - but there were a number of things that "cost" her the election. The election ultimately turned on ~100k voters in three competitive states.calbear93 said:I just did a quick search and found another article from the same source. Did not read the whole thing but it seems to support that the polls (not the underperformance from the last poll to actual results) themselves sank from before the Comey letter to right after the Comey letter. Of course, the results were even worse than the last poll for the reasons you and Wags stated but the polls themselves sank following the letter.Unit2Sucks said:Voter suppression could explain underperformance. The GOP has made a concerted effort to prevent democrats from voting.calbear93 said:I get that the polls and the results may differ, and may explain why the last poll showed even despite Hillary losing in some key states.DiabloWags said:calbear93 said:Oh, I see. The polls turn from Dem being up by a large margin to being even just the few days before election in every presidential election. Interesting. I suppose that is backed by actual data?MinotStateBeav said:
The polls favoring dems is a pattern, not an outlier.
There is a nuance at play here that hasnt been mentioned.
Polls of all registered voters are more likely to overstate the performance of Democratic candidates.
Polls of likely voters have had almost no long-term bias.
Registered Voter Polls Will (Usually) Overrate Democrats | FiveThirtyEight
What I was getting at were the comparison of polls (not against actual results) right before the Comey ex machina and the polls right after the Comey event. I assume the polls were of the same type of voters.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
Just days after returning from a beach vacation in Delaware, Joe Biden (and Hunter) jet off for a weeklong beach vacation in South Carolina. pic.twitter.com/VjnHkbxfX6
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) August 10, 2022
After a long delay, Trump has finally announced that his presidential library will be housed in Washington D.C.
— Duty To Warn 🔉 (@duty2warn) August 10, 2022
at FBI headquarters
in their evidence locker.
Quote:
We are certainly no fans of Donald Trump let's make that clear from the outset. But yesterday's raid by the FBI on the home of a former president sets a dangerous precedent.
A precedent which now means that anyone who evades taxes, attempts to undermine an election, sexually assaults women, manipulates the value of their assets, uses state resources to enrich themselves or aids and abets the overthrow of a democratically elected government will be subject to investigation.
Is that the world we want to live in? Where anyone accused of insurrection can be subject to questioning from law enforcement officers?
It's a slippery slope. Before we know it, regular citizens accused of defrauding the government, concealing evidence, manipulating financial documents, tampering with witnesses or perverting the course of justice will also be held to account.
Or to put it another way, if we simply shrug our shoulders and fail to question the actions of the FBI, soon any old Joe Citizen who is suspected of ripping classified government documents into small pieces and flushing them down the toilet will be obliged to answer to law enforcement, as well as their plumber.
If we don't ask the hard questions about the potential motives of the FBI now, soon any one of us who buries our ex-wife in a small grave at the side of their golf course in order to gain a tax concession will be treated with suspicion.
As Trump supporters put it so clearly yesterday, if this can happen to a President, it could happen to anyone who has committed insurrection, assault or fraud. That's a chilling thought.
We are on new ground here. As Donald Trump himself made clear, this is the first time a former president's home has been raided. Proof, if ever we needed it, that the FBI shamefully only targets people who it considers to have committed a crime. Who gave FBI director Chris Wray that authority?
As we made clear earlier, we're certainly not Trump supporters. But in today's partisan world, it would be easy to fall into the trap of cheering on the FBI's actions, without taking a step back to look at the bigger picture. If Trump goes to jail, it opens the door for every lying, corrupt, perverted piece of **** to go to jail too. Is that what we want?
"The FBI is downstairs." pic.twitter.com/8hXyhEwb1f
— David Gura (@davidgura) August 10, 2022
I sure love this forum.Unit2Sucks said:
We have some difficult questions to confront as a nation of laws.Quote:
We are certainly no fans of Donald Trump let's make that clear from the outset. But yesterday's raid by the FBI on the home of a former president sets a dangerous precedent.
A precedent which now means that anyone who evades taxes, attempts to undermine an election, sexually assaults women, manipulates the value of their assets, uses state resources to enrich themselves or aids and abets the overthrow of a democratically elected government will be subject to investigation.
Is that the world we want to live in? Where anyone accused of insurrection can be subject to questioning from law enforcement officers?
It's a slippery slope. Before we know it, regular citizens accused of defrauding the government, concealing evidence, manipulating financial documents, tampering with witnesses or perverting the course of justice will also be held to account.
Or to put it another way, if we simply shrug our shoulders and fail to question the actions of the FBI, soon any old Joe Citizen who is suspected of ripping classified government documents into small pieces and flushing them down the toilet will be obliged to answer to law enforcement, as well as their plumber.
If we don't ask the hard questions about the potential motives of the FBI now, soon any one of us who buries our ex-wife in a small grave at the side of their golf course in order to gain a tax concession will be treated with suspicion.
As Trump supporters put it so clearly yesterday, if this can happen to a President, it could happen to anyone who has committed insurrection, assault or fraud. That's a chilling thought.
