
GW Hayduke
-
Posts
1705 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by GW Hayduke
-
-
16 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:
Well, we'll see what the IG report has to say about Sargeant Schultz's investigation, and his made up intent standard. And his willingness to grant immunity to key conspirators in exchange for nothing.
Ok. It seems that you might be on board with the idea that it was/is appropriate for the two investigations to follow different paths.
It seems that you don’t trust the outcome of the Hillary investigation.Â
-
3 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:
I have no idea where you got that I think Hillary and Trump did the same things. However, the process of investigating them has been vastly different, starting with the point that the FBI started the investigation of Hillary with a known crime. So far, all I see in the Trump investigation is 18 full-time prosecutors looking for a crime.
First, Hillary was investigated and it was determined that no crime occurred. Referring to a “known crime” isn’t accurate.
Second, mueller has made multiple indictments and obtained several guilty please.
The two situations are completely different. One side had no crime. The other side has multiple crimes and is currently being investigated for a broad ranging conspiracy.
We are talking about apples and oranges. Why wouldn’t the processes for investigating them be drastically different?
-
8 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:
It's not unusual for partisans on both sides to be laughable inconsistent depending on the circumstances. Just read anything Harry Reid or anyone on either side had to say about eliminating the filibuster. What we haven't experienced until now is jaw-dropping inconsistency in the FBI and DOJ. That's why this report is important.  The contrast between how the FBI treated Hillary and her associates and how they are treating Trump and anyone associated with him is the main reason Trump's partisans are discounting anything Mueller does. It's not that your team doesn't see the inconsistency. Your team just discounts it by rationalizing the end justifies the means if it you wind up "getting Trump". But the "means" here are more of a threat to the rule of law than anything Trump has done or could do.
It seems from your view that both Hillary and Trump did the same things. It doesn’t matter that both were treated differently. It only matters what they did, and whether the Fbi/doj followed appropriate standards/processes.
What if only one committed a crime?
-
I’m not convinced that he isn’t trolling though he seems like a possible example of the end result of a conspiracy-driven filter bubble. Npr wouldn’t promote this
-
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
Agreed. And it's like zebra mussels -- once there's an infestation, you're stuck with it. This is the new order now. It will NOT get better. It will only get worse.
Things might get worse before things get better but I’ll point out again that things will get better.
Mueller and the senate Intelligence Committee will do their thing. Dems will win the House and start putting the White House in check. Dems will then take the precidency and we can start implementing real fixes. 2020 is when things will start to get fixed IMo
-
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:
No, no, see, those behaviors are WRONG. We know this because when Hillary engaged in them, that effectively DISQUALIFIED her from holding the highest office in the land.
The hell of it is, many of us AGREE with that assessment.
What baffles us is that once Trump was elected, those same behaviors became a-ok, and no problem at all (well, I mean, they are "cause for concern,' but they're no longer disqualifying). It's the jaw-dropping inconsistency that baffles anyone with two functioning brain hemispheres.
This is possible by tribalism/identity politics. It doesn’t matter what is right/wrong or accurate/inaccurate or truth/lie or consistent/hypocritical.Â
This is 2x2=5 level shit.
This is the result of propaganda.
This is what the Russians perfected. Bannon/trump brought it into US politics.
-
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:
This should be good.
I’m homestly not ridiculing. It’s just that I haven’t heard of most/many of those things.
I know I’m in a filter bubble on some topics, curious if a bubble might be involved here
-
16 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:
No iron, tin foil. Oh I freely admit I have it in for her, and want to believe all the stories about her actually eating babies , but that's just gossip. Â As for a lot of the rest of the stuff yeah some of it's true.
1. Whitewater, yeah...
2. Files from V. Fosters office were probably incriminating as hell, wonder why they disappeared ??? I don't think she had him Killed.
3. Travelgate, more scamming and lying
4. Â Benghazzi was a failure and she played a complicit role in that failure and then tried too assign blame elsewhere. Â
5. Her server issue is the worst example of her blatant criminality. It was her shake down file for the Clinton foundation. A slush fund of pre presidential bribes for access after 2016.........  Comey, the tragic, doomed hero in the whole thing.
6. Her cattle futures scam
7. Â Her numerous minutia filled tell all books of her life in politics. Funny how whenever she was questioned by congress it was always.. "I'm sorry I don't recall". Â More smoke than criminality, other than probably perjuring herself multiple times.
8. Â Hell they stole whole suites of White House furniture.
9.  Did she lose her law license, like her hubby did ?
10. Â I know there are more I'm forgetting, but all of those things are generally acknowledged as things she did or was involved with. well with un biased folks at least, not somebody like you.
If you don’t mind, where do you get your news from? What media/websites do you use to stay informed?
-
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:
Yeah, well, the problem is any time a Republican even hints at reform, the NRA pumps money into a primary to defeat that candidate, no matter how conservative he is on any other issue. The NRA is a protection racket and the Republican Party is too cowardly to do anything about it.
Â
I agree that the Republican Party seems to be completely captured by the nra and the gun industry. IMO, the reasons for this are dark money, campaign finance, education, and propaganda.
-
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
I'm not giving up. I'm still playing as hard as I can, and fighting as hard as I can.
But the scoreboard reads 66-3, and there's not much time left on the clock. Barring a miracle that transcends any possibility we can even conceive of, we know how this ends. I can both fight AND call it like I see it.
I’m more optimistic then you.
At the federal level, we’ve got the senate intelligence committee, rosenstein, and mueller preparing to show the world who are bad apples and how this all occurred. Unfortunately this takes time.
Fixing dark money and addressing media/socialmedia’s bias/propaganda will be a big undertaking, but doable with a change in leadership.
