Barr was worse than we ever imagined

[Bullneck 18,987]

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

If someone fucks you in the ass do you really care what their intentions were?

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,810]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Of course. But being able to cite valid uses of surveillance under Obama’s watch (or W or Clinton etc) doesn’t negate the abuses that occurred under him (or them). Domestic spying is a real threat to our freedom and needs strict oversight to prevent abuse, no matter who is in charge

I agree, I agreed before.  Prior (Pryor) abuses aren’t an excuse.  Hold people accountable.  Now.

[GW Hayduke 1,952]

7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I mean that this is clearly a both sides issue and I have pointed out examples. It’s not difficult

Again. I must be kind of slow. Can you run it by me again?

You keep mentioning something about the surveillance of Congress, and I honestly don’t know what that means or how it fits into the equivocation. 

It seems to me that you and Capt. Both Sides are equating Trump’s DOJ’s surveillance of journalists reporting on investigations into Trump’s White House and Trump’s campaign with Obama’s DOJ’s surveillance of journalists reporting on North Korea’s nuclear test plans and a Yemeni terror plot to bomb a commercial airliner.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26,284]

11 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I agree, I agreed before.  Prior (Pryor) abuses aren’t an excuse.  Hold people accountable.  Now.

Republicans not being held to account is necessary to bring about Ragnarok because #bothsides. /Anastasis 

[Neonmoon 38,127]

12 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

It seems to me that you and Capt. Both Sides are equating Trump’s DOJ’s surveillance of journalists reporting on investigations into Trump’s White House and Trump’s campaign with Obama’s DOJ’s surveillance of journalists reporting on North Korea’s nuclear test plans and a Yemeni terror plot to bomb a commercial airliner.  

Both are wrong, but yes, intent and circumstance do matter, in this case, and in the aforementioned being fucked in the ass. Trump spying on journalist investigating his alleged corruption is pure fascism. Obama spying on journalist to see who was leaking government secrets is authoritative overreach. They’re not the same thing. It’s not the same ballpark. It’s not even the same motherfucking sport. Equating them as such is disingenuous and lends credit to questions of underlying bias. 

OP, this isn’t Texags, use the existing threads. 

[Anastasis 23,394]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Republicans not being held to account is necessary to bring about Ragnarok because #bothsides. /Anastasis 

You're better than this bozo. Where did I say that nobody should be held to account? 

What I actually said was: 

"It was wrong when Bush did it, it was wrong when Obama did it, it was wrong when Trump did it."

 

These leak investigations related to classified materials are the issue.  The DOJ runs this same play over and over, using the contact history of journalists to trace back to the source of the leak.  They ran the play against the AP, they ran it against Rosen, and they ran it against these WaPo reporters. And they will run it again, because it is an institutional problem. If you think differently, here is what the DOJ spokesman (I don't think that this guy is a political appointee) said about it:

Marc Raimondi, a Justice Department spokesman, said Friday in a statement about the seized Post records that “while rare, the department follows the established procedures within its media guidelines policy when seeking legal process to obtain telephone toll records and non-content email records from media members as part of a criminal investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.”

He added, “The targets of these investigations are not the news media recipients but rather those with access to the national defense information who provided it to the media and thus failed to protect it as lawfully required.”

[Nivek 16,861]

Not really

Yes it is. Intent fucking matters. Circumstances fucking matter. It defines and separates the act of murder from self defense. Sure the outcome is the same but circumstances and motivations matter.

You can just admit you are wrong. Don’t get stuck on stupid and let your ego write checks and all that rubber dogshit.

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

I think the general point that the federal government abuses its surveillance and investigation powers under both parties, historically, stands.

Like everything, though, the Trump Administration turned the evil up to 11 and tried real hard to break off the knob.

[Brisketexan 104,628]

I think the general point that the federal government abuses its surveillance and investigation powers under both parties, historically, stands.
Like everything, though, the Trump Administration turned the evil up to 11 and tried real hard to break off the knob.

This.

The biggest lie of Trumpism is that degree doesn’t matter. Their acts of murder are no different than someone else’s acts of vandalism because hey, they’re both crimes! Or, their 10,000 lies are the same as someone else’s 100 lies, because they’re both liars!

