Flynn Walks

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated G through PG-13.
User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10525
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by honorentheos »

Icarus wrote:
Sun May 10, 2020 8:01 am
Honor, are you saying impeachment investigations are bad?
No. I'm saying historically they followed congressional investigations that refered the for impeachment. I'm against using impeachment as a mechanism for searching out impeachable offenses. It's unnecessary while overtly making impeachment a joke which undermines it's purpose, possibly it's legitimacy.
Aren't you the same guy who initially opposed impeachment proceedings and then admitted you were wrong to do so?
Something like that. I was initially opposed to the idea that the House had a Constitutional obligation to pursue investigating reasonable claims of executive overreach on the part of the Trump administration. I was persuaded they did, in fact, have a Constitutional obligation. I also wasn't excited by how the House had prosecuted the Mueller reports public hearings, and had a number of misgivings regarding the Democrats ability to execute that obligation. In the Ukraine call case, I was optimistic due to the case having advantages that I had hoped they would be able to use to present a solid, apolitical case that would be persuasive to at least enough members of the House and Senate to break the partisan gridlock even if it failed to achieve the improbable 2/3 majority in the Senate required to convict. Instead, the House Democrats made stupid mistakes like acting as if the entire country was like-minded but uninformed so the lines of questioning weren't even investigations or based on a strategy for prosecuting Trump. It was infuriating, actually. Worse, there were many open threads exposed in the process they should have chased down but didn't. The Senate essentially used that negligence to dismissively rush through the trial and call it a day.It seemed to solidify in many peoples minds that Democrats were doing exactly what right wing talk radio claims, trying to overturn the election rather than constrain an out of control authoritarian Executive. Would the nation have been better or worse off if impeachment hadn't been pursued? No idea. I'm less unsure that things would be far worse of impeachment had become the venue in the House for seeking new acts of overreach or abuse of power rather than the venue for investigating claims brought up from more traditional committee investigations. I'd caveat that with the House not pursuing the obstruction of the Justice Department in direct disregard of their authority. They should have pursued that as part of the proceedings.

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10525
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by honorentheos »

EAllusion wrote:
Sun May 10, 2020 9:05 am
Re: Flynn, I think it is straight up gas-lighting for a person defending a legitimate extremist position to think of disagreeing with it as somehow "extremist." While the product of a certain level of delusion, the haughty condescension about it is offensive. Real New York Times editorial page energy there.
What is extreme is the derisive portraying of evidence from multiple sides as "both siderism" or whatever you think it is, demanding the case be resolved before considered because your position is correct. It's interesting that you rarely engage with both sides of arguments when they come down to Trump. It's left you exposed on many public cases of overreach on this board from the Covington kids to the quality of evidence in the confirmations hearings for Kavenaugh to opposing the Democrat establishment almost as a religious belief. Whatever you want to call it, it isn't reasoned or justifiably considered so much as knee-jerk.
Re: Impeachment, I'm not sure how someone who stanned hard for the Pelosi position then doesn't have some regrets about that given how badly it turned out in the exact way critics said it would, but here we are. A broader inquiry that involved drawing up articles of impeachment based on a thorough investigation of all apparent impeachable conduct, which does include the Mueller report, not only was correct, but was strategically more sound. We are paying the price for avoiding it right now and will continue to do so in the future.
Again, you are just imposing a conclusion that contradicts how the public and Congress reacted to the impeachment. I can't imagine how a fishing trip turned out to have less of a corrosive effect on public opinion of the Democrats just going after Trump using any excuse no matter how substantial. In fact, if argue this preconception and the ability of Republicans to insert it successfully into the impeachment hearings contributed significantly to the failure. As I noted multiple times, the Ukraine case had positive aspects Tonite that seemed able to overcome many challenges but I expressed reservations regarding the Democrats being able to effective prosecute it. I don't feel I was wrong on either count. I also see the outcome as undermining your belief the steady drip of a weaponized impeachment fishing trip would have hurt Trump rather than the Democrats. We agree they should have pursued the case to a fuller conclusion before drafting articles of impeachment. There is zero evidence inserting the Mueller investigation into that would have been beneficial to the case. In fact, I'd argue the attitude behind it is what undermines the Democrats who seemed convinced of the obvious wrong doing's ability to make it's own case they failed to make one themselves. They just relied on testimony and pointed at it saying, See!? Guilty! It was frustrating. You're frustrating for similar dumb reasons.

