ShitShow at DOJ Today: Rule of Law Possibly Dead

[ringpriest]

So it's a "Kremlin-Brand I said was a statically fact. You should refrain from your 1960 McCarthyism that shows you have no real substance to stand on.If you are ignorant of the wealthy and privileged clear advantage in our judicial system means you should educate yourself.

Or perhaps all those Civil Rights Protesters in the 1960 really were dirty communist? I mean it was all the justification the FBI needed to wire tape and follow around political activist. Ignoring the past, present, means we can't make a better future. You're just flat wrong because pointing out the injustice in America is the most American thing anyone can do.

"Most American discussions of Kremlin influence efforts characterize Putin’s stance as pro-Republican and anti-Democrat, but that’s not correct. The formula is pro-populist, anti-establishment. On the whole, populist movements may be healthy injections of political participation for democracies, and America’s politics could certainly use an antidote to what appears to be growing control by the richest of the rich. But for the Kremlin, they offer a disorganized, easily infiltrated counter to establishment governments checking Putin’s power. Populists often lack sufficient foreign policy knowledge and their inexperience leaves them ill-equipped to react to Putin’s maneuvers. (President Trump’s first term, thus far, is a relevant case study.) In 2020, Kremlin propagandists will seek to connect populist right and populist left audiences through shared narratives designed to normalize Russia’s agenda in America, demoralize democratic constituents and neutralize political establishment counters to Russian advances abroad and inroads into American society."

If you wish to be Kremlin propagandist working to destroy the United States, then you are (for now) free to do so; but at least have the self-awareness to acknowledge that is what you are doing (self-awareness, along with empathy, are a large part what makes us human - those who abandon both, as many in the United States have, particularly but by no means exclusively the adherents and champions of the political right, are rejecting their own humanity).

[Shalcker]

If Russia wants to help push progressive values into american society and help overthrow the establishment elites then I welcome their support with open arms.

We can deal with Russia acting out in geopolitics afterwards either way.

The choice is between "perpetuate system of oppression that has been using trappings of 'freedom' and 'democracy' for so long that many people started to think injustice is necessary part of it" and "actually change things" (with no guarantees that it will be for the better).

And, obviously, Russia is on the side of change here. Because it doesn't like current situation, and certainly doesn't like current establishment still stuck in Cold War mindset.

[PosPosPos]

You do realize that this country was founded on being angry at the king right?

And why is this relevant?

You have this weird notion that the US is a monarchy.

It may as well be at this point.

[mvaliz]

If Russia wants to help push progressive values into american society and help overthrow the establishment elites then I welcome their support with open arms.

We can deal with Russia acting out in geopolitics afterwards either way.

No way would I after all the shit they have done - both to themselves and to us. If they were to offer to help I would know there was a terrible price to pay for it and/or it will work out in their favor-plans somehow, and by "plans" i mean clearly something global and unwholesome.

Oh, and also asking a foreign power to interfere in our election is, you know, treasonous. Especially if that gets normalized because you're inviting ALL kinds of outside powers in at that point to influence things.

[Adam Jensen]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...855976449?s=19

Jeezus! He is attacking a federal judge on a case that he has ties with. At best just saying this about any case as President is awful.

Oh btw the judge has not made a Sentencing recommendation yet. Still 9 days away.

Also, is that fucking moron ever going to get over Hillary Clinton?

[mvaliz]

I just want to make an aside on this particular point;

It feels like there's been a shift where a claim of "evil" is an argument of some deep, monstrous, inhuman deviancy. For a half-century or more, now, we've known this isn't tenable. Between Arendt's book on Eichmann and the "banality of evil", and the Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments, we know that "evil" is essentially communicable and that a large chunk of the population are at risk. It is fostered not just through outright malice, but also ignorance and obedience to a higher authority.

[snip]

I also really don't want to get into debating Arendt's position on Eichmann specifically; I'm aware that there's criticism, but I think she was spot-on with this concept.

I think I've responded to this before stating that I realize/created a simple-form calculation that "Evil", to me, is basically defined by the level of disparity between one's own selfish interest and the detrimental unnecessary expense of other people. The greater the disparity, the more "evil" you are. It's also a nice metric as it can also measure the "good" in other people by how close and/or reverse one person goes. Other things that factor in the calculation should be willingly/unwillingly doing things (ie. did you willingly know this was happening by your actions? and obviously number of actions. ect)

The only value point I have yet to determine is an absolute threshold by which one unquestioningly crosses into "evil" territory, or even the necessity of one really.

[jonnysensible]

If Russia wants to help push progressive values into american society and help overthrow the establishment elites then I welcome their support with open arms.

We can deal with Russia acting out in geopolitics afterwards either way.

Ah Russia the bastion of progressive values.

You really have lost the plot. Grayzone tankies really do have brain worms.

You do realise that the Russian operation is actively pushing white supremacist violence and sepratism right?
Ontop of attacks to vital institutions.


Infracted.

[Edge-]

If Russia wants to help push progressive values into american society and help overthrow the establishment elites then I welcome their support with open arms.