It’s pure fascist propaganda bullshit 101, and it’s not just deranged trumpists who buy it - it gets people who like to think they are intelligent and above the fray. “Both sides” only works when the degree of bullshit is roughly comparable.

[Anastasis 23,394]

You guys keep saying circumstances and intent matter when examining a particular situation.  Which I agree with, of course. Can someone detail me what the exact circumstances of this current example of DOJ fishing through reporters contact list. I've only read the WaPo and NYT pieces, so maybe I am missing something that should be considered.  Looks to me that DOJ was trying to track down someone that leaked some Kislyak intercepts that were being used in 2017 to stoke a false narrative related to Kislyak-Sessions meetings.  Speaking of propaganda 101. 

Edited May 9, 2021 by Anastasis
phrasing!

[Pam Cummings 9,582]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.

The biggest lie of Trumpism is that degree doesn’t matter. Their acts of murder are no different than someone else’s acts of vandalism because hey, they’re both crimes! Or, their 10,000 lies are the same as someone else’s 100 lies, because they’re both liars!

It’s pure fascist propaganda bullshit 101, and it’s not just deranged trumpists who buy it - it gets people who like to think they are intelligent and above the fray. “Both sides” only works when the degree of bullshit is roughly comparable.

"Both sides" people are completely ruining political discourse in this country. 

[GW Hayduke 1,952]

[Anastasis 23,394]

4 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

"Both sides" people are completely ruining political discourse in this country. 

Traitor!

[Mole 4,320]

Both siding “both sides”: There’s two sides to the both sides issue. There’s the “it’s about time” position, where you recognize that this is a long standing problem but we need laser focus on the current malfeasance before we can deal with the earlier problems. This side never happens.

Then there’s “you think you’re so good?” where we bicker about who is worse and then the same thing happens again and again. This both sides is used to excuse the malfeasance. This is pretty much what always happens, even when people think they’re claiming “it’s about time.”

 

Focusness, people.

Edited May 9, 2021 by Mole

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

14 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

"Both sides" people are completely ruining political discourse in this country. 

I think I disagree.  While bothsidesing to justify one side or the other is bad (and that includes actually bothsides), it is important to understand and bear in mind that "the government" does "bad things" all the time.

Just because Trump's out of office doesn't mean the government is now all sweetness and light.  It has most certainly improved simply because Trump is gone and because Biden is average to above-average, maybe even good at this whole governing thing.  Just like you don't excuse bad government by pointing to other, less-bad government, you can't excuse less-bad government because it isn't as bad as Trump.

[Sawbonz 27,436]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Yes it is. Intent fucking matters. Circumstances fucking matter. It defines and separates the act of murder from self defense. Sure the outcome is the same but circumstances and motivations matter.

You can just admit you are wrong. Don’t get stuck on stupid and let your ego write checks and all that rubber dogshit.

Anal rape is never justified. Warrantless surveillance of American citizens is never justified

Edited May 9, 2021 by Sawbonz

[Bozo_Casanova 26,284]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

You're better than this bozo. Where did I say that nobody should be held to account? 

I guess being swallowed whole by Fenrir as the world is submerged in water is a form of accountability.

[Anastasis 23,394]

We have institutional problems as they relate to government surveillance, whether we are talking about journalists or private citizens. Pick your amendment.

Trump bad, goes 11!

OK. Great, let's fix the systemic institutional issues at DOJ, FBI, CIA etc. that are really at the core of this.  Maybe we fix shit before this country elects another brain damaged narcissist. 

*crickets*

Edited May 9, 2021 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23,394]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

I guess being swallowed whole by Fenrir as the world is submerged in water is a form of accountability.

Maybe you're not. 

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

We have institutional problems as they relate to government surveillance, whether we are talking about journalists or private citizens. Pick your amendment.

Trump bad, goes 11!

OK. Great, let's fix the systemic institutional issues at DOJ, FBI, CIA etc. 

*crickets*

It would be interesting to study, or maybe it's been done, whether these abuses originate within the agencies from careerists, or within administrations, from political people.