We are on new ground here. As Donald Trump himself made clear, this is the first time a former president's home has been raided. Proof, if ever we needed it, that the FBI shamefully only targets people who it considers to have committed a crime. Who gave FBI director Chris Wray that authority?
As we made clear earlier, we're certainly not Trump supporters. But in today's partisan world, it would be easy to fall into the trap of cheering on the FBI's actions, without taking a step back to look at the bigger picture. If Trump goes to jail, it opens the door for every lying, corrupt, perverted piece of **** to go to jail too. Is that what we want?
That was a silly article.Unit2Sucks said:
We have some difficult questions to confront as a nation of laws.Quote:
We are certainly no fans of Donald Trump let's make that clear from the outset. But yesterday's raid by the FBI on the home of a former president sets a dangerous precedent.
A precedent which now means that anyone who evades taxes, attempts to undermine an election, sexually assaults women, manipulates the value of their assets, uses state resources to enrich themselves or aids and abets the overthrow of a democratically elected government will be subject to investigation.
Is that the world we want to live in? Where anyone accused of insurrection can be subject to questioning from law enforcement officers?
It's a slippery slope. Before we know it, regular citizens accused of defrauding the government, concealing evidence, manipulating financial documents, tampering with witnesses or perverting the course of justice will also be held to account.
Or to put it another way, if we simply shrug our shoulders and fail to question the actions of the FBI, soon any old Joe Citizen who is suspected of ripping classified government documents into small pieces and flushing them down the toilet will be obliged to answer to law enforcement, as well as their plumber.
If we don't ask the hard questions about the potential motives of the FBI now, soon any one of us who buries our ex-wife in a small grave at the side of their golf course in order to gain a tax concession will be treated with suspicion.
As Trump supporters put it so clearly yesterday, if this can happen to a President, it could happen to anyone who has committed insurrection, assault or fraud. That's a chilling thought.
We are on new ground here. As Donald Trump himself made clear, this is the first time a former president's home has been raided. Proof, if ever we needed it, that the FBI shamefully only targets people who it considers to have committed a crime. Who gave FBI director Chris Wray that authority?
As we made clear earlier, we're certainly not Trump supporters. But in today's partisan world, it would be easy to fall into the trap of cheering on the FBI's actions, without taking a step back to look at the bigger picture. If Trump goes to jail, it opens the door for every lying, corrupt, perverted piece of **** to go to jail too. Is that what we want?
sycasey said:
So far, polls have only really overestimated Dems in elections with Trump on the ballot. When Obama was on the ballot, they underestimated Dems. That just tells you that sometimes a charismatic candidate at the top who can drive base turnout will surprise pollsters.
In midterms they've been quite accurate.
The point is that Trump's crimes are a bit beyond jaywalking. When it happened to Clinton, the GOP changed "lock her up." When it happens to Trump, the media falls all over itself to ask how this is bad for Biden. At some point you have to draw the line and accept that Trump needs to be accountable to the law. Apparently the FBI felt that 20 months of Trump holding classified information was enough. I assume one day we'll find out what was taken and let the criminal justice system decide. Until then, I'm not going to be quick to assume that this was a mistake or that Trump wasn't given enough rope.calbear93 said:That was a silly article.Unit2Sucks said:
We have some difficult questions to confront as a nation of laws.Quote:
We are certainly no fans of Donald Trump let's make that clear from the outset. But yesterday's raid by the FBI on the home of a former president sets a dangerous precedent.
A precedent which now means that anyone who evades taxes, attempts to undermine an election, sexually assaults women, manipulates the value of their assets, uses state resources to enrich themselves or aids and abets the overthrow of a democratically elected government will be subject to investigation.
Is that the world we want to live in? Where anyone accused of insurrection can be subject to questioning from law enforcement officers?
It's a slippery slope. Before we know it, regular citizens accused of defrauding the government, concealing evidence, manipulating financial documents, tampering with witnesses or perverting the course of justice will also be held to account.
Or to put it another way, if we simply shrug our shoulders and fail to question the actions of the FBI, soon any old Joe Citizen who is suspected of ripping classified government documents into small pieces and flushing them down the toilet will be obliged to answer to law enforcement, as well as their plumber.
If we don't ask the hard questions about the potential motives of the FBI now, soon any one of us who buries our ex-wife in a small grave at the side of their golf course in order to gain a tax concession will be treated with suspicion.
As Trump supporters put it so clearly yesterday, if this can happen to a President, it could happen to anyone who has committed insurrection, assault or fraud. That's a chilling thought.
We are on new ground here. As Donald Trump himself made clear, this is the first time a former president's home has been raided. Proof, if ever we needed it, that the FBI shamefully only targets people who it considers to have committed a crime. Who gave FBI director Chris Wray that authority?
As we made clear earlier, we're certainly not Trump supporters. But in today's partisan world, it would be easy to fall into the trap of cheering on the FBI's actions, without taking a step back to look at the bigger picture. If Trump goes to jail, it opens the door for every lying, corrupt, perverted piece of **** to go to jail too. Is that what we want?
