Author Topic: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!  (Read 1590 times)

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« on: February 19, 2020, 06:36:40 PM »
Trump's commuting of almost a dozen white collar criminals got me thinking about when we last talked about Blagojevich.  It was a while back.

Going back to the issue of Trump being the most likely candidate willing to expose government corruption, especially much of what Obama is hiding, this is an example:

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/tom-fitton/what-does-fbi-have-obama-gang

" By Tom Fitton | April 13, 2016

Barack Obama at a news conference last month with Rahm Emanuel. They and another Obama staffer, Valerie Jarrett, have been interviewed in connection with the investigation of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

For several years we have been seeking records of then President-elect Barack Obama’s interview with two FBI agents and two assistant U.S. attorneys regarding former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who was sentenced to fourteen years in federal prison for attempting to sell Obama’s vacated Senate seat...

... The FBI contends the release of these records “could reasonably be expected” to interfere with law enforcement proceedings...

... Writing in The Washington Examiner, Rudy Takala noted, “There are no enforcement proceedings related to the case known to be pending, leading critics to charge that the agency's denial is politically motivated...

... Well, yes.  This lawsuit highlights the personal corruption issues of Barack Obama.  He and his closest aides were interviewed by the FBI in a criminal investigation, and his administration doesn’t want Americans to have the details. The Chicago way shouldn’t TRUMP the American people’s right to know.

It won’t if we have anything to do with it."

---------------------------------------------------

I put the TRUMP in all caps. What did Obama know and when did he know it? What is "the most transparent administration in history" hiding? If Bernie or Hillary get elected will we ever find out? Not a chance. What about Kasich or some other Pollyanna? Not likely. Cruz might tell us but he won't gloat as much as he should about it. Trump will gleefully expose the massive corruption of Obama without hesitation and publicly scoff and ridicule the naivete of most Obama supporters while revealing the true colors of those who know Obama is corrupt and just don't care or know exactly how corrupt he is and delight in the fact that he has gotten away with so much. Until now.

We were so young and naive then.  Believing that Trump would expose corruption in the Obama Administrations (at least some of us did :) ), instead of exploiting their perceived corruption to practice even more, greater corruption.

Has he ever made a move to "Lock her (Hillary) up?"  Has he revealed any new evidence of corruption from the Democrats?

Has he reduced the number of drone attacks on foreign soils?  No, he increased them.  Has he "drained the swamp?"  No, he's appointed more people who either turned on him and accused him of mismanagement or corruption, or have been convicted of corruption themselves than the previous Administration.

Yeah, he's shown how corrupt Washington is by showing how corrupt they could be.  ;D 

Apparently he feels that these poor, white collar criminals had sentences that were too harsh.  You got to wonder why he is so concerned with the sentences of white collar criminals? ;)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2020, 06:50:15 PM »
YAWN

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2020, 07:40:45 PM »
Sorry, maybe that was rude. But dude, the symptoms of TDS is getting tiresome. Obama did something like 2000 pardons and commutations - these were heralded as proof of the second coming. Now, suddenly, these things are proof of ... what? I don't know, something horrible and world-ending or whatever the point is.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2020, 08:09:01 PM »
Great thread title.

I’ll go on record disagreeing with Trump commuting Blogo’s sentence. It’s disappointing. It’s the opposite of draining the swamp. It goes into the ledger as a negative against Trump. But I’ve also been on record as agreeing with Obama that practicality takes precedence over purity. So what are you going to do? Trump is still doing so many things right that if he does a few thing wrong you call him on it, weigh them in the  balance, and then as Soros says you have to move on.

Now this is neither here nor there and it’s a purely speculative question for which I have no answer but I wonder if a Democrat President would have commuted his sentence too. I have no idea. I guess we can look at Hillary’s and Obama’s comments about this and try to get some idea.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2020, 09:56:11 AM »
It’s disappointing. It’s the opposite of draining the swamp. It goes into the ledger as a negative against Trump. But I’ve also been on record as agreeing with Obama that practicality takes precedence over purity.

