Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[Arcadia]

I'm old enough to have voted in the past few presidential election, so I'm not having childhood amnesia from early 09- early 17. That Harvard analysis may be true, but that is beside my point - Obama didn't film those videos, Obama didn't start BLM. I witnessed first hand the start of the outrage before it became "mainstream". Your post heavily implies that Obama is a huge influence or aggressor in the outrage against the police and that's far far from the truth. He surely acknowledged the problem, stated there had to be solutions, but the insinuations I interpret from your post seem to place a heavy blame on the president for the anti-police sentiment and that's ridiculous from my perspective. I was active on liberal and democratic havens and I never once saw anything Obama said or did influence the people who truely fueled the flames and reached out to hundreds of thousands expressing their disdain for police. The actions of the police, the videos, the liberals and the media had a substantially larger impact than anything I've seen from Obama. I am in full agreement in other viewpoints that the media and their wall to wall coverage of mass shootings is very bad, and evidence shows it may increase the odds of the next mass shooting occurring. If that I have little doubt. As one who was very active in communities who seemed egregiously anti-cop, Obama was hardly a factor in their justifications.

Before President Trump, President Obama was the most divisive President in history. He was constantly lending his weight to criminals in matters before any details or facts were ever revealed or known, including Michael Brown and the Baltimore rioters. He supported Black Lives Matters, inviting them to the White House, even with their vitriolic chanting in the streets against police. He never publicly asked them to stop, tone it down, etc. But it was Obama’s rhetoric about the police that kept the flames stoked. Every time a video popped up, or a story broke….where was Obama?….in front of the camera saying things like…”the cop acted stupidly” and “the death of Michael Brown stains the heart of black children”. This, of course, before he knew the facts. Do I need to explain the psychology of this and why this is harmful? You're smart, Kod. I know you understand why this is not the thing to do. And just hours before five officers were killed in Dallas, Obama was once again stoking racial animosity, saying that the deaths of two blacks at the hands of police in Louisiana and Minnesota were "symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year." He was constantly planting the seed and stoking the flames that police were out there aiming to kill black people because it was a symptomatic problem within police departments across the country. AND IT WASN’T TRUE. But he made it sound like it was true. Every time he opened his mouth. So, did he not know the facts? Or did he know and purposely mislead? Either way, his statements caused harm. Irreparable harm.

No, Obama didn’t film those videos. He just liked to comment on them before he knew anything about them. As Kory pointed out, he was prone to comment PRIOR to details being released. Never in favor of the police mind you. Stir…stir….stir. But if he was so bent on commenting early before knowing any of the specifics of the case, then it should have been to say that what may seem incriminating in the initial video may not be what it appears, that the police may not have done anything wrong...let's wait for investigators to do their job. He should remind everyone what happens when people jump to the wrong conclusions, i.e. Ferguson, MO. But did he ever do that? No, he did not. My post doesn’t heavily imply Obama influenced the outrage against police. It flat-out states it.

But the context of my original post was to say that there are no moral high-grounders here. Eight years of Obama style divisive politicking is what got Trump elected. It was important to point out how we got here and why the other side, the Democrats, the liberals, are not innocent in today's hate-filled political climate. They are the other side of this coin. That was my main point. And it was an important one to make.

 

[KoD]

I agree there's no moral high grounders here. It's sad that we're in this political climate

 

[gangstonc]

BRENNAN: Trump's own intel chiefs say Russia is still meddling. When you met w/Putin, did you confront him?

BOLTON: "What Putin said was...there was no meddling in 2016 by the Russian state"

BRENNAN: Little happens w/o Putin's blessing

BOLTON: "That's an interesting statement" https://t.co/jVrMLqL0Bq

 

[Evan]

I owe some people a few replies I'll get to it soon. Caught a case of strep from my daughter.

But, I wanted to point out that Trump's gender gap has continued to grow, and it hurts the GOP badly as well.

Amy Coney Barrett is going to be the nominee unless the WH decides they prefer to play a game here. If they pick anyone other than a female Conservative they're shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Matt]

Before President Trump, President Obama was the most divisive President in history. He was constantly lending his weight to criminals in matters before any details or facts were ever revealed or known, including Michael Brown and the Baltimore rioters. He supported Black Lives Matters, inviting them to the White House, even with their vitriolic chanting in the streets against police. He never publicly asked them to stop, tone it down, etc. But it was Obama’s rhetoric about the police that kept the flames stoked. Every time a video popped up, or a story broke….where was Obama?….in front of the camera saying things like…”the cop acted stupidly” and “the death of Michael Brown stains the heart of black children”. This, of course, before he knew the facts. Do I need to explain the psychology of this and why this is harmful? You're smart, Kod. I know you understand why this is not the thing to do. And just hours before five officers were killed in Dallas, Obama was once again stoking racial animosity, saying that the deaths of two blacks at the hands of police in Louisiana and Minnesota were "symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year." He was constantly planting the seed and stoking the flames that police were out there aiming to kill black people because it was a symptomatic problem within police departments across the country. AND IT WASN’T TRUE. But he made it sound like it was true. Every time he opened his mouth. So, did he not know the facts? Or did he know and purposely mislead? Either way, his statements caused harm. Irreparable harm.