What is the author claiming? That punishment for crimes overrides all other societal considerations? Is that what the progressives like him think now?
If that is the case, we should have no diplomatic immunity. We should impose maximum punishment on every single crime. We should prosecute every single crime, including new laws criminalizing abortion. We should have no plea bargain, etc. Just full and uncompromising arrest, prosecution and punishment for everyone whom we assume is guilty, irrespective of impact on society. We should never allow pardons, probation, etc. We should prioritize maximum prosecution of all crimes, emphasizing punishment of guilty above everything.
But we don't. We do a balancing act between punishment and overall benefit to society.
Yes, we may give deference to the former president if we do not want appearance of the next administration prosecuting its political foes. Why is that nuance so difficult for people like that author to understand? Is this really not a political take and is this what he would think about anyone committing any crime, including anti-abortion laws, shoplifting, loitering, looting, and speeding or is this based on his desire to dictate like an authoritarian which laws should and should not be imposed based on his politics and his personal morals?
Unit2Sucks said:
The point is that Trump's crimes are a bit beyond jaywalking. When it happened to Clinton, the GOP changed "lock her up." When it happens to Trump, the media falls all over itself to ask how this is bad for Biden. At some point you have to draw the line and accept that Trump needs to be accountable to the law. Apparently the FBI felt that 20 months of Trump holding classified information was enough. I assume one day we'll find out what was taken and let the criminal justice system decide. Until then, I'm not going to be quick to assume that this was a mistake or that Trump wasn't given enough rope.
BearForce2 said:sycasey said:
So far, polls have only really overestimated Dems in elections with Trump on the ballot. When Obama was on the ballot, they underestimated Dems. That just tells you that sometimes a charismatic candidate at the top who can drive base turnout will surprise pollsters.
In midterms they've been quite accurate.
Sometimes, a candidate with no charisma can hide in a basement and get the most votes in history, millions more than the charismatic candidate at the top who can drive base turnout and surprise pollsters.
oski003 said:BearForce2 said:sycasey said:
So far, polls have only really overestimated Dems in elections with Trump on the ballot. When Obama was on the ballot, they underestimated Dems. That just tells you that sometimes a charismatic candidate at the top who can drive base turnout will surprise pollsters.
In midterms they've been quite accurate.
Sometimes, a candidate with no charisma can hide in a basement and get the most votes in history, millions more than the charismatic candidate at the top who can drive base turnout and surprise pollsters.
That happens when the charismatic candidate is an unhinged sociopath.
Sometimes a candidate is extremely charismatic with his own base voters but also turns off too many swing voters. That's Trump.BearForce2 said:sycasey said:
So far, polls have only really overestimated Dems in elections with Trump on the ballot. When Obama was on the ballot, they underestimated Dems. That just tells you that sometimes a charismatic candidate at the top who can drive base turnout will surprise pollsters.
In midterms they've been quite accurate.
Sometimes, a candidate with no charisma can hide in a basement and get the most votes in history, millions more than the charismatic candidate at the top who can drive base turnout and surprise pollsters.
Criming 101: Eric Trump insisting his father's "safe was empty" in August is setting up "the FBI planted evidence" in October.
— Nell Scovell (@NellSco) August 9, 2022
A day later...https://t.co/tRwas763jy
— Nell Scovell (@NellSco) August 10, 2022
2012:BearGoggles said:
One notable point - very seldom have the polls been wrong in favor of republican candidates.
Cool story. Now tell us about the "dumb" people who voted for the guy whose policies led to rampant 2022 inflation, record high energy costs, supply and labor shortages, multiple foreign policy fiascos (e.g., Afghanistan), poor response to monkeypox, and an overall drop in real earnings/wealth. That's the same guy who is presiding over a nationwide recession not limited to manufacturing in the rust belt.DiabloWags said:
Sorry, but people who voted for a guy who started a TRADE WAR that sent family farms into the highest rates of bankruptcy in a DECADE and who sent the Manufacturing sector in the Rust Belt into a Recession...... are DUMB.
They voted for a guy that hurt them badly.
That's a FACT.
BearGoggles said:
Your assumption that they are dumb (stated as a fact, not opinion) says much more about your intellect than theirs.
DiabloWags said:BearGoggles said:
Your assumption that they are dumb (stated as a fact, not opinion) says much more about your intellect than theirs.
Nonsense.
These people voted for a guy that campaigned on starting a TRADE WAR, not having the slightest clue how tariffs would punish them.
That's being DUMB.
BearGoggles said:
Cool story. Now tell us about the "dumb" people who voted for the guy whose policies led to rampant 2022 inflation, record high energy costs, supply and labor shortages, multiple foreign policy fiascos (e.g., Afghanistan), poor response to monkeypox, and an overall drop in real earnings/wealth. That's the same guy who is presiding over a nationwide recession not limited to manufacturing in the rust belt.