We can deal with Russia acting out in geopolitics afterwards either way.

You're doing a great job of proving far-left progressives are no different than far-right regressives right now, champ.

[Edge-]

Both sides share a hatred for a corrupt establishment elite. There is nothing wrong about that.

And here's where you completely go off the deep end.

Please come back to reality and join us.

[Endus]

Why are you protecting a corrupt and nepotist elite?

Define "corruption" for me real quick, could you?

[Shalcker]

Hard to argue with this assessment. In what universe does anyone think Russia are going to actually push anything progressive? "Russia" and "progressive" don't really even belong in the same sentence. Good grief.

Russia did pay people who loved progressive values to work for RT though, as well as invited them to appear on their shows.

You only have to disagree with current American approaches to qualify, right or left doesn't matter, they aren't ideological in that regard.

It isn't like there is lack of "Assad apologists", for example, from the left, and Russia certainly benefits from boosting them.

[Endus]

"Centrist" Politicians in bed with Wall Street.
Politicians hijacking ideologies to win votes and then forgetting their campaign promises.
Politicians trying to ban corporate tax.
Interest groups undermining the essence of democracy.

If I could somehow compress all those examples into a neat little definition, it would be perfect.

That's . . . not a definition.

As to the first and third; welcome to capitalism. I agree that capitalism is not an ideal model; I am a liberal market socialist myself, and don't think capitalist systems are useful in general. But they aren't "corruption". They're the expected and desired outcome of the economic model. You can disagree with that model, as I do, but that doesn't make it "corrupt"; it's just operating by rules you don't approve of.

The second also doesn't really qualify as anything; Obama was blocked on a lot of stuff, or had to compromise on his promises to try and get something done. You've discovered the concept of "politics". Again, not corruption. Just the recognition that there's often a divide between "want to do" and "can actually accomplish".

And the last is only an issue if some interest groups have all the control, which isn't actually the case. Instead, you have a whole lot of interest groups jockeying for influence, and the power still fundamentally rests in the hands of the average citizen. What you're complaining about, here, is "democracy", not "corruption".

[Edge-]

I consider the influence of money into politics, or rather money having a stronger influence than the common people, to be corruption.

It can be, but you're basically making up your own definitions at this point.

Do you believe that the current democratic establishment are free from corruption?

Do you have evidence that they are? How corrupt are they? What kind of corruption? These things matter.

And with that I mean the democratic politicians who hold most of the power and influence within "Democratic Party" institutions.

This would include Nancy Pelosi and House leadership. The same people that passed HR1 when Democrats took back the House -

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...s/house-bill/1

What's your big problem with this? It tries to tackle access to voting and take steps to address campaign finance reform.

[Endus]

I know that in your heart of hearts you support close to most of the things I support.

I consider the influence of money into politics, or rather money having a stronger influence than the common people, to be corruption.

Well, it fundamentally isn't. You're making up your own definition for a term that already has meaning.

Let me ask you a different question: Do you believe that the current democratic establishment are free from corruption? And with that I mean the democratic politicians who hold most of the power and influence within "Democratic Party" institutions.

(I personally more closely adhere to below quotes as a view on US politics)

For the most part, yes. I don't believe any are engaging in shadowy backroom deals that violate basic ethics or the law. Things like bribery. That's what "corruption" actually means, not "making decisions predicated upon a different set of priorities than my own".

[Templar 331]

And why is this relevant?

That it isn't pointless to go against a king?

[Paranoid Android]

Also, in light of Barr complaining that Trumps tweeting makes his job "impossible", there's a very easy solution.

He can resign. Then, it's not his problem anymore. And he won't have to drop tens of thousands on Trump properties for parties, either.

The best part the friend fire.

Lou Dobbs attacks Bill Barr, suggests he's part of the "deep state," calls the Justice Department "rancid, corrupt"

Once again these idiots cant grasp that Barr is telling them to "shut up" and let me do the illegal stuff behind doors. They are attacking their hatchet man. Classic!

[Edge-]

The best part the friend fire.

Lou Dobbs attacks Bill Barr, suggests he's part of the "deep state," calls the Justice Department "rancid, corrupt"

Once again these idiots cant grasp that Barr is telling them to "shut up" and let me do the illegal stuff behind doors. They are attacking their hatchet man. Classic!

Lou Dobbs just wants his "daddy" to be our Dear Leader.

If it wasn't so dangerous given the platform he's on, I'd actually feel sorry for that weak, pathetic, sad little man.

[D3thray]

And the MAGAts will, of course, see nothing wrong with Trump meddling like this.

Can you imagine how they would have howled if President Obama did only a fraction of what Trump has done?

He did worse and any time I bring it up I get a ‘meh’ so I’m kinda numb to it now

[Powerogue]

If you break the law in favor of Trump, your sentences will be removed.

If you obey the law against Trump, you will be fired.

That's what's happening.

[PosPosPos]

That it isn't pointless to go against a king?

Define "go against", because historically kings and tyrants weren't dethroned/deposed with lots of bellyaching.