We do need to clean up discourse on an individual level. We do need to point out us vs them identity politics when it is obvious. We do need to point out when logic/science are replaced with feelings.Â
-
9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:
Yes. Check your meter.
Lol. Meter checked
-
19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
Everyone who does shitty things that jeopardize our national security should be called on the carpet and should face legal consequences if they do so. That has always been true, and remains true. If Hillary illegally used unsecured devices, she always should have faced appropriate consequences for that. I've certainly never said otherwise.
I would like consistent treatment. Hell, I'd be happy with even 25% of the same amount of alarm being raised with respect to a POTUS -- not a cabinet member, but the actual POTUS -- using openly and shamelessly using an unsecure device. But I won't get that.
Because rules and norms don't matter. Only teams.
Ether be pissed about ALL of it, or STFU and be pissed about none of it. Giving Trump passes for all of this bullshit....wait till Bernie Sanders or worse is in office. And the precedent will have been set.
Which is why I have repeatedly noted that we are irrevocably committed to destroying the Republic. There are no norms, there are no rules, there are no laws. Only teams.
But we need those norms, rules, and laws. And we need to do away with the idea of team-only politics, tribalism, identity politics, and nationalism. There are hard steps we can take to change our direction. I wouldn’t give up
-
3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:
How thoughtful. We are such an awesome society.
I see it as more of the opposite. I see it as a result of shifting away from safety/freedom, I.e., the idea that going to school used to be a safe activity.
There are kids that go to school in war stricken parts of the world that take measures such as these. IMO, the US shouldn’t have to be like those countries.
I see it as this is an example/illustration of one of the costs associated with our gun violence problem.
-
2 minutes ago, Tuco said:
This thread is about the appropriateness of the FBI investigation into Hillary's email issue, which was driven by Congress. You don't think the context of what is considered normal/acceptable/uninvestigated etc. when it comes to the current President's communications is a logical extension of that discussion?
Possibly, thpugh I thought the thread was about how the fbi may have mishandled portions of the investigation and potentially may have influenced the election. I don’t think it’s about whether the email server was good/bad or whether it should or shouldn’t have been investigated.
-
Students at a school in Pennsylvania have received a bulletproof backplate for their backpacks as a gift for graduating eighth grade. The ballistic shields were donated by a local company and given to students at St Cornelius school in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, as a leaving present before high school.
-
1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:
They absolutely are appropriate to use to justify. The concept is foundational to deductive reasoningÂ
In some cases it could be used to justify but not in these.
Russian response to accusations of human rights violations, “and you are all lynching negros.”Â
Left response to accusation that Hillary had an insecure server, “and Trump uses twitter on an insecure phone.”
Right response to accusation that trump used twitter on an insecure phone, “and he wasn’t using twitter to make pay-for-play with the Clinton foundation.”
-
We are supposedly gonna find out how the fbi potentially took missteps around the Hillary email investigation that may have helped trump win
-
1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:
You need to be careful labeling all analogies and comparisons whataboutismÂ
Â
they are not always fallaciousÂ
Â
Yes, I agree. I think in the cases of the last page of this thread they would be though.
Analogies are great when used for clarification or explanation but not when used to distract or justify.
-
3 minutes ago, bernorange said:
What exactly is it that I need to learn? I didn't employ a whataboutism to deflect from the original topic. I responded to one that was attempting to do so. Your logic is bad and you should feel bad.
Again, whataboutism is strong in this thread. Responding to whataboutism (trump twitter/phone) with your own whataboutism (Clinton foundation) has driven this thread off the rails
-
-
1 minute ago, bernorange said:
Lulz. The last post by Anastasis is addressing the Trump whataboutism to the original topic of this thread, which is the investigation of the Hillary server (and potentially the Foundation).
Yes, I suggest you learn from Anastasis.Â
Whataboutism is a sign of weakness and a fallacy.Â
-
Whataboutism is strong in this thread.
Equating the POTUS use of twitter and potentially insecure phones to anything about anyone, such as hillary’s server or the Clinton Foundation, is classic whataboutism.
Whataboutism is a logical fallacy and sign of a weak argument or position.
FYI: whataboutism is a key component of Russian propaganda.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
The honest way to address the issue without the fallacy is to look at the last comments by Anastasis. He is addressing the issue and not trying to divert or equate with some other situation
-
1
-
-
Honestly, I don’t blame “gun nuts” all that much. We hope that all citizens, including gun owners, would understand the need for change and welcome measures that better society. For some reason, that isn’t the case. We could chalk this up to social media and an education system that is weak in critical thinking and citizen responsibilities. I would also lay blame to weak media regulations and dark money in politics.
-
11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
All of Watt’s work on this was done outside of the government as a HOBBY.Â
In his book he bemoans the bureaucracy and the ineptitude of the work of many defense contractors. Â
 He feels, as I do, that he can be much more effective outside of the government structures at combating the problem because he has autonomy.
You might be right. Though the CIA is supposed to take the lead on combatting these types of foreign threats so they need to have some large role to go along with their large availability of resources. If the CIA isn’t flexible enough to monitor and divulge Russian activities, then they need more flexibility. Though it is always possible, since the CIA doesn’t really have a public face, that Watts is actually acting as the CIA’s public mouthpiece on this.Â
Dealing with the right’s acceptance of these methods and the difficulties in parsing witting and unwitting actors is going to require some huge some huge solutions imo.
IG Horowitz report on Clinton email due soon
in Cloak Room
Posted
This is what has happened to the majority of the population in Russia. This is why Putin controls his country so well.
Bannon/trump brought this to the US. Ideally, we can keep the 2+2=5 crowd from getting too large here in the US. Right now I guess it is maybe 25-35% of the population