No, Obama didn’t film those videos. He just liked to comment on them before he knew anything about them. As Kory pointed out, he was prone to comment PRIOR to details being released. Never in favor of the police mind you. Stir…stir….stir. But if he was so bent on commenting early before knowing any of the specifics of the case, then it should have been to say that what may seem incriminating in the initial video may not be what it appears, that the police may not have done anything wrong...let's wait for investigators to do their job. He should remind everyone what happens when people jump to the wrong conclusions, i.e. Ferguson, MO. But did he ever do that? No, he did not. My post doesn’t heavily imply Obama influenced the outrage against police. It flat-out states it.

But the context of my original post was to say that there are no moral high-grounders here. Eight years of Obama style divisive politicking is what got Trump elected. It was important to point out how we got here and why the other side, the Democrats, the liberals, are not innocent in today's hate-filled political climate. They are the other side of this coin. That was my main point. And it was an important one to make.

As the father of a police officer who has had to use deadly force to save a life, worry my money maker off every night he goes to work. He works an inner city precinct and risks his life every shift. I appreciate your comments on this matter as they are spot on. Thank you!

 

[Kory]

I owe some people a few replies I'll get to it soon. Caught a case of strep from my daughter.

But, I wanted to point out that Trump's gender gap has continued to grow, and it hurts the GOP badly as well.

Amy Coney Barrett is going to be the nominee unless the WH decides they prefer to play a game here. If they pick anyone other than a female Conservative they're shooting themselves in the foot.

I'd like to know Amy Barrett's stance on the second amendment. My hope is that we can get the courts to strike down some of these unconstitutional state-imposed restrictions by these left-wing states, much how they did for marriage equality (which I am fine with). Maybe that will pave the way to national reciprocity.

Kavanaugh has signaled support for Roe v Wade as federal law, so I'm not very hot on him.

 

[Arcadia]

As the father of a police officer who has had to use deadly force to save a life, worry my money maker off every night he goes to work. He works an inner city precinct and risks his life every shift. I appreciate your comments on this matter as they are spot on. Thank you!

Of course, Matt. I understand your worry more than you know.

 

[gangstonc]

Just a reminder in all the noise that House GOP hasn't released a transcript of FBI Agent Peter Strzok's testimony, despite his attorney's repeated calls to do so. For people who have been so vocal about "transparency," they certainly like keeping a lot of secrets.

And where is Rudy?

 

[gangstonc]

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-one-meeting-with-putin-without-aides-present

Do trump supporters think this is normal?

 

[Evan]

Without any reservation, I can definitively say that the President of the United States is lying his money maker off in this tweet. Not only is it an incredibly harmful lie, but it is a lie that assumes the American people are too stupid to know otherwise.

I can personally vouch for WaPo's reporting process and how they verify and use sources. It is an interesting story I'd love to tell one day in detail, but for now I can't do so. But, I can say that I have FIRSTHAND personal experience in how the Washington Post vets sources and stories, and how careful they are to verify information, confirm details, etc. I can also say that they prefer sources to be on-record whenever possible. If a source requests anonymity they will protect the identity of that person, but it also causes them to use even more resources to verify and confirm what a source says. They don't just take people at their word. They require that a source answer many questions and provide as much proof as possible. Part of that is verification that the source actually has access to the information they are claiming to have, has a credible background, and can offer evidence establishing all that I just mentioned.

I'm extremely confident that the aforementioned procedures and policies aren't just limited to WaPo, but I only have firsthand experience with their process. You can't just call up a major news outlet anonymously and pass them information that they will then publish. They verify all information and run down leads to confirm or deny any anonymous tips that occur. In fact, anonymous tips and anonymous sources are quite different for anyone not aware of the difference. With any story that uses anonymous sourcing, they are going to demand documents, data, etc and look for additional sources to confirm before a story even begins to be written. Along the way, there is hands-on involvement by editors and lawyers (at minimum) although I can't speak with a lot of clarity about that portion of the process.

One day I'll be able to talk about my personal experience in detail. But, for now, having been exposed to "how the sausage is made" at a major outlet, I can absolutely say that POTUS is lying.

Why does the President lie about such things? Why is he allergic to the truth? That's why even though I'm excited about a Conservative jurist being appointed to SCOTUS, I have serious doubts about whether or not it will ever be worth the damage he is doing. The current refrain is ignore his words and focus only on his actions. But the words of the President cannot be ignored - - especially as they tend to become the policy of our government and lead to direct actions by others.

I will continue to be pleased when Trump does things I agree with. But I will always filter that through what it is costing our country and society at the same time. Because I know that much of what he has accomplished (if not all) could've and would've been accomplished by any other conventional GOP candidate. In fact, it is extremely easy to imagine how a conventional GOP leader would've accomplished much more already, and would've done so without the baggage.