Yay! Even small admissions on either side that Trump did something bad or like when I support his Chinese tariffs helps with having rational discussions long term.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2020, 10:17:04 AM »
I don't have a general opinion on pardons, sometimes they seem abusive, sometimes they seem like they lift an abuse.  It's hard to imagine a less sympathetic guy that Blagojevitch, but does that mean that the sentence was fair?  Some of the reports seem to indicate it was out of range for charges in similar circumstances.  Was the prosecution fair?  In my view yes, but again, it's hard to believe that there's a consistent standard based on how some people seem to be above the law and others have the book thrown at them over technicalities.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2020, 02:52:13 PM »
I don't have a general opinion on pardons, sometimes they seem abusive, sometimes they seem like they lift an abuse.  It's hard to imagine a less sympathetic guy that Blagojevitch, but does that mean that the sentence was fair?  Some of the reports seem to indicate it was out of range for charges in similar circumstances.  Was the prosecution fair?  In my view yes, but again, it's hard to believe that there's a consistent standard based on how some people seem to be above the law and others have the book thrown at them over technicalities.

This is my general thinking on the matter as well. Depending on what sentencing normally looks like for comparable convictions(not that there any recent directly comparable cases to Blagojevitch--Corruption charges and convictions involving placement on US Senate seats is very rare) that may very well be the grounds on which Trump took many of the actions he did. If the sentence is well outside the norm for other convictions under the same law, it becomes a reasonable act, even if it isn't particularly popular.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2020, 03:22:21 PM »
Sorry, maybe that was rude. But dude, the symptoms of TDS is getting tiresome. Obama did something like 2000 pardons and commutations - these were heralded as proof of the second coming. Now, suddenly, these things are proof of ... what? I don't know, something horrible and world-ending or whatever the point is.

It's odd the people he chose to commute.  Why white collar criminals?  Almost as if he is trying to set a precedent...

Here's a list of everyone Trump has granted clemency to, so far.  Notice a pattern?  Contempt of court, perjury, obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations, failure to report a felony, tax fraud...  Just what you'd expect from someone who promised to "drain the swamp." :)

For comparison, , here's Obama's list.  I don't recall Obama getting much praise for those, but I'm sure I can find a boatload of criticism if you doubt it exists.  Primarily from those who currently support Trump, I would guess.

Oh, yes--"the symptoms of TDS is getting tiresome."

You previously stated that TDS is a form of insanity.  I do not appreciate you calling me insane.  Stop it now.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2020, 03:47:10 PM »
Keep in mind, Trump also enacted a law which also impacted thousands of criminals in a significantly positive way as well. IIRC, it rendered the need to pardon or grant clemency/commutation on an individual basis rather moot.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2020, 07:32:00 PM »
Sorry, maybe that was rude. But dude, the symptoms of TDS is getting tiresome. Obama did something like 2000 pardons and commutations - these were heralded as proof of the second coming. Now, suddenly, these things are proof of ... what? I don't know, something horrible and world-ending or whatever the point is.

It's odd the people he chose to commute.  Why white collar criminals?  Almost as if he is trying to set a precedent...

Here's a list of everyone Trump has granted clemency to, so far.  Notice a pattern?  Contempt of court, perjury, obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations, failure to report a felony, tax fraud...  Just what you'd expect from someone who promised to "drain the swamp." :)

For comparison, , here's Obama's list.  I don't recall Obama getting much praise for those, but I'm sure I can find a boatload of criticism if you doubt it exists.  Primarily from those who currently support Trump, I would guess.

Oh, yes--"the symptoms of TDS is getting tiresome."

You previously stated that TDS is a form of insanity.  I do not appreciate you calling me insane.  Stop it now.

Obama got plenty of praise for a couple thousand pardons he issued. The very same people are outraged at Trump doing a fraction of the same thing. It’s tiresome.

And let’s also stop pretending you’re somehow offended.  It’s yet another  strawman you’re trying to build, another in the long train of logical fallacies used to say orange man bad and attack me. I’m not calling you insane, nobody is calling you insane, nobody has, nobody will. No matter how you want to pretend I am, it’s a false claim you’re making. It would be nice if you’d stop doing these things but I’m pretty sure you’re gonna double down on it and then report it to the moderator or something like that. It’s as predictable as it’s tiresome.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2020, 03:01:04 PM »
Obama got plenty of praise for a couple thousand pardons he issued. The very same people are outraged at Trump doing a fraction of the same thing. It’s tiresome.


I don't recall any effusive praise Obama got for his over 1700 pardons and commutations.   Praise for a few, I'm sure.  There are a few of Trump's pardons that I would applaud.  (And the one for Jack Johnson, which leaves me scratching my head, since I know he doesn't care about it. :) )  But for most or all of them?  You'd best come up with some links for that.

