The Clinton Thread II - Part 2

[Thundercrack85]

When Hillary gets into office, Comey's ass is grass.

 

[Raiden]

Or you know...if you read past the headline




Like I said he's trying to thread the needle here.

So Comey is afraid of concealing information, and yet he doesn't even have the warrant to find those emails and reveal what they are? Seems to me he is trying to influence the election but came up with this BS excuse to cover his behind.

 

[Anita18]

It's official now that the FBI doesn't have a search warrant and thus never knew the content of the email or if they are important so I'd say it's safe to say this was political.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wr...emails-220219586.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek tweeted that other FBI employees ("Special Agent, ASAC and SAC level..") are PISSED at Comey for this stunt. The FBI is known as apolitical, and this will color the public's perception of them forever.

In addition, he also tweeted that he has friends who were going to vote third party, but the FBI getting into the fray put them squarely on Hillary's side. So it actually might help her, depending on the voter.

 

[E.NormusJohnson]

Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek tweeted that other FBI employees ("Special Agent, ASAC and SAC level..") are PISSED at Comey for this stunt. The FBI is known as apolitical, and this will color the public's perception of them forever.

In addition, he also tweeted that he has friends who were going to vote third party, but the FBI getting into the fray put them squarely on Hillary's side. So it actually might help her, depending on the voter.

Seems like the rumor of a civil war within the FBI may turn out to be true. CNN had a guy on tonight that was insinuating the Feds investigating Weener (pun intended) gave the heads up to the clinton investigation squad they had something related to the e-mail probe and also potentially ties in the CGI from their evidence gathering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIOMwSKhj4A

... and it's from CNN of all places.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Or you know...if you read past the headline




Like I said he's trying to thread the needle here.

Yeah, sure, that makes total sense.

 

[DeadPresident]

First of all let's not pretend there's any evidence of wrong doing here. Comey acknowledges that the emails could be nothing.

Second, there's a difference between status quo supporting neoconservatives like the last four presidents and what Trump is advocating.

Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama and Hillary are not fascist when compared to Trump.

They don't praise autocrats like Putin. They don't urge their crowds to beat up peaceful protestors. They don't advocate torture that would make Dick Cheney blush. They don't have unprecedented support from white nationalist domestic and abroad. They don't suggest banning people from our country based on their religious beliefs. They don't say we should "take their oil" on national tv. They don't suggest changing laws to make it easier to sue the press. They don't say the first amendment offers "too much protection".

Maybe these are minor differences to you but not to anyone familiar with civil liberties enough to recognize neofascism or authoritarianism when they see it.

So when Comey's opinion is in favor of Clinton he's doing his job right but when it's not in favor of Clinton he isn't? From what I'm seeing he didn't do his job properly in either instance and he's weak as **** to political interference.

The right's fascism was given decades to develop, as you pointed out with the list of presidents, the left and the democrat's are getting into their swing now and have made the strides to their own little period of hegemony when Clinton gets elected. Fascist tactics from a party never come quickly, it always needs a decade or two for them to amass enough power to feel they can enforce whatever harebrained nonsense they want to push.

I'm looking further ahead than this election and Clinton is a building block for the democrats to descend into the same farce and lunacy the republicans created for themselves by courting ever more unreasonable minorities within their voter base.

 

[Marvolo]

So when Comey's opinion is in favor of Clinton he's doing his job right but when it's not in favor of Clinton he isn't? From what I'm seeing he didn't do his job properly in either instance and he's weak as **** to political interference.

The right's fascism was given decades to develop, as you pointed out with the list of presidents, the left and the democrat's are getting into their swing now and have made the strides to their own little period of hegemony when Clinton gets elected. Fascist tactics from a party never come quickly, it always needs a decade or two for them to amass enough power to feel they can enforce whatever harebrained nonsense they want to push.

I'm looking further ahead than this election and Clinton is a building block for the democrats to descend into the same farce and lunacy the republicans created for themselves by courting ever more unreasonable minorities within their voter base.