[Neonmoon 38,127]

Here is the issue with both sides, and why it is a detriment to progress. NO ONE is disagreeing with the assertion that surveillance under previous Presidents was wrong. However, by bringing up a false equivalency, the conversation is sidetracked into examining the comparison and not addressing the issue at hand. Both Sides is a defensive argument tactic. It’s from the same disingenuous tree of Whataboutism. 

[RomaVicta 29,794]

17 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

We've allowed a situation where "national security" is whatever the president says it is. It could be anything from an imminent dirty bomb attack on Manhattan to pics of the president going hog wild with ladyboys in Bangkok. 

Yes. It's profoundly wrong when any president of any party does it. I've either forgotten or never knew much about this. I didn't pay as close attention when there wasn't a flow of daily outrages.

Anyway, a both sides argument is merely political. If the law is broken, there is no valid both sides argument. If there were, any crime would serve as precedent that all successive crimes shouldn't be prosecuted. I'm no lawyer, but I don't think that's how it worked.

Abuse of power to violate the greater laws of the Constitution should be condemned and prosecuted every time it occurs. 

[F250 28,691]

51 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think I disagree.  While bothsidesing to justify one side or the other is bad (and that includes actually bothsides), it is important to understand and bear in mind that "the government" does "bad things" all the time.

Just because Trump's out of office doesn't mean the government is now all sweetness and light.  It has most certainly improved simply because Trump is gone and because Biden is average to above-average, maybe even good at this whole governing thing.  Just like you don't excuse bad government by pointing to other, less-bad government, you can't excuse less-bad government because it isn't as bad as Trump.

If Trump becomes the low bar for what is and isn't acceptable by our government we are truly fucked as a country. It should be obvious that we need much higher standards applied after the Trump nightmare. 

[Willfully Horn 7,916]

26 minutes ago, F250 said:

If Trump becomes the low bar for what is and isn't acceptable by our government we are truly fucked as a country. It should be obvious that we need much higher standards applied after the Trump nightmare. 

I’m foolish enough to think that support for limiting executive power might also be a both sides thing.

[Biff Tannen 45,499]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This.

The biggest lie of Trumpism is that degree doesn’t matter. Their acts of murder are no different than someone else’s acts of vandalism because hey, they’re both crimes! Or, their 10,000 lies are the same as someone else’s 100 lies, because they’re both liars!

It’s pure fascist propaganda bullshit 101, and it’s not just deranged trumpists who buy it - it gets people who like to think they are intelligent and above the fray. “Both sides” only works when the degree of bullshit is roughly comparable.

Yep.  They appeal to people who live in a black and white world.  Shades of grey hurt to think about.

[Biff Tannen 45,499]

2 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

Holy shit.  Never thought I would see a reference to that movie ever again in my life.

[Anastasis 23,394]

 

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

NO ONE is disagreeing with the assertion that surveillance under previous Presidents was wrong. However, by bringing up a false equivalency, the conversation is sidetracked into examining the comparison and not addressing the issue at hand. Both Sides is a defensive argument tactic. It’s from the same disingenuous tree of Whataboutism. 

There are people justifying the past actions on this very thread by drawing out thin false distinctions, some of which are conjured from whole cloth. 

[Anastasis 23,394]

 

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

Abuse of power to violate the greater laws of the Constitution should be condemned and prosecuted every time it occurs. 

 

We're gonna need a bigger jail. 

[GW Hayduke 1,952]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

There are people justifying the past actions on this very thread by drawing out thin false distinctions, some of which are conjured from whole cloth. 

[workswithseed 2,037]

52 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Holy shit.  Never thought I would see a reference to that movie ever again in my life.

I've never seen the movie., I only know it from this.

 

[RomaVicta 29,794]

32 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

 

We're gonna need a bigger jail. 

Amen.

[Sawbonz 27,436]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Here is the issue with both sides, and why it is a detriment to progress. NO ONE is disagreeing with the assertion that surveillance under previous Presidents was wrong. However, by bringing up a false equivalency, the conversation is sidetracked into examining the comparison and not addressing the issue at hand. Both Sides is a defensive argument tactic. It’s from the same disingenuous tree of Whataboutism. 

No one in this thread is making a false equivalency argument. It is an actual equivalency argument. Don’t want to sidetrack? Great, just say it was wrong then and it is wrong now and leave it at that. 
 