Now, do I even need to find any links about the criticism Obama received for his pardons, especially by the same people who are quite content with Trump's pardons?  Considering he was roundly criticized for every little thing he did, do you doubt for a second that his pardons were excluded?

Quote
And let’s also stop pretending you’re somehow offended.  It’s yet another strawman you’re trying to build, another in the long train of logical fallacies used to say orange man bad and attack me. I’m not calling you insane, nobody is calling you insane, nobody has, nobody will. No matter how you want to pretend I am, it’s a false claim you’re making. It would be nice if you’d stop doing these things but I’m pretty sure you’re gonna double down on it and then report it to the moderator or something like that. It’s as predictable as it’s tiresome.

As you like to say, Crunch, you nailed it. :)  Except for the part that I'm somehow "pretending" I'm offended.  You have no idea how much it pisses me off.

TDS--"Trump Derangement Syndrome"--is just a way to ignore someone's criticisms of Trump.  It adds nothing to the conversation.  It makes no salient point about the merits of a criticism.  It simply implies that there is something wrong with the person who makes the criticism.  That he is irrational, deranged.  That the criticism is the fault of the person making it alone.  And, as any deranged person suffering from a type of insanity, he can be ignored.

Now that you have explicitly said:

Trump Derangement Syndrome is a form of insanity.

...there is no doubt that you consider anyone with TDS to be insane.

So, yes, expect an e-mail from the moderator in the near future.  And expect them from now on whenever you use the term "TDS," until you stop using it, leave the board, or the moderator determines that it is an acceptable term for our conversations.  Then I can respond in kind, which I have refrained from doing out of deference to our gracious host, Mr. Card, and the rules he wants us to abide by.  But I draw the line here.

Once that is taken care of, maybe we can work on some of your other peccadilloes. :)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2020, 03:57:55 PM »
Did I call that one or what? 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2020, 04:03:03 PM »
Did I call that one or what?

It doesn't make you much of a wizard to insult someone, predict it'll upset them, and then say "called it!" when they're upset.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2020, 04:29:33 PM »
I don't think Crunch is asserting that Wayward Son is clinically insane, but it would be reasonable to refrain from implying or stating that a board member has TDS. 

Now that said, there is nothing wrong with discussing TDS, and attributing predictable media responses to TDS.  If you start a thread based on predictable media responses then there's nothing wrong with flagging that they are caused by TDS.  It's just an argument about the motives of those generating the story.

I don't believe that for many it even occurs to them that they could consider agreeing with Trump on something. 

It's not like the thread started with much in the way of a substantive argument, it just pointed at the pardons/commutations and a list of what Wayward seems to think are broken promises of some sort, as if there was some link or easy to see fact behind them.   Was there an express argument for why any of the pardons was wrong that I missed?   So what was the point?  It just seems to be an expectation that because Trump pardoned criminals he's some kind of criminal (even though all pardons are of criminals). 

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2020, 04:49:06 PM »
The thread is partly because the pardons seems suspicious on the face of them (Why so many white-collar crime pardons?), and partly ironic--a person who many hoped would "drain the swamp" and arrest those political criminals of the other party ends up pardoning those convicted of the types of crimes they were hoping to be pursued, including those from the other party.  ;D

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2020, 04:55:51 PM »
The thread is partly because the pardons seems suspicious on the face of them (Why so many white-collar crime pardons?), and partly ironic--a person who many hoped would "drain the swamp" and arrest those political criminals of the other party ends up pardoning those convicted of the types of crimes they were hoping to be pursued, including those from the other party.  ;D

Are you sure you didn't begin with the premise that anything Trump does is suspicious, and therefore any fact pattern he generates then gets puts through the "how do I find something wrong with this" procedure? Or put a different way, if the precise same pardon list was available but Bill Clinton was in power, would it occur to you to try to determine in what way Bill was corrupt, or would you just take at as a given that Presidents pardon people and leave it at that? While ad hominems should not be welcome here (and Crunch comes dangerously close) at the same time we should be able to discuss whether fact patterns are being assessed in a particularly unreasonable way just because of who the President is.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2020, 05:40:05 PM »
The thing is that Trump has already established a pattern of trying to use his executive powers to benefit himself and his cronies.  Calling Roger Stone's suggested punishment too severe; instructing his subordinates not to testify when subpoenaed; having lawyers argue that he cannot be indicted or investigated for crimes while he is in office; etc.  Pardoning people who happen to have committed crimes he may be charged with one day seems to fit the pattern.  Also, they could be a prelude to him pardoning his own people for similar crimes, e.g. the aforementioned Roger Stone.

