He did not ask the FBI direct to to drop an investigation. The language isn't malicious nor was the intent and Comey said as much. It was a gut feeling that Comey used because he felt uncomfortable and it was unusual.
Why did Comey say it was not true? I don't know and neither do you. I am less inclined to disbelieve Comey under oath than the NY Times.
You trust CNN? I'm Sorry. You can lie by telling nothing but the truth. There are other examples beyond CNN but right now I am too lazy to dig them up for you. Saying "X causes Y" only to have 6 paragraphs down in the 3rd sentence say "we have no evidence", isn't exactly honest reporting IMO. I have seen more than one article from the NY Times do that. It's narrative crafting and it is disingenuous to the facts and truth.
That's hardly enough of a condemnation to declare that the entire MSM has been discredited.
That was one example that you were asking for in a recent example that Comey mentioned during his testimony. Both agreed that it was not a true thing to say by the NY Times. That is not the first NY Times article I have seen that has a statement in a few paragraphs down that contradict the whole narrative. Whether you think that is strong condemnation or not I don't care but it is an example of the MSM using misinformation against Trump. That alone doesn't discredit MSM as much as their abandonment of ethics and standards. Abandonment of Goldwater, narrative over fact, selective reporting, and lies of omission discredit MSM.
No, I do not trust CNN. Nor the WH. Nor the NY Times. Nor Fox. Each has an agenda trying to convince you and me of something. I can only look into so many things to verify authenticity and facts. I don't have the time nor patience to be an expert at everything the news reports nor am I naive enough to believe one side. The MSM has discredited itself with their actions.
No, that is your interpretation. That is not what he said.
Maybe Trump is inexperienced in legal speak with lawyers that is required for high profile politicians. Or should he have learned that in all his other high profile public service positions? Oh, wait.
Just like a gay couple does not have a right to a baker and wedding cake? Public accommodations are impartial for good reason the only difference is what right you want them to be impartial about.
The activities of the KKK were not "social consequences". An example of a social consequence is someone exercising their freedom of association and choosing not to do business with you or interact with you on a social level.
Blocking your access to the polls is the same in effect regardless if it is done with a gun or a mob. Is it social consequence protestors blocking the streets that get you fired from your job or your access to the polls? The KKK and modern protestors do it for different reasons but to similar effect. Yes, I understand your milder version of social consequence but you should understand that when you are talking about public accommodations your 'milder' versions of social consequences are blown out of proportion. A gay couple and friends could have taken your 'milder' form of social consequences when denied a wedding cake but the courts were involved and have been involved for a very long time now.
the government was actively involved in the oppression, by not allowing the victims to defend themselves. They're the ones who insisted that everyone leave defense up to them, taxed everyone to (theoretically) fund that defense, and then selectively failed to respond when defense is needed. By doing so they were siding with the aggressors, even if they never lifted a finger during the attack.
Jim Crow aside, no the government was not actively running around in a mob lynching black people (unless it was seen as getting a criminal) or threatening them to not vote. Jim Crow tried to take away the right of arms to black people and it has been a fight since the Civil War for blacks to keep and bear arms. When blacks had guns the KKK violence stopped. Go figure. The governments have always been lackluster in their duty to uphold law and order in black communities.
This government inaction is the same reason why the executive must "faithfully" execute the law. Yes, semantics over who is "actively" involved but that doesn't mean anything to the person that is denied a right. It is very much different to defend yourself from a mob with a gun than to defend your access to public accommodations because of your views.
If Twitter wishes to be selective about who they offer their services to, and for what purpose, that is entirely within their rights.
It is precedent that the government not let any institution that has a disproportionate influence on our elections to be partial to the public. Why should twitter or any social media company be exempt? How many elected representatives are on social media? How much of the national dialogue happened on social media this last election? Hells bells it is preferred platform of POTUS, you don't think that platform should be impartial to political ideology?
Not associating or being around someone you don't like is very different than having limited access to public accommodations. If the government is complicit with your "consequences" what is the effective difference if that person cannot exercise their rights or use public accommodations? Do you think black people were happy not able to vote because it was the KKK that stopped their vote with a complicit government?
