Election 2016

SlyJohnny · Post by **SlyJohnny** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:02 pm

I mean, you and the other dipshits who are utterly incapable of admitting anything bad about "their team" (while marvelling at the self-deception that surely only republicans are capable of) are the only ones who think these statements are fabricated- Scott Foval doesn't think so, and Bob Creamer agrees they are real but is arguing that his were in the context of a hypothetical scenario- but you've gone to bat in this thread defending the journalistic integrity of Michael Fucking Moore, and you've never previously demonstrated the capacity for rational objectivity in anything you've ever said or done, so this is unsurprising.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:12 pm

SlyJohnny wrote:I mean, you and the other dipshits who are utterly incapable of admitting anything bad about "their team"

You obviously need to lurk moar.

SlyJohnny · Post by **SlyJohnny** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:12 pm

Also, fuck all your "No True Scotsman" arguments to the effect that I'm obviously a Trump supporter. If you're incapable of nuanced thinking, if dividing the world into "True Believers" and "Despicable Foes Who Dare Question The Party" is the only way you can understand disagreement without suffering a stroke, that's on you and your childlike, rudimentary understanding of the world. I'm not going to be drawn in to asserting my liberal street cred to the kind of assholes that are perpetuating the thinking that has allowed Trump to even BE a thing in the first place.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:15 pm

SlyJohnny wrote:I mean, you and the other dipshits who are utterly incapable of admitting anything bad about "their team" (while marvelling at the self-deception that surely only republicans are capable of) are the only ones who think these statements are fabricated- Scott Foval doesn't think so, and Bob Creamer agrees they are real but is arguing that his were in the context of a hypothetical scenario- but you've gone to bat in this thread defending the journalistic integrity of Michael Fucking Moore, and you've never previously demonstrated the capacity for rational objectivity in anything you've ever said or done, so this is unsurprising.

This thread is like 50% by weight Frank and "Those other dip shits" shit talking "their team." Spoiler alert, we can totally admit bad things about our team. But unlike you, we are capable of telling the difference between someone saying:

"I organize events" and "I organize events [WHERE I PUNCH TRUMPLES IN THE FACE!]"

Again, you get that Bob Creamer is not a first hand source for anything but his own conversations right? And that he fired someone else, but not himself, and that in the admission you are so gung ho about, he never said anything bad about himself because he didn't say anything bad?

No of course you don't.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:51 pm

SlyJohnny wrote:I mean, you and the other dipshits who are utterly incapable of admitting anything bad about "their team" (while marvelling at the self-deception that surely only republicans are capable of) are the only ones who think these statements are fabricated- Scott Foval doesn't think so, and Bob Creamer agrees they are real but is arguing that his were in the context of a hypothetical scenario- but you've gone to bat in this thread defending the journalistic integrity of Michael Fucking Moore, and you've never previously demonstrated the capacity for rational objectivity in anything you've ever said or done, so this is unsurprising.

Claiming that Michael Moore, or anyone who has not been successfully taken to court for defamation as being worse than O'Keefe is not the hill you want to die on. The legal standard for defamation is that it must be:

False
Damaging
Malicious

O'Keefe has been found - in court - to be all three of those things. That makes him obviously worse than any and every media personality that you don't agree with who happens to stay within the boundaries of protected speech. The protections of the First Ammendment are really quite extensive, and to fall outside of them requires you to be a very, very bad journalist. And the fact that you think someone else is worse when they haven't failed that test in a court of law means that you need to get your priorities fixed.

-Username17

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:53 pm

SlyJohnny wrote:I mean, you and the other dipshits who are utterly incapable of admitting anything bad about "their team"

Hahahahaha! I would crack a joke about how you clearly haven't been here very long, except even that's not an excuse because yesterday you posted in the U.S. news thread where exactly that happened on the same fucking page. Does making angry counterfactual accusations of tribal blindness at least make you feel better? I hope so, because it's not making you look any less stupid.

But more importantly than how you keep managing to walk facefirst directly into being ridiculed, I want you to understand that you have not addressed a single substantive point since this conversation started. Inbetween reminding you how much of a fucking idiot you are, I've actually done quite a bit of genuine work to show you why trusting O'Keefe would be foolish. I pointed out his record, and you said "this time he has to be telling the truth! People lost their jobs over this!" I pointed out all the other times people had wrongfully lost their jobs over O'Keefe videos, including the time O'Keefe got fucking sued and had to fork over a hundred thousand dollars, and you said, "well, just look at it! There's no way something like that could be taken out of context!" So I dug up a now-debunked, then-incriminating cut in another video that was exactly as long as the cuts O'Keefe is using in this video - leaving you with nothing but your (entirely worthless) personal incredulity and lack of imagination. I reminded you - multiple times - that O'Keefe has the raw footage of these conversations and could dispel all doubts - obviously justified doubts, given his history - simply by releasing those raws, and that he has deliberately refused to do so and instead antagonized the media on twitter style for asking. And now after all of that you've broken down into "WAH WAH FUCK YOU GUYS WHY CAN'T YOU SEEEEEE WHAT I SEEEEE."