So while it is because of who Trump is, it is because he is the type of guy who seems to use his powers to benefit himself.

And while it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to objectively show that he is far-and-beyond worse than any other recent President in his behavior, there is one thing that I believe is indisputable:  If Obama had done half of what Trump has done in apparent scandals, Republicans would be calling for his head on a platter and calling him the most corrupt President in history.

So I don't feel guilty if I may be a bit more circumspect about Trump's behavior than most other Presidents', since Trump has established a pattern.  And even if I'm wrong, I'm just keeping up the Republican tradition.  ;D

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2020, 11:36:09 PM »
That's not an unreasonable answer, WS, but my question pertains to the manners in which we are unconsciously unreasonable. I would never think for a moment that you would try to be intentionally unreasonable (i.e. to troll). The thing is, data sifting is very hard, and of the ideas we form and concepts we develop, much of it comes with help. That help can be the people we use as sounding boards, and largely also comes from our perception of public awareness. There's a good reason why the sheep follow the herd: not because they're mindless, but because some data is hard to come by and if some sheep in the herd detects it (for instance the smell of a predator) and reacts it behooves the herd to follow instinctively. They actually must do this or they will die. They cannot also rely on their own instincts and perceptions alone; there is just too much data out there and too much lossage of data for that matter. So we hear things, and feel the currents (such as in the media, or among friends) and this informs not only our raw information but also the processing of it. Again, this is unavoidable and to an extent necessary. We cannot help but think based on the thinking of others.

The trouble comes when certain others are putting out biased or misleading information, and not only adding to the mix but shifting the general current. It confuses our sensors so much when this happens that it can become impossible to tell where an idea in our head came from: was it my thought, or someone else's thought that triggered my mental reflex? This trouble is so serious that IMO when there is a prevailing current going in one direction the safest bet in avoiding serious error is to default to believing the opposite just on principle. If everyone is saying Trump is bad - or at least in certain circles - my reflex would be to say "whoa, hold it, why are they trying to make me feel he's bad?" And of course the reverse would hold in the other circles: "why are these people all trying to make me think he's awesome?" I think at minimum moderate resistance to these currents in necessary, while of course also acknowledging that it's not in our power to eradicate their effect on us. The resistance would at best bring the equilibrium to something near parity; you are being pressured, but pushing back, so some seeps in, but you don't open the floodgates. The most dangerous case is when the currents are pushing something you already believe in: that is a recipe for a mob mentality, and should be resisted the most. I would hope, at any rate, that if a mob started saying all the stuff I wanted to hear I'd run for the hills to avoid getting caught up in it.

So in arguing about "TDS", I think Crunch may be right insofar as we are all getting tossed around a lot these days informationally, and I think the extent to which we form ideas is much less rational than we would like to pretend. If I were to associate a 'sickness' with this it would be the increasingly prevailing attitude among people that not only are they being rational but that only they are being rational. It is that thought that is the sickness, not the currents themselves, which will always exist. They just exist more powerfully now than they used to since finding echo chambers is easier than ever (even designed).

Does that make sense? So when I ask you whether Trump stuff goes through a special filter for you, it's not just as simple as asking whether you have a reasoned bias; it's almost more about asking whether you'll acknowledge that you have an unreasoned bias, which I will suggest we all have but are not all aware of. This is not an ad hominem, but rather an appeal: if we can admit that we have this desire to hear what we like, we can perhaps find common ground in rejecting the echo chamber, or at least pushing back against these currents that push us around. It's damn hard to tell which opinions about Trump are yours, and which have been put into you, when those feel the same. That's not a gaslight, I think it's a reality. My question is how we counteract this.

PS - Obviously there can be good reasons for a bias. No doubt you'd have had good reason to doubt the protestations of innocence by an Al Capone, regardless of how many legal loopholes he used to get acquittals. As you say, a lack of proof is not innocence. But I would also argue it should take a huge portfolio for a person to lose your faith to the point where you just 'know' they're a criminal up to no good. I guess maybe Trump has that? I don't think so, but if I did think he was an arch-criminal, and the media told me "right on!" then my first step would be to doubt myself big-time. Anyone with a money interest in me believing something is automatically against me.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2020, 04:44:28 PM »
I do recognize that I have bias, and I do try to moderate my positions based on the knowledge that I am probably missing something because of them.  But that knowledge can only go so far.