This is a problem and will continue to be a problem. Social media is affecting our elections. How many were informed by social media last election? How many elected representatives use social media?
Giving an extraordinary amount of influence over our elections and national dialogue to a select few private institutions is not something to fawn at. Previously, we understood that phone lines were of such importance to the public interest that they should be impartial yet, social media companies with a similar impact get a pass today.
No one is suppressing "free speech". These idiots are free to spout their nonsense all they want. No one is stopping them.
What happens with a complicit government? If you can't stop me and the government doesn't stop me, it looks like you just missed the polls this last election. Darn.
We have codified other rights into private policy. Speech in a speak easy world should be as well.
It's a truly slippery slope we are on when these colleges get to decide what kind of a person attends.
Yea, super scary. Instead of banning you because you are gay I ban you because you are likely a democrat. Whoops, not a protected class by federal or state law therefore I can discriminate. After all, you chose to be a democrat.
No. Even if you run a private business you will still have courts forcing your business policy. See bakers and gay wedding cakes. Harvard cannot reject or accept anyone based on any characteristic. They are subject to federal laws and protected classes that restrict their admissions. That is why there are no public white or black only schools. Any public accommodation must adhere to federal and state law for protected classes.
You have a very narrow view of history if you think that. What happens when the government is complicit in the oppression of a people? The KKK and blacks are a prime example. It wasn't the government oppressing black people but also the government didn't do anything to stop it or enforce law and order. Only when black people armed themselves did the KKK subside in any meaningful way.
What you're saying is that any group can oppress any other group so long as the government is complicit in that oppression. Hey, it isn't the government silencing you or restricting your right to vote. If it's against the law just call the police. Oh, they didn't answer? Well shucks! At least the government isn't oppressing us!
Yes, there are social consequences to your actions but just as other rights have been codified into private policy such as equality before the law so to should there be some protections for speech in such a speak easy world. To put it another way, Twitter (the preferred platform for POTUS for better or worse) should not be able to ban political ideology just like they cannot ban black people.
Yes the prisoner's dilemma. Any deal or negotiation to address the tragedy must be fair to all parties else it breaks apart. That is why any nation acting in their self interest is fine to me just as I would expect the US to act in their self interest. Sure, if those countries want to cut off their own nose to spite their face they are free to do so by all means.
How is disagreeing with the political solution akin to "somehow believe they've falsified an entire field of research"?
You can think AGW is real and disagree on funneling money to poor nations. In addition, you can disagree with how much foreign aid Isreal receives and disagree on money transfer in the Paris Accord. These things are not mutually exclusive.
Is there any nation with a policy that is purely motivated by altruism? I am willing to bet that NK signing on had little to no risks compared to the rewards.
There is a difference between the science of climate and the politics to solutions. The agreement is politics. You can agree with the science and disagree with the political solutions.
right... yout alk of tribilism and uncontrlable emotion but yet fall victim to name calling and dismisal for what? because you fall prey to liberal iam so much better than you because my opinion is sooooo superior.
CNN has an article describing how this could lead to a trade war. TLDR: Frustrated nations slap carbon taxes on imported goods because they're building with clean energy while we shamelessly pollute (which is much cheaper) and then Trump responds with his own tarriffs. Then it escalates from there and badda bing badda boom, recession/depression.
I don't take much stoke in CNN's opinion but if those countries act in their self interest I don't see it as a problem as I expect the US to do the same. That is the point of diplomacy and deals. It must benefit all parties involved. If those nations care about the actual solution to climate change then virtue signalling is pointless. I am more interested on an actual amicable solution than a unfair unenforceable virtue signal of a accord.
Which nation has a policy purely motivated by altruism? None.
Slashdot Mirror
He did not ask the FBI direct to to drop an investigation. The language isn't malicious nor was the intent and Comey said as much. It was a gut feeling that Comey used because he felt uncomfortable and it was unusual.
Can you find the misinformation for me?
Why did Comey say it was not true? I don't know and neither do you. I am less inclined to disbelieve Comey under oath than the NY Times.