Which ones?

 

[DeadPresident]

Which ones?

Whatever fringe exponents develop from from identity groups historically persecuted by the right? We've seen radicals come from groups like BLM. It's arbitrary in the end, whenever they're given free reign every establishment's constituents develop a comfort with trying to impose themselves on others.

The left/right in the USA will become like a generational pendulum where one side imposes on the other with whatever oppressive mechanisms they have at their disposal, ad nauseam.

 

[samsnee]

I just can't get over the fact that the guy doesn't even know how they are related to the Clinton email issue since he didn't read the emails but felt they had to be. Because they had the word Clinton in them?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

So when Comey's opinion is in favor of Clinton he's doing his job right but when it's not in favor of Clinton he isn't? From what I'm seeing he didn't do his job properly in either instance and he's weak as **** to political interference.

The right's fascism was given decades to develop, as you pointed out with the list of presidents, the left and the democrat's are getting into their swing now and have made the strides to their own little period of hegemony when Clinton gets elected. Fascist tactics from a party never come quickly, it always needs a decade or two for them to amass enough power to feel they can enforce whatever harebrained nonsense they want to push.

I'm looking further ahead than this election and Clinton is a building block for the democrats to descend into the same farce and lunacy the republicans created for themselves by courting ever more unreasonable minorities within their voter base.

You can tell how fascist a society is by how few civil liberties they enjoy and how draconian their laws are.

A fascist society doesn't allow protest, freedom of religion, due process, free seech, or forbid torture.

Nor do they allow the legalization of cannabis, the right to choose, gay marriage, consumer rights, etc.

Overall, Liberals are more reasonable than the Republican base. There's less support for overthrowing the government and replacing it with an authoritarian dystopia.

Young people are obsessed with free college and a higher minimum wage but other than that they're reasonable and comfortable with the status quo.

 

[Orba]

I just can't get over the fact that the guy doesn't even know how they are related to the Clinton email issue since he didn't read the emails but felt they had to be. Because they had the word Clinton in them?

Its hard to even say that since the FBI is yet to even get a warrant for the e-mails.

 

[DeadPresident]

You can tell how fascist a society is by how few civil liberties they enjoy and how draconian their laws are.

As mentioned before, few movements start out fascist, it's a slow transformation the left is only now starting.

A fascist society doesn't allow protest,

Unless it's protest against any of the sacred topics to the left.

freedom of religion,

Except for becoming increasingly anti-Judeo-Christian and pro-Muslim.,

due process,

Unless it interferes with the goals of the left

free seech,

This one is the most hilarious, the left are enthusiastically shutting down free speech at every turn, political correctness, which started out as reasonable call for personal consideration, has now morphed into a censorship hunt to eliminate any and all dissent

forbid torture

Fair enough.

Nor do they allow the legalization of cannabis, the right to choose, gay marriage, consumer rights, etc.

Hilarious how marijuana is one of your first concerns, true to form. The rest have merit, but the new conservatives of this generation will remove all the bigoted aspects and likely be social liberals and fiscal conservatives.

Overall, Liberals are more reasonable than the Republican base. There's less support for overthrowing the government and replacing it with an authoritarian dystopia.

No, current liberals are more reasonable than the old, and by Trump's popularity with over 40's, rotating and decreasing Republicans. The democrats will become the new status quo and will begin pushing their positions ever more forcibly until another more tolerant movement ousts them. Are you aware of how history works?

You've been so captured by your leftist leanings you seem to believe there's intrinsically more morality from democrats, and that may be how their ascent started but beyond that you're just fortunate enough to conform to identity categories they happen to represent. There's no innate morality to their actions objectively, it just feels like it to you because you're a beneficiary.

Young people are obsessed with free college and a higher minimum wage but other than that they're reasonable and comfortable with the status quo.