When I said at the beginning that Trump has "shown how corrupt Washington is by showing how corrupt they could be," it wasn't based on this one particular instant of pardoning corrupt politicians like Blagojevich.  It also included pardoning Joe Apario even before he was convicted; having lawyers declare that the President cannot be indicted or even investigated for a crime while in office; siding with Russia against our own intelligence agencies; having his representatives pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son; and, of course, having multiple people associated with his campaign and Administration indicted, and some convicted, of wrong doing.  Among others.

And when pointing out these problems, I and others are accused of "TDS," it is obvious that I am on to something. :)

And, of course, while the Left may be subject to bias, the Right is subject to it, too.  How much of the denials of Trump's behavior is from lies, half-truths, spin and the like?  How much of the denials are because the Republicans simply don't want to believe that their candidate is as horrible a President as the facts indicate?  I mean, when you have someone who left the Administration write a tell-all book that says the Administration acting in an incompetent and arbitrary manner, that's one thing.  When it happens again and again and again, that's another.  Especially when Trump only hires "the best people."  ;D

This is why Republicans have created the myth of the "deep state."  So that they can say that every single on of these honorable people are lying, being part of a huge conspiracy to undermine the President.  After all, what else could it be since everything the President does is so obviously perfect?  (Just ask him. ;) )

How do you keep from letting your biases cloud your views and judgement?  Listen to a lot of people.  Check you beliefs with those who will consider your views and point out weaknesses and errors.  Find out other points of view.  Keep an open mind.  Hope and pray. :)

But when others simply start bullying you, trying to say you must be deranged to believe what you are seeing, then you're not getting feedback, but gas lighted.  And what is the only reasonable response to someone who tries to gas light you?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2020, 05:23:39 PM »
I think you missed part of "the deep state" issue is that they will go after those they deem a threat to their interests, and will generally ignore those they consider to be friendly towards them.

Pair that with how Hillary was handled by Obama's DoJ/FBI, and you end with valid questions about if the lack of corruption charges/convictions under Obama has more to do with lack of interest by the decision makers in pursuing the matter. (And offering immunity deals for doing basically nothing; if they've been given immunity, you can't press charges against them, or convict them) 

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2020, 06:12:31 PM »
This is why Republicans have created the myth of the "deep state."  So that they can say that every single on of these honorable people are lying, being part of a huge conspiracy to undermine the President.

Right. How did Bernie not get the nomination in 2016? Is he going to get it now?

Quote
Dozens of interviews with Democratic establishment leaders this week show that they are not just worried about Mr. Sanders's candidacy, but are also willing to risk intraparty damage to stop his nomination at the national convention in July if they get the chance. Since Mr. Sanders's victory in Nevada’s caucuses on Saturday, The Times has interviewed 93 party officials -- all of them superdelegates, who could have a say on the nominee at the convention -- and found overwhelming opposition to handing the Vermont senator the nomination if he arrived with the most delegates but fell short of a majority.
....

In a reflection of the establishment's wariness about Mr. Sanders, only nine of the 93 superdelegates interviewed said that Mr. Sanders should become the nominee purely on the basis of arriving at the convention with a plurality, if he was short of a majority.

It's just a myth. :o

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2020, 06:43:51 PM »
I think you missed part of "the deep state" issue is that they will go after those they deem a threat to their interests, and will generally ignore those they consider to be friendly towards them.

Pair that with how Hillary was handled by Obama's DoJ/FBI, and you end with valid questions about if the lack of corruption charges/convictions under Obama has more to do with lack of interest by the decision makers in pursuing the matter. (And offering immunity deals for doing basically nothing; if they've been given immunity, you can't press charges against them, or convict them)

The problem is that there is no way to prove the negative.

What evidence is there that the cases against the Obama Administration were actually weak enough not to pursue vs. that they just didn't want to pursue them?  Unless you have faith in the DoJ/FBI, there is no way to prove it one way or another.