Brackite
God
Posts: 6318
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:12 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by Brackite »

ajax18 wrote:
Sat May 09, 2020 12:02 pm

I don't think the efforts of the political minority nor the deep state to undo the election of 2016 is an example of preserving democracy.
Rush Limbaugh has been going on again about "undoing the results of the 2016 election" this past week. But Rush and most other Republicans like to ignore the results of the 2018 election when Democrats won big.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9867
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by Res Ipsa »

ajax18 wrote:
Fri May 08, 2020 8:09 am
The host responded Thursday to questions asked in documents unsealed Wednesday that revealed key bureau officials discussing their motivations for interviewing Flynn in the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 -- with one note questioning if the FBI's "goal" was "to get him [Flynn] to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired."

"That is not a question that should ever be asked by anyone, any professional and would never be asked by the 99 percent of brave professionals in the FBI," Hannity said. "Now, shouldn't the goal of the FBI ... shouldn't it always be truth, the rule of law, justice? They work in the Department of Justice. We have a system of justice in America. Apparently not in Jim Comey's FBI.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/sean-hann ... -comey-fbi

Asking if your goal is to get someone to lie to prosecute them or get him fired should never be a question asked in the department of justice. This is the definition of a perjurty trap. Now that this has been exposed, they're going to pay for it.
____! That’s the question the FBI should always be asking. If you don’t ask it, you won’t ever know when you are crossing lines.

by the way, a perjury trap Is incredibly easy to
avoid. Just tell the damn truth. Did you ever defend Bill Clinton on grounds of “perjury trap?”

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17965
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by EAllusion »

There is such a thing as a pejury trap wherein questioners use the foibles of memory and conversational speech along with coercive pressure to produce false statements that are used to stack up charges against someone. That didn't happen in Flynn's case, but it is a thing. Instead, "pejury trap" as it's being used by the sources Ajax is consuming means something more like, "give Flynn an opportunity to the lie to the FBI and then charge him with crimes when he does so." That's not a pejury trap. That's just committing' crimes.

You can tell how sincere Ajax is about this as a unfair practice by how much he has and is advocating for the huge number of people in prison for being hit on a "pejury trap" in this sense. Ajax also seems awfully uninterested in why Flynn would be lying since, as he claims, he did nothing wrong. This is where it becomes important for him to be vague about what Flynn was lying about or the content of his lies. Otherwise you have to confront what he was systematically misleading federal law enforcement about.

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3288
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by Dr Exiled »

Here is an article by Professor Jonathan Turley (I think he is a libertarian and a Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University in D.C.) where he answers President Obama's claim that there isn't precedent to dismiss the Flynn case:

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/09/p ... ore-156010

He outlines how there actually is precedent to make the request and provides the case law that backs up his point, including a case where Eric Holder, President Obama's AG, made the same request.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17965
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by EAllusion »

[quote=honorentheos post_id=1224148 time=1589132642 user_id=7137]...[/quote]
Just because you are a sucker for middle-brow pundit articles that attempt to manufacture a case for a position where there is no reasonable doesn't mean you are considering a case like a very serious intellectual while people you are interacting with are not. That you can't fathom that other people are also weighing the evidence if they don't have your own fallacy of the golden mean hangups is like 75% of the problem here.

The very serious, reasonable position is not that while Flynn seems shady, regrettably the FBI poisoned its own case by engaging in misconduct and now have to lawfully drop charges. That's wrong on several different fronts, and represents you buying into a bad-faith, misleading series of arguments regarding law enforcement misconduct. You do this while trying to seem sober-minded by acknowledging that mayhaps Flynn isn't a good actor. That you call denial of that "extremism" is just ridiculous. And no, this isn't the first time you swallow the bulk of some propaganda effort while not going whole hog and cross your arms thinking this makes you the clear-thinking one.

That you don't do this on subjects like global warming is a borderline miracle and probably just represents a specific area that you have some paraprofessional expertise in that insulates you from taking a manufactured middle-ground . So at least I'm spared being called an "extremist" there.

[quote]There is zero evidence inserting the Mueller investigation into that would have been beneficial to the case.[/quote]

Yeah, no evidence at all. I mean, it's not like the report details out with extensive evidence numerous episodes of impeachable conduct or anything.