Hopefully if Congress decides to investigate this time, the DNI won’t lie under oath to them about it. 

[Nivek 16,861]

20 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Anal rape is never justified. Warrantless surveillance of American citizens is never justified

So stuck on stupid it is.   

[High Plains Drifter 10,978]

22 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think the general point that the federal government abuses its surveillance and investigation powers under both parties, historically, stands.

Like everything, though, the Trump Administration turned the evil up to 11 and tried real hard to break off the knob.

 

21 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Anal rape is never justified. Warrantless surveillance of American citizens is never justified

 

 

Is it both sidesism if I agree with both of these posts?

 

 

[elfenix 34,171]

23 hours ago, Anastasis said:

*crickets*

which is ultimately what you bothsiders want. you start arguments about the past so as to prevent addressing the future.  or, and just as effective, you make the argument about you (and hey look i'm falling into this fucking trap too!)

Edited May 10, 2021 by elfenix

[tantric superman 4,667]

22 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Here is the issue with both sides, and why it is a detriment to progress. NO ONE is disagreeing with the assertion that surveillance under previous Presidents was wrong. However, by bringing up a false equivalency, the conversation is sidetracked into examining the comparison and not addressing the issue at hand. Both Sides is a defensive argument tactic. It’s from the same disingenuous tree of Whataboutism. 

All Both Sides Arguments Matter.

[Anastasis 23,394]

20 minutes ago, elfenix said:

which is ultimately what you bothsiders want. you start arguments about the past so as to preventing addressing the future.

"It was wrong when Bush did it, it was wrong when Obama did it, it was wrong when Trump did it. What we have is an institutionalized problem."

YoU ArE prEveNtinG uS FrOm AddReSSinG tHe PrObLeM!

 

Look guys, Merrick is in charge at DOJ now.  If he wanted to condemn the DOJ use of journalist contacts to sniff out sources of leaks of classified material he could do so.  If DOJ wanted to address the practice and set a standard under the Biden administration to highlight how the DOJ planned to act moving forward in such cases, they could. Instead, they ran out a DOJ spokesman to justify the practice. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Anastasis

[elfenix 34,171]

"i'm totally not an agent of the status quo!"

-anastasis, probably

[Anastasis 23,394]

12 minutes ago, elfenix said:

"i'm totally not an agent of the status quo!"

-anastasis, probably

YoU aRe MaKinG tHe ArgUmEnT AbOuT yOu!

[elfenix 34,171]

i admitted i fell into your trap. 

[Anastasis 23,394]

[Bozo_Casanova 26,284]

Both sides!

[Sawbonz 27,436]

4 hours ago, Nivek said:

So stuck on stupid it is.   

Sure seems you are

[Bama Chick 28,596]

This country can literally not survive another Republican president.

They got a glimpse of full unchecked authoritarian power and they want it bad.

[burntorangebongos 10,681]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,843]

don't think this is gonna end with just two instances of this having occurred:

 

[Sawbonz 27,436]

Meet the new boss

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Meet the new boss

 

 

I have seen several instances where the Biden DOJ has persisted in unseemly things like this. Namely this.  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/04/fbi-subpoenas-usa-today-records-florida-shooting-story-readers/7550149002/

Fucking government lawyers, man.  It must be kind of tough in a sense, because the government is your client and you have to do what they say for the most part.

But, like Elihu Root said, half the business of any decent lawyer is telling his client he's a damn fool and should just stop.

To be fair though, I think a lot of this shitty stuff originates in the nominally apolitical "civil servant" end of various places in the DOJ.

Edited June 5, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 45,560]

If I squint I can sorta see the practice rolling over from the Trump administration to the Biden administration, at least until Garland's confirmation (3/10/2021).  This seems to have continued a bit too long for that kind of excuse, though.

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

The USA Today deal happened entirely during the Biden administration and post-confirmation of Garland.

It's not nearly as unseemly as the surreptitious seizing of reporters' records, but it's unseemly in its own right.

But, like I said, a lot of this stuff is a bit administration-independent.  The FBI are cops, after all, and they're going to overreach on a pretty consistent basis.