And that is the worst part of the "deep state" conspiracy theory--it makes those who believe it doubt our institutions.  Once we lose faith in the DoJ and the FBI, then everything becomes a witch-hunt and political, and there no longer is any justice in our country.  Then you can kiss your democracy goodbye. :(

Which is another reason I hate Trump, since he is trying hard to make us lose faith in those institutions, and (it looks like) corrupt them himself.  >:(

Quote
How did Bernie not get the nomination in 2016?

Because Hillary had enough delegates to win by the convention.  As I recall, she didn't need the superdelegates.

And what does the "deep state" have to do with internal Democratic Party politics?  The Democratic Party is not a state, IFAIK. :)

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2020, 12:07:48 AM »
Two things. Don't take TDS as a clinical diagnosis. It was coined as an easy explanation for the unrelenting focus of Never-Trumpers to focus on anything and everything that attacks Trump: his actions, his thinking, his family, and his associates. How else do you explain the beautiful Melania never being on the cover of any social-fashion magazine? I have many friends who are TDS-types. They are not insane, but have been religiously converted to abhor Trump no matter what. I did study the Philosophy of Persuasion under Dr. James V. McConnell, which covered brainwashing and other psychological mechanisms that are a part of the human condition. Many people hold simple opinions as faith at Biblical acceptance levels, for which logic and facts are not enough to change their mindset. Like hysterical blindness and other psychological conditions, sometimes only a traumatic incident can shake one's foundational principles. These people I know who are fixated on finding negative memes about Trump are not insane. The TDS, like I said, is not a clinical thing - it just explains their tunnel-vision.

After all, for three years, they were conditioned to believe Putin was Trump's spy handler. Once they were told that, they were exposed to scheduled reinforcement to cement that disinformation. They post untrue "facts" from Democrat sources that take much effort to track down and rebut. Few of them have the interest to wade through anything that shakes their deeply held beliefs.

The second point is what the "Deep State" is. It is not an imaginary conspiracy theory that is used to discredit Never-Trumpers who are part of the bureaucracy. It is an actual portion of government workers who were appointed mostly by Clinton who lived through the Obama administration, settling into their jobs for over two decades. When Obama was elected, he had zero political acquaintances he could appoint to key cabinet positions. His only close friends were very radical, like Bill Ayres, who were activists who wanted to take down the US government. Because those like Ayres had criminal records, they could not be approved to any important positions, so he appointed his radical friends as unapprovable Czars. Because he needed people to be approved, he took the Clinton staffers and officials as his own.

Clinton got people like Hazel O'Leary in as his secretary of energy, and she and her colleagues gave away our technical secrets to all takers. Notra Trulock, the Intelligence Director and Security for the US Department of Energy, wrote in his book, "Code Name Kindred Spirit", how the energy library was open to foreign nationals to enter, yet O'Leary forbade US Government security from entering. He recounted how known spies used the library to shake tails by entering the library, where the FBI and NSA agents were forbidden, then exited by one of its many exits. Look up Wen Ho Lee to see how our nuclear secrets got out. At that time, several of Clinton's high tech agencies were run by former anti-government activists who declassified information by the pound. They were the ones that Obama kept. The Christopher Cox Subcommittee investigated these technology leaks and wanted to file charges against Clinton for impeachment, but the House decided that his Bimbo Eruption was an easier impeachment, so went there instead. Everyone thought he would resign, like Nixon did, but he surprised everyone by being so amoral and shameless to argue what the meaning of "is" is, and that all the former Presidents "did it, too!".

Obama kept these walking time-bombs accruing tenure and seniority, which led to all the insider activists willing to oppose Trump. BTW, That Trulock book is well worth reading.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 12:10:33 AM by wmLambert »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2020, 01:19:19 AM »
The second point is what the "Deep State" is. It is not an imaginary conspiracy theory that is used to discredit Never-Trumpers who are part of the bureaucracy. It is an actual portion of government workers who were appointed mostly by Clinton who lived through the Obama administration, settling into their jobs for over two decades.