I'm not sure how you can call people, who misunderstand the basic fundamentals of economics, i.e how free college and minimum wage will through attrition destroy an economy, reasonable. Not to mention the social fallout of creating a dependent and thoughtless population. You're not talking about safety nets, you're talking about turning a population into children and the state into its parents.

 

[DeadPresident]

What people seem to have forgotten is the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of state policy, is that (for better and worse) the right believe in the individual being allowed to decide for themselves, ironically a tenet of classical liberalism, and (for better and worse) the left believes the most important decisions should be made for the individual by the state.

 

[godisawesome]

What people seem to have forgotten is the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of state policy, is that (for better and worse) the right believe in the individual being allowed to decide for themselves, ironically a tenet of classical liberalism, and (for better and worse) the left believes the most important decisions should be made for the individual by the state.

Perhaps because both parties seem to actually have a rather large dichotomy in their philosophy when it comes to how much freedom the individual should have, and where such freedom should apply. Republicans are traditionally socially conservative and restrictive while being more free-market thinkers about economic policies, and Democrats are traditionally socially liberal and permissive while being more controlled economy thinkers. There's still thousands, if not millions, of Republican voters who define themselves by only one or two social issues and are quite frankly unconcerned with other policy decisions as long as the policy makers seem trustworthy. There's also thousands, if not millions, of Republicans who are defined almost exclusively by economic policy, without a care in the world about social rules and mores. And those same social issues vary greatly in motivation and types, as do the economic policies. And the Democrats experience a similar tangled mass of alliances.

Quite simply, some of our language is too enfused with a false dichotomy when it comes to politics. A single issue can have six or seven major different views across the country and political spectrum, but only two parties to vote with.

Also, just for the sake of semantics and perspective, I would use the word "authoritarian" in place of fascism to describe any possible corruption you see coming the Democratic parties way. "Fascism" generally requires the kind of overwhelming nationalism and right wing screening that Trump seems to be employing, and the left-wing equivalent, "bolshevikism" has simply fallen to the way side. If your fear is both parties slowly coming to regard the opposition as a truly implacable enemy to be spitefully fought, authoritarian covers that much more efficiently.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

As mentioned before, few movements start out fascist, it's a slow transformation the left is only now starting.

What civil liberties do liberals seriously threaten outside a few ridiculous hate speech rules on certain college campuses?

Unless it's protest against any of the sacred topics to the left.

Specific examples?

Except for becoming increasingly anti-Judeo-Christian and pro-Muslim., Unless it interferes with the goals of the left

Again you're going to need specific examples of left wing leaders pushing Muslim beliefs and oppressing innocent Christians.

This one is the most hilarious, the left are enthusiastically shutting down free speech at every turn, political correctness, which started out as reasonable call for personal consideration, has now morphed into a censorship hunt to eliminate any and all dissent

Free speech =/= Everything you say is above criticism

Also, free speech means the government is stoping you from expressing yourself. Random people criticizing someone for using the N-word is free speech being countered with more free speech.

Hilarious how marijuana is one of your first concerns, true to form. The rest have merit, but the new conservatives of this generation will remove all the bigoted aspects and likely be social liberals and fiscal conservatives.

It's truly sad that so many people don't comprehend how destructive prohibition is.

It gives cartels and gangs billions of dollars every year.

Then there are billions that could be added to the economy and to state and federal budgets that is lost forever.

20 million people have been arrested for cannabis over the years (that's bigger than the entire LBGT or Florida population). Many of those people lost job opportunities and/or their families.

In many cases these laws have been used as excuses to target and penalize relatively harmless minorities.

This doesn't even touch on people who could benefit from medicinal cannabis or hemp who don't.

If two people getting married "has merit" then why not the above points?

Ultimately if you think the drug war is not a serious issue then you are incredibly ignorant.

No, current liberals are more reasonable than the old, and by Trump's popularity with over 40's, rotating and decreasing Republicans. The democrats will become the new status quo and will begin pushing their positions ever more forcibly until another more tolerant movement ousts them. Are you aware of how history works?