 

[Arcadia]

Without any reservation, I can definitively say that the President of the United States is lying his money maker off in this tweet. Not only is it an incredibly harmful lie, but it is a lie that assumes the American people are too stupid to know otherwise.

I can personally vouch for WaPo's reporting process and how they verify and use sources. It is an interesting story I'd love to tell one day in detail, but for now I can't do so. But, I can say that I have FIRSTHAND personal experience in how the Washington Post vets sources and stories, and how careful they are to verify information, confirm details, etc. I can also say that they prefer sources to be on-record whenever possible. If a source requests anonymity they will protect the identity of that person, but it also causes them to use even more resources to verify and confirm what a source says. They don't just take people at their word. They require that a source answer many questions and provide as much proof as possible. Part of that is verification that the source actually has access to the information they are claiming to have, has a credible background, and can offer evidence establishing all that I just mentioned.

I'm extremely confident that the aforementioned procedures and policies aren't just limited to WaPo, but I only have firsthand experience with their process. You can't just call up a major news outlet anonymously and pass them information that they will then publish. They verify all information and run down leads to confirm or deny any anonymous tips that occur. In fact, anonymous tips and anonymous sources are quite different for anyone not aware of the difference. With any story that uses anonymous sourcing, they are going to demand documents, data, etc and look for additional sources to confirm before a story even begins to be written. Along the way, there is hands-on involvement by editors and lawyers (at minimum) although I can't speak with a lot of clarity about that portion of the process.

One day I'll be able to talk about my personal experience in detail. But, for now, having been exposed to "how the sausage is made" at a major outlet, I can absolutely say that POTUS is lying.

Why does the President lie about such things? Why is he allergic to the truth? That's why even though I'm excited about a Conservative jurist being appointed to SCOTUS, I have serious doubts about whether or not it will ever be worth the damage he is doing. The current refrain is ignore his words and focus only on his actions. But the words of the President cannot be ignored - - especially as they tend to become the policy of our government and lead to direct actions by others.

I will continue to be pleased when Trump does things I agree with. But I will always filter that through what it is costing our country and society at the same time. Because I know that much of what he has accomplished (if not all) could've and would've been accomplished by any other conventional GOP candidate. In fact, it is extremely easy to imagine how a conventional GOP leader would've accomplished much more already, and would've done so without the baggage.

Can I get an AMEN!

 

[WesL]

Pruitt is out at EPA

 

[Evan]

Time is ticking down to Trump's SCOTUS nomination. I will be praying that he is given wisdom to make the right choice. Roe has to go. It is a travesty of a decision that allows for the barbaric and inhumane murder of innocent babies. They ALL deserve a RIGHT to life.

 

[gangstonc]

I’m concerned that trump could be picking a judge that could be deciding if he can pardon himself, if he is required to respond to a subpoena, if he can be indicted, etc.


These are not the actions of an innocent man.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/us/politics/trump-special-counsel-interview.html

 

[Kory]

I’m concerned that trump could be picking a judge that could be decided if he can pardon himself, if he is required to respond to a subpoena, if he can be indicted, etc.


These are not the actions of an innocent man.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/us/politics/trump-special-counsel-interview.html

I'm tired of the Left disparaging a lady, who has pristine judicial credentials, because of her Catholic faith. I never understood why the Left, in large, is so hostile toward Christians. Then they wonder why they can't win in Middle America.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/32739/limbaugh-democratic-partys-christian-problem-david-limbaugh

 

[Mike S]

I'm tired of the Left disparaging a lady, who has pristine judicial credentials, because of her Catholic faith. I never understood why the Left, in large, is so hostile toward Christians. Then they wonder why they can't win in Middle America.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/32739/limbaugh-democratic-partys-christian-problem-david-limbaugh

The left controlled the presidency from 2008 until 2016 because of Catholics, so it makes no sense whey they'd be so anti-Catholic, yet many of them are.

 

[gangstonc]

I'm tired of the Left disparaging a lady, who has pristine judicial credentials, because of her Catholic faith. I never understood why the Left, in large, is so hostile toward Christians. Then they wonder why they can't win in Middle America.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/32739/limbaugh-democratic-partys-christian-problem-david-limbaugh

I don’t see how what i said lead to what you said.

 

[Kory]

I don’t see how what i said lead to what you said.

While not directly related, were we not discussing SCOTUS judge picks? You expressed your valid concern. I'm expressing exasperation at others grasping for straws at irrelevant personal details of the likely Trump nominee.

 

[gangstonc]

While not directly related, were we not discussing SCOTUS judge picks? You expressed your valid concern. I'm expressing exasperation at others grasping for straws at irrelevant personal details of the likely Trump nominee.

Ah. I thought you were saying I implied something about Catholics.

 

[Evan]

The left controlled the presidency from 2008 until 2016 because of Catholics, so it makes no sense whey they'd be so anti-Catholic, yet many of them are.

I was going to say...somewhat depends on your definition of "left" as Obama had significant Catholic support.