Susan Rice is who we thought she was

[ivwshane]

I wouldn't say Hayabusa Rider is any less of a tool for legitimizing american conservatism.

That may be true but it could easily be said the same for you or I.


I also think you'd agree that if there was a particular way/style that was capable of reaching the right, to look at their positions more logically/critically and to accept facts even when they contradict their principals, that was shown to be successful that you'd drop your shtick and adopt that technique. I know I would. Until then we are all trying to do the best we can fighting stupidity and misinformation the best we can all with the goal of improving America. I can't fault you or anyone else's technique to make that happen but I can simply hold them to the same standard I'd want them to hold me to.

 

[Moonbeam]

This thread has prompted me to learn as much as I can about the nature and evolution of weasels, why conservative brains and liberal brains see different kinds of them. We have two weasels representing each class, DSF and fiski. What I see is this:

DSF's moral character places a powerful emphasis of honesty, on telling the truth, but of course the truth is what he sees the truth to be, in this case that honesty is important and that there was dishonisty coming from Rice. Is honesty and integrity important. It is to me, but I would lie to protect my family from somebody threatening to kill them and I would lie to do so. I would also lie in the best interests of the country. Could I be confused as to what is in the best interest of my country? Yes. And If I wanted to protect my country from people who lie to have false notions of what the best interests of my country are, I would be be very suspicious of people I considered to be known liars. That would include Rice if I had convinced myself previously that she lied regarding the B word. DFS has made that call and neither I not fski have, it seems to me. So what DFS easily sees in words our of Rice's mouth are judged with an eye of suspicion that something is being covered up, that partisanship is at play because a judgment has already been made that she engages in that sort of thing. And this is how the right looks at Rice, a person of known trustworthiness. This determines the color of their lenses.

fski, on the other hand, does not wear those lenses and looks to the logical context free of suspicion and can't therefore see her in a way that evokes suspicion. He looks only at the logical implications of her words, not what her words are if she has ulterior motives, to be hiding. He can see no fault of lack of integrity or lying.

Additionally, if we go back to Benghazi, the same phenomena would have decided which side conservatives and liberals came down on. For conservatives some previous assumption of guilt would apply.

When we turn the situation around and look at Trump, the roles get reversed. Every liberal already knows that Trump is guilty.

Pick your weasel. I say Trump because I am a conservative and will have no President in office who might be a Russian pawn or be subject to Russian blackmail. I am deeply emotionally committed to the security of my nation and I can't sleep at knight knowing a Russian agent has his hands on the red phone. If there is even a whiff of suspicion then he needs to be gone and we have not a whiff but a heavy wind blowing from the stock yard. He needs to be impeached and the sooner the better or tomorrow will usher in the bread lines of a communist takeover. Guilt or innocence are not important when your country is at stake. You hang him and then convict. Take no risk when your nation is at stake. Trump looks guilty and that's enough to throw him out. He can sue his way out of jail. He can afford the attorneys, unlike most people he condemns. Every real conservative knows I'm right.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Not really the case. Most people feel quite strongly about Trump one way or the other.

http://www.people-press.org/2017/02...p-are-already-strongly-felt-deeply-polarized/

Interesting, I knew there was a lot more polarization in this cycle but I didn't realize it had that much more .. spread than past elections. Normally it's a (relatively speaking) minor amount of people who actually care about politics. Probably due to the vocality(is that a word?)/public nature of Trump.

 

[Younigue]

Do you understand that the tweets made a few minutes before the ones you posted had quotes placed around the wire tap reference? Care to venture a wild guess as to why he made the explicit effort to do this?

Traditionally the quotes would indicate he was quoting someone (possibly a conspiracy nut?) and not that every one should just go ahead and deduce from them that he in fact meant surveillance, in essence redefining and expanding the word "wire tap" (<--- I'm quoting there, I do not mean surveillance). Wiretapping is only a small part of surveillance... why didn't he just go ahead and say surveillance? He wouldn't have had to mess with those confounding quotation marks if he had. It can't be because he didn't know how to spell surveillance because he wouldn't let such an insignificant thing as that stop him. One option he could have used is the asterisk then at the bottom of his drivel clarified what he meant. Do you think he didn't know the difference between quotation marks and an asterisk?