Hey, remember after the truncated impeachment when Trump massively increased an ongoing effort to purge and replace with amoral hacks all the government non-loyalist inspector generals, justice department attys, intelligence officials, and now military leadership while simultaneously retaliating against anyone who blew the whistle on his admin's malfeasance? Do you think that would've occurred during impeachment?

Remember how during impeachment house managers brought a crazy, worst scenario case in which the President would try to condition federal disaster relief on political loyalty, then President Trump did that exact thing not a few months after with likely deadly consequences and that's just a thing we tolerate now? Do you think that would've happened if impeachment were ongoing?

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17965
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by EAllusion »

So the "lock up Obama" chatter has increased pretty significantly in conservative-dom from what I can tell. That's where things are at now. Trump's currently on an epic tweet storm - retweeing crazy-pants Qanon accounts and the like - and it's interlaced with stoking this sentiment.

It seems extremely unlikely prior to the election - unless they're quite confident that it's a sham election - but I would not discount the possibility they'll be coming after him after the election is over.

User avatar
subgenius
God
Posts: 12872
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by subgenius »

moksha wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 1:19 pm
Apparently Criminal Presidents are empowered to let their criminal confederates escape the law.
Paging Eric Holder, "Eric Holder".

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10525
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by honorentheos »

EAllusion wrote:
Sun May 10, 2020 1:26 pm
Just because you are a sucker for middle-brow pundit articles that attempt to manufacture a case for a position where there is no reasonable doesn't mean you are considering a case like a very serious intellectual while people you are interacting with are not. That you can't fathom that other people are also weighing the evidence if they don't have your own fallacy of the golden mean hangups is like 75% of the problem here.

The very serious, reasonable position is not that while Flynn seems shady, regrettably the FBI poisoned its own case by engaging in misconduct and now have to lawfully drop charges. That's wrong on several different fronts, and represents you buying into a bad-faith, misleading series of arguments regarding law enforcement misconduct. You do this while trying to seem sober-minded by acknowledging that mayhaps Flynn isn't a good actor. That you call denial of that "extremism" is just ridiculous. And no, this isn't the first time you swallow the bulk of some propaganda effort while not going whole hog and cross your arms thinking this makes you the clear-thinking one.
Let's see. On the one hand we have Flynn lying to the FBI about his having talked with Kislyak. He plead guilty to it, and obviously and publicly acknowledged wrongdoing. It's not viewing him as "seeming shady".

But on the other hand, early reporting on the conversation assert Flynn was acting under direction of Trump as a candidate when it turned out he was doing so as a member of Trump's transition team post-election. You keep asserting it was "plausibly" part of a deal to swing the election. Conjecture isn't fact. And it's at odds with the known facts.

So what we have is a case where Flynn broke the law in lying to the FBI, but the subject he lied about being...complicated. With the John Dehlin asserting they don't feel they can defend the case given recent review of FBI investigative documents and recommending it be dropped, we will see next week what the judge in the case has to say about it.

And that's it.

Or, you know, RAGEBERRY JAM the internet's!!!!
That you don't do this on subjects like global warming is a borderline miracle and probably just represents a specific area that you have some paraprofessional expertise in that insulates you from taking a manufactured middle-ground . So at least I'm spared being called an "extremist" there.
In case anyone ever doubts EAllusion is a class act.
There is zero evidence inserting the Mueller investigation into that would have been beneficial to the case.
Yeah, no evidence at all. I mean, it's not like the report details out with extensive evidence numerous episodes of impeachable conduct or anything.
This is amazing. Point at the evidence, say, "See!!!??" And then fold arms with satisfaction. Yeah, that worked great for the Democrats so what would have made it really successful would have been to bring in the subject of countless hours of news, previous House committee public relations trainwrecks that entrenched rather than resolved partisan division, and the already publicly recalcitrant Bob Mueller for one more run on CNN. That sounds effective.
Hey, remember after the truncated impeachment when Trump massively increased an ongoing effort to purge and replace with amoral hacks all the government non-loyalist inspector generals, justice department attys, intelligence officials, and now military leadership while simultaneously retaliating against anyone who blew the whistle on his admin's malfeasance? Do you think that would've occurred during impeachment?
We've disagreed multiple times over the purpose of impeachment proceedings. In the above, you are again going public with their being used as a political tool rather than one for seeking justice. Using ongoing impeachment proceedings as a check on the opposition party? Jesus Christ. Do you even hear yourself? Can you even think past the current moment to reflect on the Pandora's Box that opens? Good God.
Remember how during impeachment house managers brought a crazy, worst scenario case in which the President would try to condition federal disaster relief on political loyalty, then President Trump did that exact thing not a few months after with likely deadly consequences and that's just a thing we tolerate now? Do you think that would've happened if impeachment were ongoing?
Ongoing? Jesus. Had the Democrats actually pursued the matters brought up or created during the impeachment proceeding prior to drafting and voting on articles I think we'd have been more likely to see the concerns resolved or opposed rather than what happened with impeachment - that being it was exploited and politicized to damaging effect.

