After attempting to de-legitimize the press, WH+GOP going after Justice department.

Here4money said:
Yeah, yeah, everyone's corrupt except the sun king.
More...

No one here is saying Trump isn't corrupt. Or can you point to a post where I missed someone saying that? You don't get to the office of the President without being corrupt in some way. Not in this country.
 
I would hate to see a democrat pull nuance argument out.

Rand I know nuance and your argument about tax breaks stimulating the economy may be right or it may be wrong because its nuanced.


piezoe said:
Not exactly. I thought those who were wanting football players who were kneeling during the national anthem to be fired were missing the point, and behaving ironically. I haven't changed my opinion on that. Let the owners take up the issue at contract time I say. And then take it to the courts if the parties can't agree. What if you owned a shoe factory and decided that everyone should stand at attention and sing the national anthem at the start of each day? You own the factory, but not the cobblers! You pay the cobblers to make shoes, are you paying them to sing the national anthem? Is singing the national anthem a reasonable part of their duty to you; after all they have a choice. They don't have to work for you. What if the factory is in the midst of a football field and the public has bought tickets to watch the workers make shoes. You don't own the the field and you don't own the players, but you hire them to work in front of the paying public. you can see were this leads. and you can also see that there is nuance involved, not the least of which is the question of what is in your own best interest as "the owner". And then there is a little thing like the Constitution. You can see where this leads. It leads to nuance. Life is filled with nuance, and sometimes our gut reactions lead us astray, particularly when we overlook nuance; on those occasions we only see black and white and no shadow detail.
More...
 
piezoe said:
Not exactly. I thought those who were wanting football players who were kneeling during the national anthem to be fired were missing the point, and behaving ironically. I haven't changed my opinion on that. Let the owners take up the issue at contract time I say. And then take it to the courts if the parties can't agree. What if you owned a shoe factory and decided that everyone should stand at attention and sing the national anthem at the start of each day? You own the factory, but not the cobblers! You pay the cobblers to make shoes, are you paying them to sing the national anthem? Is singing the national anthem a reasonable part of their duty to you; after all they have a choice. They don't have to work for you. What if the factory is in the midst of a football field and the public has bought tickets to watch the workers make shoes. You don't own the the field and you don't own the players, but you hire them to work in front of the paying public. you can see were this leads. and you can also see that there is nuance involved, not the least of which is the question of what is in your own best interest as "the owner". And then there is a little thing like the Constitution. You can see where this leads. It leads to nuance. Life is filled with nuance, and sometimes our gut reactions lead us astray, particularly when we overlook nuance; on those occasions we only see black and white and no shadow detail.
More...
You missed the point. I was just using "so called" in a sentence.
 
CaptainObvious said:
The Justice department and the FBI exposed themselves during the campaign to be colluding with the Clintons, providing cover for illegal activities
More...
This isn't even an arguable point. Saying that "The Justice department and the FBI exposed themselves during the campaign to be colluding with the Clintons" is delusional. There has never been the slightest evidence of such! A prudent person would not even say, " the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians," despite there being prima facie evidence to support such a statement . What can be fairly said is that the Trump campaign may have colluded with Russians during the campaign in an attempt to influence the election campaign, or may have promised some action on lifting of sanctions in return for help in influencing the election outcome. Words matter and you have jumped way beyond any reasonable conclusion based on knowledge in the public domain. Furthermore, there is a big gap between transgression of the law and/or poor judgement and a prosecutable offense.

As a matter of fact, not a few, I'm not one of them, think Comey was distinctly unhelpful to Clinton's election chances, and may have actually harmed them. Would you then say, "The Justice department and the FBI exposed themselves during the campaign to be colluding [against] the Clintons" ? I hope not!
 
Last edited:
Here4money said:
That's a stupid point, if he did receive any, and is a Russian "agent", then why would he post them? Now, if he was working with the Russians, asking for leaks makes perfect sense if you want to appear impartial.
More...

Yeah, that has to be it.
 
jem said:
I know nuance and your argument about tax breaks stimulating the economy may be right or it may be wrong because its nuanced.
More...

That's not a bad example! Here is another: "Jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge will harm you." [no nuance]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top