Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

Words are specific. Obstruction is a concrete concept, as are justice and treason. We know what investigators do and we know what the words mean and we know what the behaviors are. Decades of courtroom activity turning meaning into mush doesn't change that. Nor does it alter the fact that national security has been harmed by the people running the country, about whom we have a reasonable cause to suspect treason. The consequence of the court's approach to words -- I personally would call it an extreme imbalance between letter and spirit -- is that we now have to wait for months or years and leave possible traitors in charge of the country whilst Mueller and his team figure out if they did it intentionally or not.

That's not reasonable. It's not a failure of the people involved, but it is a failure of the constitution.

I don't appreciate ``absolute worst of progressive thought". Your tone is unfortunate, but you're you and I like and respect you anyways, and your points are very much worth listening to when you actually unpack them with the patience and care required for the nuance they contain. So please just make your case instead of assertions like that. I don't see "Words have meaning" as a statement that belongs anywhere on the political spectrum.

[Wild Hoss]

Setting that aside, Hoss, is that a nuance you think half of the country is going to appreciate? If the thought is "Hey, you just spent gads and gads and gads of time, print and other resources telling us, or at least implying, that DJT was in bed with Russians to fix the election." and the result is no collusion, will the reaction be (a) thanks for doing your job! or (b) how can we possibly trust your bullshit?

Well, I have a few thoughts here. First and foremost, "reality" in the media is what we make it these days, and I think this thread adequately proves that to be true. Its a story that can probably never be proven...or disproven.

Second, the half of the country that would call BS if a definitive end could be reached...has already done so. For either answer. We have separate media conversations going on now.

Lastly, I don't know that I want the media making decisions on how they expend their resources based on their impression of how it is appreciated. If journalists with experience in government believe this is an issue worth following, I hope they would do so regardless of its perception.

[hack]

I disagree on Mueller. If firing Comey, Yates and Bhrara wasn't enough to raise eyebrows, I don't think firing Mueller becomes an election issue. You can see it in crash's latest post -- it'll be posited as another way to extract cash from white people.

I think the election will ride on turnout. A certain number of Trump voters will be fact-based voters who go D, but that's not a large number. Ds have to get out the vote. Or, better said, at this point Americans shouldn't need anyone telling them the importance of voting. If they don't know it already, GJ's giant meteor solution is looking better and better.

[hack]

Lastly, I don't know that I want the media making decisions on how they expend their resources based on their impression of how it is appreciated. If journalists with experience in government believe this is an issue worth following, I hope they would do so regardless of its perception.


Food for thought. I could both attack and defend every possible answer to that statement.

[Wild Hoss]

Trump has told us what he did, and we know what it means. He's obstructed justice again and again and again, and so have surrogates, from Pence down to Page and including Sessions, Nunes, etc. etc. Again, there's a gulf between the common understanding of words and actions and a court's understanding of them. We're the voters. These are our courts. They should reflect us, and not some weird other evolved standard that fits not one single person's notion of reality. The courts system is sick. It allows obvious criminals who are likely traitors to run the country. On the one hand, let Mueller do his job. On the other, the fact that it would take so long is a priceless asset to enemies of the state. We can't change the process now. We have the most serious test to our system in decades, if not ever, and we're stuck with the degraded system we have to work our way out of it. It'll be a sign of recovery if the country emerges with legal reforms near the top of the agenda. Plus healthcare. Plus banking. Plus this, that and the next thing.

Again -- inflection point. Things either get a lot better or a lot worse from here. Which lead to this. I don't think you're wrong, but I also don't think this is realistic:

However, I believe that the seemingly longer and less striking process of an engaged electorate keeping him immobilized through our voices and our votes is a much better option than what I would call undertaking a knee jerk impeachment process.


I don't think Americans have the political stamina for this, or the ability to overcome the intentional misdirection in media to perceive reality is it is. We're talking about fixes that take years and years, and sending people to jail by the dozens. That process would be overseen by people who have never in their lives understood what it really means to hold your own government accountable. They haven't been asked, because it hasn't really been needed. I don't think the skills and stamina are there.