You trust CNN? I'm Sorry. You can lie by telling nothing but the truth. There are other examples beyond CNN but right now I am too lazy to dig them up for you. Saying "X causes Y" only to have 6 paragraphs down in the 3rd sentence say "we have no evidence", isn't exactly honest reporting IMO. I have seen more than one article from the NY Times do that. It's narrative crafting and it is disingenuous to the facts and truth.
Transcribe the conversation between Comey and Risch that I linked. It will help jog my memory.
That's hardly enough of a condemnation to declare that the entire MSM has been discredited.
That was one example that you were asking for in a recent example that Comey mentioned during his testimony. Both agreed that it was not a true thing to say by the NY Times. That is not the first NY Times article I have seen that has a statement in a few paragraphs down that contradict the whole narrative. Whether you think that is strong condemnation or not I don't care but it is an example of the MSM using misinformation against Trump. That alone doesn't discredit MSM as much as their abandonment of ethics and standards. Abandonment of Goldwater, narrative over fact, selective reporting, and lies of omission discredit MSM.
No, I do not trust CNN. Nor the WH. Nor the NY Times. Nor Fox. Each has an agenda trying to convince you and me of something. I can only look into so many things to verify authenticity and facts. I don't have the time nor patience to be an expert at everything the news reports nor am I naive enough to believe one side. The MSM has discredited itself with their actions.
You're an idiot.
No, that is your interpretation. That is not what he said.
Maybe Trump is inexperienced in legal speak with lawyers that is required for high profile politicians. Or should he have learned that in all his other high profile public service positions? Oh, wait.
Did you not watch his testimony?
Just one example from Comey was a NY times article about a supposed collusion between Trump and the Russians. It was bullshit.
Solid facts?
Just like a gay couple does not have a right to a baker and wedding cake? Public accommodations are impartial for good reason the only difference is what right you want them to be impartial about.
Slippery slope. What was once a protected class is now considered hate speech. Tomorrow's asshole is today's shining example of citizenry.
The activities of the KKK were not "social consequences". An example of a social consequence is someone exercising their freedom of association and choosing not to do business with you or interact with you on a social level.
Blocking your access to the polls is the same in effect regardless if it is done with a gun or a mob. Is it social consequence protestors blocking the streets that get you fired from your job or your access to the polls? The KKK and modern protestors do it for different reasons but to similar effect. Yes, I understand your milder version of social consequence but you should understand that when you are talking about public accommodations your 'milder' versions of social consequences are blown out of proportion. A gay couple and friends could have taken your 'milder' form of social consequences when denied a wedding cake but the courts were involved and have been involved for a very long time now.
the government was actively involved in the oppression, by not allowing the victims to defend themselves. They're the ones who insisted that everyone leave defense up to them, taxed everyone to (theoretically) fund that defense, and then selectively failed to respond when defense is needed. By doing so they were siding with the aggressors, even if they never lifted a finger during the attack.
Jim Crow aside, no the government was not actively running around in a mob lynching black people (unless it was seen as getting a criminal) or threatening them to not vote. Jim Crow tried to take away the right of arms to black people and it has been a fight since the Civil War for blacks to keep and bear arms. When blacks had guns the KKK violence stopped. Go figure. The governments have always been lackluster in their duty to uphold law and order in black communities.
This government inaction is the same reason why the executive must "faithfully" execute the law. Yes, semantics over who is "actively" involved but that doesn't mean anything to the person that is denied a right. It is very much different to defend yourself from a mob with a gun than to defend your access to public accommodations because of your views.
If Twitter wishes to be selective about who they offer their services to, and for what purpose, that is entirely within their rights.
It is precedent that the government not let any institution that has a disproportionate influence on our elections to be partial to the public. Why should twitter or any social media company be exempt? How many elected representatives are on social media? How much of the national dialogue happened on social media this last election? Hells bells it is preferred platform of POTUS, you don't think that platform should be impartial to political ideology?
Not associating or being around someone you don't like is very different than having limited access to public accommodations. If the government is complicit with your "consequences" what is the effective difference if that person cannot exercise their rights or use public accommodations? Do you think black people were happy not able to vote because it was the KKK that stopped their vote with a complicit government?