Seriously, this kind of "explanation" is only going to galvanize people making fun of the idea of a deep state. This explanation is as ridiculous an explanation of the deep state as is the skepticism that there is one. I will provide a definition that will be a bit more broad but *can* include your examples as a subset:

The "state" is usually referring to the group of individuals who decide on and affect what goes on in the governance of the country. The theory of the "deep state" is that the elected and even appointed officials are either not as powerful as we think, or else act as a clearinghouse for other individuals who use them as chess pieces. These other individuals would be anyone in long-standing positions of power and influence, who think in terms decades rather than in 4-year cycles as their plans have that sort of time span. That a 'deep state' of this sort exists is so trivial that it's virtually inconceivable that it doesn't: people who are either (a) major corporate owners/stockholders, or (b) on important boards in the long-term, or (c) national leaders with incredible resources, or (d) people of influence, usually affiliated with those from (a)-(c) through groups or societies (Atlantic Council, CFR, etc etc). You can bet this includes big oil, military, pharma, banking, IMF, tech...you get the picture. The gist is that these people wield amazing influence, and that elected officials cannot do much of anything without the approval of at least a smattering of these groups. The reason being is obvious: they are long-term players who fund campaigns and whose presence in the economy and in world affairs gives them a seat at the table when making cabinet-level decisions. They are not elected, not seen on the news, and their say-so affects or even often dictates national policy. To deny this fact would be, to me, to deny all common sense and reason. I think that this was the standard world view until WWII, after which people's minds got clouded over with propaganda.

I think it is debatable as to exactly how much power the deep state has versus the elected and visible state; maybe the President and Congresspeople have more actual power than I give them credit for. This point is certainly one with much flexibility and worthy of debate. But denying that power interests control a huge amount of influence, and and they are obvious unelected, is just weird to me.

wmLambert, by painting the "deep state" as strictly a Democrat personnel thing is both (a) partisan beyond belief, (b) guaranteed to make your point look ridiculous, and (c) missing the point, which is that anyone a President would appoint would not be part of the deep state, almost by definition, as that falls more or less under elected oversight. I'll add one proviso to this, which is that it's certainly possible for a deep-state person to arrive in an elected position; and indeed I think this happens sometimes, for instance in the case of Bush 41, and Dick Cheney under Bush 43. This is not coincidental, as it's obviously useful to have a corporate insider in an elected position (Cheney was for big oil), but my point is rather than it's not being in a powerful political position that makes someone a deep-stater; rather it's the behind-the-scene connection that defines it, even though they may *also* have a very visible public front as an elected official.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2020, 07:24:41 AM »
I more generally ascribe to the "Deep State" being the Government Bureaucracy itself, and there are few to no actual meetings, and no actual central guiding influence. Sorry Wayward, I don't hold to a Smoke filled room where things are centrally orchestrated with regards to "deep state." (Which isn't to say that people like George Soros aren't out there, they are.They're just not part of the Deep State, they're another matter entirely, and they often join forces with "deep state" actors.)

Bureaucrats are territorial, they also dislike uncertainty. Also as demonstrated with regards to testimony regarding Trump's handling of Ukraine, they also strongly dislike it when somebody upsets "long-standing policy" which predates the latest politico entering office(but not predate the politico before that one).

It's also how you get scenarios like the IRS deciding to audit and slow walk virtually every single Tea-Party affiliated group under Obama, as well as many of the people involved in leading such groups. Yet no evidence could be found of a plot or directive from the White House for it having happened.

Which isn't to mention the "other games" which can be played, ironically enough, some of which people want to accuse Trump of playing, while pretending that only Trump has ever "signaled" what he wants parts of his Administration to do without expressly ordering them to do so. Gotta maintain that deniability after all, well, unless you're Trump.  8)

Bureaucracy the world over is renowned for being able to protect itself, and Trump threatens in a myriad of ways. Many of his threats are valid, others are way out line. "The Bureaucracy" is aware of this, and acts to protect itself accordingly, by going after Trump's appointees in ways it generally hasn't done in recent history, because the other Administrations "played ball" in ways which appeased the Bureaucracy.

Another way to view certain aspects of the Deep State and it's behavior is to compare it to traffic flows. There are established "rules of road" that most people adhere to, even when not behind the steering wheel, or even on a public roadway, but instead walking through a crowded shopping venue. Some of those crowd behaviors are much the same thing being alluded to with regards to "deep state" activities.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 07:28:37 AM by TheDeamon »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2020, 07:36:15 AM »

Quote
How did Bernie not get the nomination in 2016?

Because Hillary had enough delegates to win by the convention.  As I recall, she didn't need the superdelegates.