Skills and stamina? Hell man, the desire isn’t there. I think most people in this country would piss on the Constitution and fondle Vladimir Putin balls if it meant “their side” would win whatever social/cultural issues are important to them.

Because we live such an insulated life here, there is no greater threat to the Republican than the liberal, or to the Democrat than the conservative. On any issue, half see a problem, and half do not. The difference is only who's ox is getting gored.

[Wild Hoss]

Lastly, I don't know that I want the media making decisions on how they expend their resources based on their impression of how it is appreciated. If journalists with experience in government believe this is an issue worth following, I hope they would do so regardless of its perception.


Food for thought. I could both attack and defend every possible answer to that statement.

Yes, I know...we would all like free puppies too. :D

[iam416]

I don't appreciate ``absolute worst of progressive thought".

Then don't be a caricature.

Make your case or don't make it. "Words have meaning" is not a statement that belongs anywhere on the political spectrum.

I have done so with clarity and force. I'm not inclined to keep doing so to someone whose posts indicate a total failure to understand statutory law. Moreover, and most importantly, I'm not inclined to do so because I see no path to anything even approaching a real conversation. Won't be the first or last time.

[iam416]

Well, I have a few thoughts here. First and foremost, "reality" in the media is what we make it these days, and I think this thread adequately proves that to be true. Its a story that can probably never be proven...or disproven.

Well, I'm certain it can't be disproven, proving a negative being what it is and all. The question remains whether it can be proven, at least in terms of public perception and legally speaking.

Second, the half of the country that would call BS if a definitive end could be reached...has already done so. For either answer. We have separate media conversations going on now.

I actually think it's closer to 40-42% -- the part of the country that is all-in on DJT. I think the remaining 8-12% is a pretty big deal. They're skeptical. They've been fed a line and are inclined to believe it. But, they're not there, yet. That's the basis -- credible or not -- for my take on it.

Lastly, I don't know that I want the media making decisions on how they expend their resources based on their impression of how it is appreciated. If journalists with experience in government believe this is an issue worth following, I hope they would do so regardless of its perception.

I'm fairly certain that gads of media outlets make decisions every day based on their intended market. There is no "universal" way to cover an issue. How you approach the issue and the extent you cover it is up the media source. I think that's on display in almost every issue from, say, the Orlando nightclub shooting to Comey's testimony.

[THE_WIZARD_]

[hack]

Back your words, please, or back off. You know as much about some of this media stuff as I do about statutory law.

[iam416]

You know as much about some of this media stuff as I do about statutory law

Conceded. I'm always willing to listen your opinion, especially on the media. I've only offered my only take on the media that includes a "credible or not" caveat. I certainly know my limitations. Feel free to inject yourself into the brief and civil discussion Hoss and I were having to let us all know what the unequivocal right answer is.

Back your words, please, or back off.

Internet tough guy caricature doesn't really change the record. My posts are there, my positions are clearly articulated and supported. Whether you choose to do anything other than be an ass is up to you.

[THE_WIZARD_]

It's a sad day on these boards when Talent is the voice of reason...heh...

[crashcourse]

"crash's latest post -- it'll be posited as another way to extract cash from white people."

again if you know your innocent of collusion with the russians why waste taxpayer money on a long drawn out multilayered investigation that will yield nothing more then what comey already said

I don't know why you have to inject race into this--its about the tax payer is the reason trump was elected

further vindication from an independent investigation may win a few more votes in the long run but not many--even Chris Matthews and and Alan dersowich (sp) concede there is nothing there that Is impeachable

trump is an arrogant prick but he works for the taxpayer when no one has in a long time. I'd be glad to vote for somebody anybody that wasn't an arrogant prick that worked for the taxpayer

but I had a choice of the PAH or Mr. HPD so Mr. HPD it was

[crashcourse]

before anybody asks--trump is the poster child for Histrionic Personality Disorder

[THE_WIZARD_]

You are the poster child for birth control...