What's so terrible about a status quo where people value each other's differences, where a woman has control over her body, where minorities, gays and women have equal protection under the law and equal opportunities, where the environment is valued and protected, where people are encouraged to empathize with the poor or oppressed, etc.

If I had to choose to live in a status quo where the above is normal vs where those things are removed, I'd prefer the one where its normal. What kind of person wouldn't?

You've been so captured by your leftist leanings you seem to believe there's intrinsically more morality from democrats, and that may be how their ascent started but beyond that you're just fortunate enough to conform to identity categories they happen to represent. There's no innate morality to their actions objectively, it just feels like it to you because you're a beneficiary.

Of course some values are more reasonable and thoughtful than others. MLK had different values than J Edgar Hoover. They aren't equally legitimate simply because they both exist.

I'm not sure how you can call people, who misunderstand the basic fundamentals of economics, i.e how free college and minimum wage will through attrition destroy an economy, reasonable. Not to mention the social fallout of creating a dependent and thoughtless population. You're not talking about safety nets, you're talking about turning a population into children and the state into its parents.

I don't agree with free college or a 15 dollar minimum wage but outside that these kids are far more reasonable than the Republican base who want society to be like the pre-1960's (including less equal rights and secularism) or want to decimate the social safety net.

Where would you rather live, Scandinavia in the modern era where they have crazy stuff like free college and healthcare or Alabama during the 1950's?

Maybe many straight white males have a rose colored view of the latter time period but most others do not.

 

[DeadPresident]

What civil liberties do liberals seriously threaten outside a few ridiculous hate speech rules on certain college campuses?

None, yet, and not everything is directed at hate speech. A lot is directed at differing opinion. What else would you call it when people protest a conservative speaking at their campus, unless conservatism has de facto become associated exclusively with evil, bigoted ideology?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christ...writer-ben-shapiro-banned-from-csula-n2123430

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ben...efox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=8h0WWMbCOImp8wf8qaGICA

There are multiple other examples, even of people like Sowell or Elder being prohibited from speaking in certain places. I'm assuming if someone tried to prohibit a so-called leftist from speaking their mind on a college campus it would be unacceptable?

Specific examples?

The increased acceptance of anti-Semitic belief in average discourse vs the increased protection of Islam? The same standards are not applied to each religion by the left, but at the same time they want to tell everyone equality is their aim. The fact that questioning whether or not certain behaviors are or are not objectively untrue? For instance, qualitative research has been done that shows that human sexuality is generally as a result of social as well as biological factors. Will the left discuss that extensive scientific research disproves their claim that sexual orientation has a "born this way" dynamic? No.

Again, the left has adopted "the other" as its identity groups, whatever is not represented by the status quo in America is afforded greater discursive protection, socially, and likely soon institutionally.

Again you're going to need specific examples of left wing leaders pushing Muslim beliefs and oppressing innocent Christians.

It's in our discourse, every day. Clock boy cracks an invite to the white house because...? Oh, yeah, he was unfortunate enough to be discriminated against as a Muslim. A black American is killed by brutal and unhinged cops. POTUS is effectively silent. Let's not pretend that for the regressive left Muslims and the Middle East aren't hallowed ground.

Pop discourse from arm chair leftists have adopted the Muslim cause, a direct attack on Western values, as their mascot because it attacks so many of the things they see as wrong in their own society, and when a white devil dares legitimately critique Islam they're branded racist Nazis.

Free speech =/= Everything you say is above criticism

Also, free speech means the government is stoping you from expressing yourself. Random people criticizing someone for using the N-word is free speech being countered with more free speech.

Government, or institutions? When a college decides to prohibit someone who is not saying anything hateful from coming to their campus, what is that?

It's truly sad that so many people don't comprehend how destructive prohibition is.

It gives cartels and gangs billions of dollars every year.

Then there are billions that could be added to the economy and to state and federal budgets that is lost forever.