You're just a fucking idiot that we've managed to work up too much to admit fault. There is actual substance in this conversation, and it is 100% not your's. So just fucking slink away. I don't care if your butthurt solidifies your gullibility into stubborn belief or if it turns out that in the absence of mockery you are capable of reason and as a result of this conversation the next time you venture into the alt-right-o-sphere you'll do so with more skepticism. I really don't. I just want you to stop posting, because you're an obnoxious whiny bitch when wrong, and that is the worst kind of way to be wrong.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:20 pm

In the ongoing war of totally objective not at all biased news coverage versus any goddam pretense of journalism.

1) Comey sent a letter to congress saying he was reopening the investigation of Clinton's emails because some emails were found in an unrelated case.

2) Immediately everyone and their mother wrote the standard article that said "Comey sent a letter opening the case. NEW EMAILS SCANDAL! Donald Trump says Hillary is a filthy crook and it is so great that the FBI are going to arrest her and then execute her for her obvious definite treason. Rubio said the FBI would never reopen the investigation unless this was literally the most important thing to ever happen in the history of the universe. Clinton said we have no idea what the FBI is talking about, so no comment."

3) It turns out there might be up to 3 emails that might not have anything to do with Clinton, or her server, or anything like that, that were found on Anthony Weiner's device when investigating him. Is there classifed information? Let's be honest, no. Are the emails even from or to Clinton? Well, no one can say, and Comey certainly hasn't.

4) Nope, this definitely isn't transparently bullshit nonsense being hyped for no reason while they get rating and maybe narrow the race and get even more ratings.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:41 pm

I saw the article and without reading it I immediately did not care. Reading the article told me nothing and so I figured there was nothing. Seems there is nothing so why is the FBI even announcing it like this is news?

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:51 pm

Because if they 'investigated' and word leaked, everyone would assume there was something so sinister that they're conspiring to conceal it, so 'due to an abundance of caution' they'll let everyone know that there is probably nothing, but they're looking... Of course 'probably nothing' isn't very news worthy, so an implication of more drives eyeballs and ad revenue.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 12:04 am

MGuy wrote:I saw the article and without reading it I immediately did not care. Reading the article told me nothing and so I figured there was nothing. Seems there is nothing so why is the FBI even announcing it like this is news?

Because the FBI didn't announce it. Comey sent a letter (almost certainly calculated to be leaked, and written so the leak would do the maximum damage) in which he reopened the investigation into "Clinton, and oh yeah, all the rest of her staff" because Weiner's wife worked for Clinton, and he had up to emails that might maybe have classified information on them that were sent to him by his wife and not by Clinton, and not through or from Clinton's server, but definitely mentioning absolutely none of that in the email.

And then Mysteriously who could possibly know how, that letter sent to a congressional committee ended up leaked to the press. But I mean, it probably wasn't a bunch of fucking Republicans trying to drum up some controversy to help out Republicans in congressional or Senate races.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 8:08 am

Honestly, all Clinton email "scandals" look like this to me:

-Username17

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 8:31 am

Yeah, Comey sent a vague letter to a bunch of congressmen (i.e. Republicans). The letter contained no evidence of wrongdoing. The letter made no accusations of wrongdoing. But apparently having no evidence and no accusations are exactly how low the requirements are to declare Hillary Clinton under investigation. I'm sure that on November 9th Comey will set the record straight and hold a press conference to tell us all that the letter had never meant anything and the notification he'd sent had merely been a procedural formality, and if his actions happen to flip a senate race or two or hey, maybe put Trump in the White House as unlikely as that is, well, he's awfully sorry about that.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 1:39 pm

In what has to be the funniest move yet, Comey violated Justice Department Policies to send that letter. I can't wait for the Trumples to call him a criminal for violating agency policies like they do Clinton... oh wait.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 2:31 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Honestly, all Clinton email "scandals" look like this to me:

-Username17

She's lost my vote.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 5:18 pm

Chamomile wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:Honestly, all Clinton email "scandals" look like this to me:

-Username17
She's lost my vote.

She got mine, Doctor Who is overrated and only keeps on because of fanbase nostalgia and inertia.

ANTI-SKUB, 2016

Occluded Sun · Post by **Occluded Sun** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 8:32 pm

It's not as though very many people are enthusiastic about Trump personally. A lot of supporters I've spoken to say things along the lines of "too bad we can't get someone more thoughtful and politic to discuss these issues, we've got to go with what's available".

Which is actually quite similar to what I've heard some Clinton supporters saying, now that I think about it. No one seems all that excited about Hillary herself, it's a matter of policies and really really hating Trump.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 8:40 pm

"a matter of policies"

Yes, heaven forbid anyone elect a candidate because they care about policy. IT'S A GODDAM BEER DRINKING WITH CONTEST AND THAT'S IT!