User avatar
subgenius
God
Posts: 12872
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by subgenius »

EAllusion wrote: One of the more important takeaways here is how free they feel to be so openly corrupt at this point. Not even a fig leaf involved. You don't get to this level of brazenness in a mafia state without the ruling regime feeling a certain level of impunity. Those feelings don't come from nowhere.
Your ignorance of Eric Holder insists you refrain from further posting on this topic.
The next logical step is prosecuting political enemies on thin pretexts. We've seen how this goes in enough other nations to get to be Cassandras during our own fall.
"Thin Pretexts"? The irony insists that you admit you are posting sarcastically and with full knowledge of the "prosecution" for impechment, collusion, emoluments, pee tape, Dr Ford, racism, and every other political hair fire you have screamed inder since November 2016.
Your posturing is laughable but is quickly becoming sad....and not make a wish foundation sad, more like in an alley passed out drunk with pee jeans sad.

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10525
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by honorentheos »

EAllusion wrote:
Sun May 10, 2020 2:06 pm
So the "lock up Obama" chatter has increased pretty significantly in conservative-dom from what I can tell. That's where things are at now. Trump's currently on an epic tweet storm - retweeing crazy-pants Qanon accounts and the like - and it's interlaced with stoking this sentiment.

It seems extremely unlikely prior to the election - unless they're quite confident that it's a sham election - but I would not discount the possibility they'll be coming after him after the election is over.
Given the central plank of his campaign was, "Aren't you better off now than you were four years ago?" was torpedoed by COVID, his economic policies put us in a bad position for combating the worse economic conditions in almost 100 years, opening his mouth in public on the subject of the crisis damages his credibility as a leader, and his administration is directly responsible for a terrible response that looks worse everyday, he's got one play left. It's the good old sure fired tactic of portraying Democrats as underhand, criminal combatants trying to impose socialism and government control over freedom loving, hard working, risk taking 'Mericans. "Lock her up!" worked as a way to work the base into a frenzy before, no surprises here.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17965
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by EAllusion »

Honor, you spent the entire impeachment lead up offering incorrect analysis about impeachment could most effectively be used as a political tool. That, in fact, is your principle argument for neglecting expanding the impeachment inquiry to cover a range of impeachable conduct he has engaged in - a belief that it is politically unsound to do so and therefore would taint the chances of conviction and improve his standing for the 2020 election. Because Trump was very unlikely to be convicted in the Senate and because the interest of justice demands it as a good unto itself and for posterity, I thought impeachment investigation should concern all relevant articles of impeachment that can be drawn up. Because this would take longer to do, this would have the additional benefit of providing some protective benefit over the 2020 election and the intervening time as the Trump admin was likely to dial back abuse of power under public scrutiny during impeachment. You reasoned that this would look "partisan" and damage the likelihood of his conviction.

Well, he wasn't convicted, which you hilariously continue to attribute to the cardinal sin of looking too partisan, and Trump has taken his acquittal for plainly impeachable conduct as a blank check to further burn liberal democracy to the ground. Now, on a thread concerning a specific example of that very thing happening, you're actively defending it because it allows you to put your David Brooks cap on again.

If you were in Turkey, you'd be arguing that Erdogan shouldn't have jailed opposition party justices. He merely should've forced them to resign. Like a serious person would. But hey, the good news is you might get a chance to argue that here. Like a serious person. Who argues serious things.