20 million people have been arrested for cannabis over the years (that's bigger than the entire LBGT or Florida population). Many of those people lost job opportunities and/or their families.

In many cases these laws have been used as excuses to target and penalize relatively harmless minorities.

This doesn't even touch on people who could benefit from medicinal cannabis or hemp who don't.

If two people getting married "has merit" then why not the above points?

Ultimately if you think the drug war is not a serious issue then you are incredibly ignorant.

It's a serious issue for the reasons you gave above, I agree, but often your reasons defer to personal liberty, not the practical societal effect that drug legislation currently has, interesting that you've changed tack.

What's so terrible about a status quo where people value each other's differences, where a woman has control over her body, where minorities, gays and women have equal protection under the law and equal opportunities, where the environment is valued and protected, where people are encouraged to empathize with the poor or oppressed, etc.

If I had to choose to live in a status quo where the above is normal vs where those things are removed, I'd prefer the one where its normal. What kind of person wouldn't?

Except we're not talking about you, or any other reasonable liberals. My entire point over my last couple of posts is that fascist, oppressive changes don't occur immediately, but the signs are there. And if people don't push back against the whiny millennials who don't have the emotional or cognitive maturity to regulate themselves, and instead want to police everyone else, then don't be surprised when those whiny millennials turn into law makers with agendas.

Of course some values are more reasonable and thoughtful than others. MLK had different values than J Edgar Hoover. They aren't equally legitimate simply because they both exist.

That's interesting, because the left loves claiming everything is relative, but I get your point.

I don't agree with free college or a 15 dollar minimum wage but outside that these kids are far more reasonable than the Republican base who want society to be like the pre-1960's (including less equal rights and secularism) or want to decimate the social safety net.

Where would you rather live, Scandinavia in the modern era where they have crazy stuff like free college and healthcare or Alabama during the 1950's?

Don't use the average college kid as your yard stick, use the vocal minority. Because the same way that a minority was appealed to, and it grew, to eventually nominate a guy like Trump for the Republicans, the unreasonable regressive left will grow and usurp the dems some time soon.

Also, modern era Scandinavia is hemorrhaging money at an alarming rate and has an immigration crisis that'll threaten to cause a fourth Reich within the next decade, so people really need to stop using them as examples of utopias. It's only a utopia when your population is homogeneous, wherever that may be. I've discussed the socioeconomic differences between the Nordic countries and the USA before, it's like comparing apples and brake discs.

Maybe many straight white males have a rose colored view of the latter time period but most others do not.

I wouldn't know, but you're probably right.

 

[SV Fan]

What people seem to have forgotten is the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of state policy, is that (for better and worse) the right believe in the individual being allowed to decide for themselves.......

well except when it comes to social issues

Except for becoming increasingly anti-Judeo-Christian and pro-Muslim.,

Saying somebody is not a terrorist just because they happen to be Muslim, doesn't make somebody anti Judeo Christian and Pro Muslim.

 

[DeadPresident]

well except when it comes to social issues

Sure, and as mentioned before that's down to conservatives born pre-80s mostly, and they're a dying breed. Fairly soon all the pop-social issues are going to be moot.

 

[SV Fan]

Let's not pretend that for the regressive left Muslims and the Middle East aren't hallowed ground.

Only in your warped mind is the middle east "hallowed ground" in liberals/leftists minds.

Here is the thing we live in America not the middle east and in America Muslims are not a problem as a whole, on the flip side we have a small but vocal group of evangelical(I specifically point them out because generally your more mainline christian faiths aren't that vocal) christians who seem to want to shove their noses in American policy and we need to call them out.

 

[DeadPresident]

Only in your warped mind is the middle east "hallowed ground" in liberals/leftists minds.

Here is the thing we live in America not the middle east and in America Muslims are not a problem as a whole, on the flip side we have a small but vocal group of evangelical(I specifically point them out because generally your more mainline christian faiths aren't that vocal) christians who seem to want to shove their noses in American policy and we need to call them out.