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 8:45 pm

-Username17

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:14 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:

-Username17

Why not? Is my house not good enough for her?

SlyJohnny · Post by **SlyJohnny** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:22 pm

Kaelik wrote:In what has to be the funniest move yet, Comey violated Justice Department Policies to send that letter. I can't wait for the Trumples to call him a criminal for violating agency policies like they do Clinton... oh wait.

No, he had a legal obligation to notify those people.From Newsweek:

"The truth is Comey didn’t have a choice. Because the new information followed his sworn testimony about the case, Comey was obligated by Department of Justice rules to keep the relevant committees apprised.

Under oath Comey had stated that the bureau had completed its review. Once he learned that there were new emails that required examination, Comey had to notify Congress that he had to amend his testimony because it was no longer true."

It's been kind of funny to watch everyone freak out about this and assume an FBI director is a Trump sleeper agent, though.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:46 pm

SlyJohnny wrote:
Kaelik wrote:In what has to be the funniest move yet, Comey violated Justice Department Policies to send that letter. I can't wait for the Trumples to call him a criminal for violating agency policies like they do Clinton... oh wait.
No, he had a legal obligation to notify those people.From Newsweek:

"The truth is Comey didn’t have a choice. Because the new information followed his sworn testimony about the case, Comey was obligated by Department of Justice rules to keep the relevant committees apprised.

Under oath Comey had stated that the bureau had completed its review. Once he learned that there were new emails that required examination, Comey had to notify Congress that he had to amend his testimony because it was no longer true."

It's been kind of funny to watch everyone freak out about this and assume an FBI director is a Trump sleeper agent, though.

You are an idiot. Comey is a republican, he's not doing this for Trump, he's doing this for close senate races.

That said, 1) He totally didn't have an obligation to inform congress. Testimony is not magically perjury because you find out later that you were wrong.
2) He did not have an obligation to inform congress. He premtively sent an email when all he knew was "there are some emails from a person who worked for the state department that we have access to" that's literally true every single second of every single day.
3) You know what obligation he actually did have? The obligation to follow FBI and DOJ Policies. The ones that say "'the timing of charges or overt investigative steps near the time of a primary or general election' should consult with the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division."

But Comey, after talking to the DOJ, and the DOJ saying, well talk to the public integrity section, said, "Yeah I'm just going to not do that, and send this deliberately vague letter because I think with the election close, the public needs to know!"

Gee, I wonder why he refused to consult the Public Integrity section as required? How about because his stated justification for his action IS TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION!

He said that, himself. He said it was important to notify the public before the election. That was his actual statement. Wholly shit, why would anyone think he's trying to influence the election, conspiracy theorists.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:59 am

So, as per the New York Times:

The F.B.I. offered no comment, and Justice Department officials said they had no idea what Mr. Comey saw as his next move. Justice Department officials were particularly puzzled about why Mr. Comey had alerted Congress — and by extension, the public — before agents even began reading the newly discovered emails to determine whether they contained classified information or added new facts to the case.

Law enforcement officials have begun the process to get court authority to read the emails, officials said. How soon they will get that is unclear, but there is no chance that the review will be completed before Election Day, several law enforcement officials said. Many of the emails are most likely copies of messages that the F.B.I. has already read, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.

They have no idea what is in the emails. They do not yet have a warrant to read the emails. The emails are not from a Clinton server or stored on a Clinton owned machine. There is no reason to believe Clinton ever saw any of them, and there is a significant chance that these emails have already been reviewed in another form. Not only was it against policy to make announcements about the investigation, but nothing pertinent had been uncovered and there was nothing to announce!

Meanwhile, Comey took it upon himself to violate numerous policies and procedural norms, as well as quite possibly breaking the law in the form of the Hatch Act in order to send a letter to Republican congress critters that served no purpose but to give them some red meat they could throw at their voters in the final days of an election.

The only silver lining on all this is how quickly the worm is turning and the general consensus seems to be that Comey needs to be fired. This ridiculous hackery probably heralds the last time in a generation that a Democratic administration nominates a Republican to head the FBI. The Republicans of course already refused to nominate Democrats to be head of the FBI.

-Username17

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:44 am

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/30/politics/ ... index.html

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 6:01 pm

Apparently, in ongoing wonderful news, the FBI didn't reopen the case, in fact they literally hadn't read a single remail when that letter was sent, and since none of the emails are to or from Clinton, that means their pressing need to report that emails of no relevance to anything still wasn't a real thing.

Oh and also, the Head of the Comittee informed the public that the case was reopened (even though it wasn't) because of these emails six hours before Comey wrote his letter.

SlyJohnny · Post by **SlyJohnny** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:05 pm

Well, that's... getting trickier to just assume it was apolitical adherence to protocol. This seems like a poorly conceived plan, though? Or is it just complicated enough the public won't see it as blatantly manipulative as it is?