Social media sites routinely censor things.
This is a problem and will continue to be a problem. Social media is affecting our elections. How many were informed by social media last election? How many elected representatives use social media?
Giving an extraordinary amount of influence over our elections and national dialogue to a select few private institutions is not something to fawn at. Previously, we understood that phone lines were of such importance to the public interest that they should be impartial yet, social media companies with a similar impact get a pass today.
No one is suppressing "free speech". These idiots are free to spout their nonsense all they want. No one is stopping them.
What happens with a complicit government? If you can't stop me and the government doesn't stop me, it looks like you just missed the polls this last election. Darn.
We have codified other rights into private policy. Speech in a speak easy world should be as well.
It's a truly slippery slope we are on when these colleges get to decide what kind of a person attends.
Yea, super scary. Instead of banning you because you are gay I ban you because you are likely a democrat. Whoops, not a protected class by federal or state law therefore I can discriminate. After all, you chose to be a democrat.
Besides it's not like, bible versus are hate speech that can be discriminated against despite religion being a protected class.
No. Even if you run a private business you will still have courts forcing your business policy. See bakers and gay wedding cakes. Harvard cannot reject or accept anyone based on any characteristic. They are subject to federal laws and protected classes that restrict their admissions. That is why there are no public white or black only schools. Any public accommodation must adhere to federal and state law for protected classes.
You have a very narrow view of history if you think that. What happens when the government is complicit in the oppression of a people? The KKK and blacks are a prime example. It wasn't the government oppressing black people but also the government didn't do anything to stop it or enforce law and order. Only when black people armed themselves did the KKK subside in any meaningful way.
What you're saying is that any group can oppress any other group so long as the government is complicit in that oppression. Hey, it isn't the government silencing you or restricting your right to vote. If it's against the law just call the police. Oh, they didn't answer? Well shucks! At least the government isn't oppressing us!
Yes, there are social consequences to your actions but just as other rights have been codified into private policy such as equality before the law so to should there be some protections for speech in such a speak easy world. To put it another way, Twitter (the preferred platform for POTUS for better or worse) should not be able to ban political ideology just like they cannot ban black people.
I just wish y'all could do a little more.
From what I understand, the US is leading all countries in lowering carbon dioxide emissions. What more do you want?
then waddya got
Something that isn't virtue signaling that wouldn't even solve the problem to begin with.
Yes the prisoner's dilemma. Any deal or negotiation to address the tragedy must be fair to all parties else it breaks apart. That is why any nation acting in their self interest is fine to me just as I would expect the US to act in their self interest. Sure, if those countries want to cut off their own nose to spite their face they are free to do so by all means.
At the end of the day it is what it is.
How is disagreeing with the political solution akin to "somehow believe they've falsified an entire field of research"?
You can think AGW is real and disagree on funneling money to poor nations. In addition, you can disagree with how much foreign aid Isreal receives and disagree on money transfer in the Paris Accord. These things are not mutually exclusive.
Is there any nation with a policy that is purely motivated by altruism? I am willing to bet that NK signing on had little to no risks compared to the rewards.
There is a difference between the science of climate and the politics to solutions. The agreement is politics. You can agree with the science and disagree with the political solutions.
right... yout alk of tribilism and uncontrlable emotion but yet fall victim to name calling and dismisal for what? because you fall prey to liberal iam so much better than you because my opinion is sooooo superior.
fuck you.
CNN has an article describing how this could lead to a trade war. TLDR: Frustrated nations slap carbon taxes on imported goods because they're building with clean energy while we shamelessly pollute (which is much cheaper) and then Trump responds with his own tarriffs. Then it escalates from there and badda bing badda boom, recession/depression.
I don't take much stoke in CNN's opinion but if those countries act in their self interest I don't see it as a problem as I expect the US to do the same. That is the point of diplomacy and deals. It must benefit all parties involved. If those nations care about the actual solution to climate change then virtue signalling is pointless. I am more interested on an actual amicable solution than a unfair unenforceable virtue signal of a accord.
Which nation has a policy purely motivated by altruism? None.