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10525
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by honorentheos »

EAllusion wrote:
Sun May 10, 2020 3:08 pm
Honor, you spent the entire impeachment lead up offering incorrect analysis about impeachment could most effectively be used as a political tool.
True, early on prior to the Ukraine incident when the Muller Report was being covered I held that view and expressed it here. I didn't see the constant calls for impeachment as a smart thing to do. After some discussion here I was persuaded to view it as a matter of justice and Congressional responsibility. I admitted it at the time, too. I think it was a good point then and still do.

When it came to the Ukraine call I thought, and still think, it was the ideal case as it had many positive attributes such as the true victim being the Ukraine so it didn't have to become a partisan spat, witnesses from both parties in the administration, a pretty strong line of evidence including Trump essentially admitting to it, and the opportunity to show Trump abused power for political purposes.

But I also expressed concerns with how that case would be handled, told you directly I thought issues raised during the process should be pursued, and it was important to not turn it into a partisan spectacle. Every day I listened to the proceeding left me more pessimistic because it seemed clear the Republicans had a strategy - show the case was based in heresay, the Ukraine leadership did not see it as a quid pro quo, and the existence of said quid pro quo was the product if conjecture rathe than stated fact. The Democratsz on the other hand, seemed to think the proceeding was a chance for them to make statements in the form of questions aimed at putting talking points on the record, and showing little by way of coherent prosecution strategy. They followed that through by wrapping up when they had every reason to follow up on multiple unsettled issues that, IMO, would have been obvious had they held to a coherent strategy. They then used the procedural process to try and leverage the Senate which was...questionable as tactics go and even less clear what the intention was regarding strategy.

The idea impeachment should be weaponized as a political tool was never something I agreed with, and frankly was behind my initial concerns with it being the go to call every time the Trump administration was reported to have done something questionable. To assert parallels with wanting to use an open impeachment investigation as a chance to bring in anyone and everyone who may or may not have info on any potential Trump wrongdoing is reckless. It's the opposite of arguing in defense of Congressional oversight as a responsibility or an act pursuing justice.
Well, he wasn't convicted, which you hilariously continue to attribute to the cardinal sin of looking too partisan,
I attribute it to the Democrats having done a bad job. Or better said, their failing to convince a reasonable number of Republicans to vote to convict even if not enough for a supermajority seems most likely they did so because they failed to get outside of their own conversational bubble to figure out what strategy they needed to take to win over people who didn't already agree with them..so yeah. I guess we can attribute some of that to being too partisan.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17965
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by EAllusion »

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2000-do ... itter_abcn

Nearly 2000 former justice department officials - slash - hardcore extremists have called on Barr to resign over his Flynn intervention. They signed onto a petition decrying his intervention as a illegitimate political effort to subvert the rule of law that augurs autocracy . They probably just have not considered the evidence or something.

From Neal Katyal here's 3 articles:

1) Mary McCord arguing that the her words were distorted / lied about in the Flynn filing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/opin ... flynn.html

2) Chuck Rosenberg arguing why the Flynn filing is obviously spurious.

https://t.co/CdfB1rdlhX?amp=1

3) John Kravis, one of the prosecutors how resigned over the Stone case, pointing out a pattern of Barr lackeys intervening in DoJ cases to help Trump's inner circle while not applying their argued standards in other cases:

https://t.co/oqZQiAdDf1?amp=1

Granted, these are extremely extreme extremists unlike sober-minded individuals like David Brooks, Tom Friedman, and the like, but food for thought from the radical fridge.

User avatar
subgenius
God
Posts: 12872
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by subgenius »

EAllusion wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 1:25 pm
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2000-do ... itter_abcn

Nearly 2000 former justice department officials
Keyword = "former"...and of you bothered to research beyond the "oh my! two-thousand" you would understand why no one but simple-minded folk care what these "2000" have to say on the matter. But, yeah, go on and promote that these 2000 are clearly upstanding and unbias individuals in this context.
EAllusion wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 1:25 pm
They probably just have not considered the evidence or something.
I am interested in how you come to this conclusion...were you impressed by the number 2000? or by them being "former"?...would 5 current justice department officials have the same appeal to authority for you? or are you just deliberately posting obtuse opinion?

I am guessing that the credence here for you is the "former" title, because that likely means they were either career politicians ousted by Trump, or Obama "officials" ousted by Trump...or both....nevertheless, your measure is lacking.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17965
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by EAllusion »

The link contains a link to the petition and its signatories. The list includes a wide range of people who served in the justice department under Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, and a surprisingly decent number having careers under Reagan, Carter, Ford, and/or Nixon. I caught one LBJ person in there. Rather than having a major partisan lean in which administrations they served, it's a sampling of people alive from all previous administrations prior to Trump.