 

[Moonbeam]

Interesting, I knew there was a lot more polarization in this cycle but I didn't realize it had that much more .. spread than past elections. Normally it's a (relatively speaking) minor amount of people who actually care about politics. Probably due to the vocality(is that a word?)/public nature of Trump.

Trunp received the fuck you America vote and now it's becoming apparent to the donkeys what fuck you America really means that it translates to :fuck me".

 

[emperus]

You are invited to the party. What's your poison?

I am generally curious what people on this forum are like in real life. As for my poison, I don't drink, well except my bday. If anyone does ever make it to Boston, send me a message, first drink on me.

 

[agent00f]

That may be true but it could easily be said the same for you or I.

I also think you'd agree that if there was a particular way/style that was capable of reaching the right, to look at their positions more logically/critically and to accept facts even when they contradict their principals, that was shown to be successful that you'd drop your shtick and adopt that technique. I know I would. Until then we are all trying to do the best we can fighting stupidity and misinformation the best we can all with the goal of improving America. I can't fault you or anyone else's technique to make that happen but I can simply hold them to the same standard I'd want them to hold me to.

It really can't be said of people on right side of history in anywhere near the same way.

The reality is many are looking for degenerates to start using whatever's between their ears for sound reasoning and such. This is plainly a futile task as evidenced by the failure of any number of years of western liberal education. It's just not meant to be even if the best orators of our times taught the class, as illustrated by degenerates dismissing the arguably greatest centrist in recent memory as some kenyan muslim, then vote for the leader of the movement to do so. The common liberal belief they're too goddamn stupid only further underlines that futility; though I've frequently pointed out how degenerates play dumber than they are.

OTOH, the goal of minimizing their acting out that degeneracy has a simple solution as abundantly demonstrated. It's one of the crowning accomplishments of western liberalism to make degenerates feel some shame for racism, and misogyny to a degree.

This thread has prompted me to learn as much as I can about the nature and evolution of weasels, why conservative brains and liberal brains see different kinds of them. We have two weasels representing each class, DSF and fiski. What I see is this:

DSF's moral character places a powerful emphasis of honesty, on telling the truth, but of course the truth is what he sees the truth to be, in this case that honesty is important and that there was dishonisty coming from Rice. Is honesty and integrity important. It is to me, but I would lie to protect my family from somebody threatening to kill them and I would lie to do so. I would also lie in the best interests of the country. Could I be confused as to what is in the best interest of my country? Yes. And If I wanted to protect my country from people who lie to have false notions of what the best interests of my country are, I would be be very suspicious of people I considered to be known liars. That would include Rice if I had convinced myself previously that she lied regarding the B word. DFS has made that call and neither I not fski have, it seems to me. So what DFS easily sees in words our of Rice's mouth are judged with an eye of suspicion that something is being covered up, that partisanship is at play because a judgment has already been made that she engages in that sort of thing. And this is how the right looks at Rice, a person of known trustworthiness. This determines the color of their lenses.

fski, on the other hand, does not wear those lenses and looks to the logical context free of suspicion and can't therefore see her in a way that evokes suspicion. He looks only at the logical implications of her words, not what her words are if she has ulterior motives, to be hiding. He can see no fault of lack of integrity or lying.

Additionally, if we go back to Benghazi, the same phenomena would have decided which side conservatives and liberals came down on. For conservatives some previous assumption of guilt would apply.

When we turn the situation around and look at Trump, the roles get reversed. Every liberal already knows that Trump is guilty.

Pick your weasel. I say Trump because I am a conservative and will have no President in office who might be a Russian pawn or be subject to Russian blackmail. I am deeply emotionally committed to the security of my nation and I can't sleep at knight knowing a Russian agent has his hands on the red phone. If there is even a whiff of suspicion then he needs to be gone and we have not a whiff but a heavy wind blowing from the stock yard. He needs to be impeached and the sooner the better or tomorrow will usher in the bread lines of a communist takeover. Guilt or innocence are not important when your country is at stake. You hang him and then convict. Take no risk when your nation is at stake. Trump looks guilty and that's enough to throw him out. He can sue his way out of jail. He can afford the attorneys, unlike most people he condemns. Every real conservative knows I'm right.