And what does the "deep state" have to do with internal Democratic Party politics?  The Democratic Party is not a state, IFAIK. :)

Did you know the Republican party isn’t a state either?  :o. Of all the non sequiturs this is the non-est.  ::)

Now, let’s look at reality:

Quote
Donna Brazile, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee, published excerpts of a forthcoming book in which she says that after she took over the Democratic National Committee, she investigated “whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process” through the DNC, and discovered evidence that they did. “I had found my proof and it broke my heart,” she wrote.

Quote
Political junkies talk about the “invisible primary,” which Vox’s Andrew Prokop, in an excellent overview, describes as “the attempts by important elements of each major party — mainly elites and interest groups — to anoint a presidential nominee before the voting even begins. ... These insider deliberations take place in private conversations with each other and with the potential candidates, and eventually in public declarations of who they're choosing to endorse, donate to, or work for.”

Clinton dominated this invisible primary: She locked up the endorsements, the staff, and the funders early. All the way back in 2013, every female Democratic senator — including Warren — signed a letter urging Clinton to run for president. As FiveThirtyEight’s endorsement tracker showed, Clinton even outperformed past vice presidents, like Al Gore, in rolling up party support before the primaries.

But keep telling yourself it’s a myth.  ;) ;D 8) :o


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2020, 08:45:46 AM »
Crunch, isn't that a totally different thing than the deep state? I didn't vote for Clinton for many reasons, but one of them was certainly the cheating. That is "the establishment" but ones with a specifically partisan job, as opposed to technocrats working in government.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2020, 09:06:14 AM »
Crunch, isn't that a totally different thing than the deep state? I didn't vote for Clinton for many reasons, but one of them was certainly the cheating. That is "the establishment" but ones with a specifically partisan job, as opposed to technocrats working in government.

I think Crunch's point in this case is that the people Clinton would have been arranging this with were the technocrats. There is no bureaucrat in government anywhere with clout of a sort to dictate to the DNC how to pursue its own primary. That privilege falls to those who fund it, i.e. those with most money and power. In the case of 2016 this was Hillary herself, since she apparently bailed out the DNC and took it over and that condition; perhaps she herself was funded by technocrats, which we'll never know, but either way they backed her.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2020, 09:32:05 AM »
I'm not a Deep-State connoisseur, though I do know that the definition is rather fluid and that the primary usage of it is government employees that are disloyal or maliciously attacking He-Who-Made-America-Great-Again. 

In this context, or in the general conspiratorial context, or even in the government bureaucracy context, I don't think that the "invisible primary" or the "endorsement primary" fits the bill for Deep-State.  The endorsement primary is just a part of politics, it's not necessarily un-ethical in the context that "Deep State" Agents are supposedly being by attacking L'Orange unjustly.  Politicians and officials within the parties are supposed to form opinions on candidates and back candidates based on those opinions, the same as any pleb.  The fact that these opinions do not hold the same weight that they used to is evidence of their lack of overwhelming importance.   

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2020, 11:43:59 AM »
Quote from: Fenring
...they are long-term players who fund campaigns and whose presence in the economy and in world affairs gives them a seat at the table.

Exactly what I posted. You made the debate fallacy of misconstruing what was stated and replacing it with your own words to make debunking easier. The Clinton people keep popping up, don't they? - but they are not alone. There are Never-Trumpers in there from both sides of the political spectrum, but many of the people at the top have roots with the Democrat party of the turn of the century. You don't have to read "Kindred Spirit" if you don't want to. Once again, it is just too much work for most people, and never to be done by those who know better without all the facts.

Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, upper ehelon FBI, and Mueller's whole team are dyed-in-the-wool activists who all face losing their security clearances. I remember Limbaugh talking about the Deep State operatives who fudged-up the facts about WMDs to "trick" Bush 43 into invading Iraq. He pointed out Democrats who set up George W. Bush to go to war with Iraq who are now organizing a 'silent coup' against Trump. These people exist and are not alone. That they betray their oaths to do what they do is enough to define them, isn't it? That they are not the "only" deep staters is not an issue. We saw that the Hillary non-investigation gave blanket immunity to all her staffers, then neglected to use that to interview them. That was done by more than one person, wasn't it?

They do exist and are not some kind of conspiracy theory by the Right. That Trump has been unable to root them out of the system is eerily reminiscent of what Nixon tried to do with the Plumbers. He knew his intelligence community was leaking classified information and had to go around it. The Deeo Dtate won there, for sure.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 11:46:44 AM by wmLambert »