Shame about their extremism.

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10525
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by honorentheos »

EAllusion wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 1:25 pm
Granted, these are extremely extreme extremists unlike sober-minded individuals like David Brooks, Tom Friedman, and the like, but food for thought from the radical fridge.
Thanks for demonstrating the point that your presentation here has taken on an extreme quality. Sources views aside, you can't help yourself it seems.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17965
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by EAllusion »

[quote]Thanks for demonstrating the point that your presentation here has taken on an extreme quality. Sources views aside, you can't help yourself it seems.[/quote]

Yeah, so, the position I expressed wasn't extremist so much as a counter-point to real-deal extremism that took in a handful of middle-brow pundits with a long track-record of being wrong and, apparently, you. I was not a fan of your rhetorical condescension - might as well used the word "alarmist" to really capture the spirit of it. So, I'll entertain myself poking fun at it. But, because I'm not gonna just two-bit it, I figured I'd gesture at the scope of agreement with my view and cogent arguments for it while mocking you.

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10525
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by honorentheos »

EAllusion wrote:
Mon May 11, 2020 7:07 pm
Thanks for demonstrating the point that your presentation here has taken on an extreme quality. Sources views aside, you can't help yourself it seems.
Yeah, so, the position I expressed wasn't extremist so much as a counter-point to real-deal extremism that took in a handful of middle-brow pundits with a long track-record of being wrong and, apparently, you.
It's definitely the opinions YOU express, not your sources.

Former members of the Justice Department sign a letter calling for Barr to step down?

EAllusion: Barr should be in jail! Everyone agrees with me who's smart! See!?

Someone includes a thought that points out a little grey in an issue along with other points?

EAllusion: "Very serious people" are drinking the Trump koolaid and being taken for a ride by the right wing media!

Here's you at the start of the thread:
EAllusion wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 1:44 pm
Apparently Criminal Presidents are empowered to let their criminal confederates escape the law.
One of the more important takeaways here is how free they feel to be so openly corrupt at this point. Not even a fig leaf involved. You don't get to this level of brazenness in a mafia state without the ruling regime feeling a certain level of impunity. Those feelings don't come from nowhere.

The next logical step is prosecuting political enemies on thin pretexts. We've seen how this goes in enough other nations to get to be Cassandras during our own fall.
See?! Former members of the John Dehlin agree we are living in a mafia state where brazen authoritarianism is ungloved and openly crushing democracy live on CNN....and CNN cheers the controversy for ratings! Everyone is complicit who doesn't agree with me!

So yeah..you're an extremist. Most of the time it takes the form of positing the inevitability of extreme ramifications that, outside of certain parties, isn't reflecting the scope of the issue.
I was not a fan of your rhetorical condescension - might as well used the word "alarmist" to really capture the spirit of it. So, I'll entertain myself poking fun at it. But, because I'm not gonna just two-bit it, I figured I'd gesture at the scope of agreement with my view and cogent arguments for it while mocking you.
Funny that posting a comment or link and spinning it up to maximize the hyperbole is what passes for cogent argument...oh, wait..I see what you did. ;)

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17965
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Flynn Walks

Post by EAllusion »

[quote]Most of the time it takes the form of positing the inevitability of extreme ramifications that, outside of certain parties, isn't reflecting the scope of the issue.[/quote]

The impressive part is you wrote this post *after* the President started trying to whip up going after President Obama and former members of his administration related to investigation into his circle's malfeasance for sham crimes, promised more to come in that regard, right-wing media began blanket coverage supporting that position, and multiple US Senators backed doing so. When you want to describe my claim that this is the likely next step as a hysterical overreaction, you should consider being wrong [i]before[/i] something like that happens instead of after. It looks a little less ridiculous.

Or maybe you think of me describing that as the "fall of the country" is just a little too hyperbolic for you. But hey, we just might differ there. I think of that *as* the fallen state. Perhaps you might look around, notice that your lifestyle is still comfortable, and think to describe that as a fallen state is a bit much. Of course, that's true for the great bulk of people in Russia, Turkey, Poland, Hungary, the Philippines... Life goes on for most people much as it did before.

We just then have different ideas about what's worth lamenting.

Post Reply