You proved my point, ad hominem straight out of the gate when I make the assertion that critiquing Islam and its peripheral topics is faux pas to the left and I have a "warped" mind.

I don't disagree with your second paragraph and critiquing Islam when needed and holding the belief that extremist evangelicals are a blight on American politics and society aren't mutually exclusive.

And as a disclaimer, I specified the regressive left, not the general left, which makes your reaction even more puzzling.

 

[SV Fan]

You proved my point, ad hominem straight out of the gate when I make the assertion that critiquing Islam and its peripheral topics is faux pas to the left and I have a "warped" mind.

But who on the left says anything good about the middle east. Just because somebody feels the right to defend everyday Muslims(who as I say on a whole aren't a problem in everyday American life), doesn't mean they have a good/positive view of the middle east. Anybody who does believe that the left has positive views of the Middle East because of that has a warped view what lefts thinks and is basically making huge assumptions

 

[DeadPresident]

But who on the left says anything good about the middle east. Just because somebody feels the right to defend everyday Muslims(who as I say on a whole aren't a problem in everyday American life), doesn't mean they have a good/positive view of the middle east. Anybody who does believe that the left has positive views of the Middle East because of that has a warped view what lefts thinks and is basically making huge assumptions

Did you even read what I wrote, twice now, about specifying the regressive left or are you just so enthusiastic to disagree that you missed the very deliberate distinction I brought up twice?

As I said to Messiah, I'm not talking about the average left-leaning democrat.

 

[SV Fan]

Did you even read what I wrote, twice now, about specifying the regressive left or are you just so enthusiastic to disagree that you missed the very deliberate distinction I brought up twice?

I haven't seen anybody defend the Middle East or have a good view of the middle east. What i see is people (generally) on the right attack people who may not make negative statements of the Middle East when they are defending Muslims as somehow having a positive view of the Middle East.

It's a basic case that if Muslims and Apples and the Middle East is oranges, saying something positive about apples doesn't by proxy means you have positive feelings of oranges(although that is how some will interpret it).

The ironic thing I find about talking about Muslims as individuals is aren't the republicans the one who push the idea we are all individuals and should be judged on being an individual and not by some group we may be part of?

 

[DeadPresident]

I haven't seen anybody defend the Middle East or have a good view of the middle east. What i see is people (generally) on the right attack people who may not make negative statements of the Middle East when they are defending Muslims as somehow having a positive view of the Middle East.

It's a basic case that if Muslims and Apples and the Middle East is oranges, saying something positive about apples doesn't by proxy means you have positive feelings of oranges(although that is how some will interpret it).

The ironic thing I find about talking about Muslims as individuals is aren't the republicans the one who push the idea we are all individuals and should be judged on being an individual and not by some group we may be part of?

You just quoted my post again and for a second time ignored the information in it...I'm not sure if you're doing this on purpose or...? That was also without a doubt one of the worst analogies I've ever seen.

At any rate no intelligent discussion will come from engaging you on this, adios.

 

[SV Fan]

You just quoted my post again and for a second time ignored the information in it...I'm not sure if you're doing this on purpose or...?

To make it clear to you I don't see anybody on the left, even the so called regressive left you talk about have much positive to say about the Middle East or many practices that happen their due to their religion. In general people who feel the "regressive left" has a positive view of the Middle East are making assumptions that the fact they don't say anything negative about the Middle East when defending the individual right of a Muslim person to exist in this society, that is somehow proof they are pro Muslim

That was also without a doubt one of the worst analogies I've ever seen.

Maybe I could have worded it better but it basically means when the left is arguing about one thing(generally individual rights as a whole or the right of an individual to live in society without somebody stepping all over their rights), the right is arguing something else(generally Muslim practices in the Middle East as if they are one single minded group of people) so the right will look at the left saying something good about the individual as somehow supporting every single thing in the Muslim world.