Post-enlightenment liberalism is marked by a commitment to objective reality, of which there is only one as clearly demonstrated by science among other pursuits. This obviously means not all opinions (eg 2+2=4 vs 2+2=22) are created equal in the context of said reality, even if it's to your benefit to pretend that's all very subjective and therefore subject to rhetoric.

 

[Jhhnn]

When we turn the situation around and look at Trump, the roles get reversed. Every liberal already knows that Trump is guilty.

Some people can spot a con man & some people can't. Once conned, a lot of victims will refuse to admit they were conned. That's Trumpism in a nutshell & modern American conservatism in general.

 

[Chiropteran]

They were eavesdropping on the Russians. Do you understand that? If they were spying on you and you talked to Doc Savage, that doesn't mean they were targeting Doc Savage, he just happened to be the guy their target talked to. Do you understand this concept or not? It appears you do not because it has been explained multiple times on this thread and it hasn't sunk in for you.

Nope. Maybe you flunked out of school or something, but let me explain how it actually is supposed to work. The FBI is supposed to handle internal investigations. The CIA is supposed to handle the external stuff, like investigation the Russians. The NSA does a bit of both.

But the White House isn't supposed to investigate jack shit. The White House is not a spy agency, nor is it a criminal investigation agency. If it came out that it was some CIA investigator that unmasked a member of Trumps team, it would still be fishy as all hell, but there would be some plausible deniability there.

But a White House staffer, who serves Obama directly? No. Not supposed to be involved in any of the above. There is no ethical or legal explanation for her to be unmasking members of Trump's team.

 

[Chiropteran]

Some people can spot a con man & some people can't. Once conned, a lot of victims will refuse to admit they were conned. That's Trumpism in a nutshell & modern American conservatism in general.

Some people can spot a con man & some people can't. Once conned, a lot of victims will refuse to admit they were conned. That's Obamaism in a nutshell & modern American liberalism in general.

 

[agent00f]

Nope. Maybe you flunked out of school or something, but let me explain how it actually is supposed to work. The FBI is supposed to handle internal investigations. The CIA is supposed to handle the external stuff, like investigation the Russians. The NSA does a bit of both.

But the White House isn't supposed to investigate jack shit. The White House is not a spy agency, nor is it a criminal investigation agency. If it came out that it was some CIA investigator that unmasked a member of Trumps team, it would still be fishy as all hell, but there would be some plausible deniability there.

But a White House staffer, who serves Obama directly? No. Not supposed to be involved in any of the above. There is no ethical or legal explanation for her to be unmasking members of Trump's team.

Some people can spot a con man & some people can't. Once conned, a lot of victims will refuse to admit they were conned. That's Obamaism in a nutshell & modern American liberalism in general.

Only one group out of those two can't figure out why calls to the Russian ambassador might be monitored, and it's not the folks with some thinking ability.

BTW, would you consider yourself a "victim", or rather proud of playing so dumb & degenerate in general?

 

[Thebobo]

Nope. Maybe you flunked out of school or something, but let me explain how it actually is supposed to work. The FBI is supposed to handle internal investigations. The CIA is supposed to handle the external stuff, like investigation the Russians. The NSA does a bit of both.

But the White House isn't supposed to investigate jack shit. The White House is not a spy agency, nor is it a criminal investigation agency. If it came out that it was some CIA investigator that unmasked a member of Trumps team, it would still be fishy as all hell, but there would be some plausible deniability there.

But a White House staffer, who serves Obama directly? No. Not supposed to be involved in any of the above. There is no ethical or legal explanation for her to be unmasking members of Trump's team.

Why was she given the names names then? It's not like she has power on her own to have the names unmasked. And she had to have a good reason to ask for it otherwise she would of been denied. Do you know the reason? No you don't so all you have is pure speculation and republican/fox news talking points and all of this is nothing more than a diversion.

 

[woolfe9998]

I like how shit-for-brains republicans seem to think that the "Semantics" game wrg to Turnip's BS claims about wire-tapping are related to what "wire-tapping" means, and not the fact that he is claiming that OBAMA ORDERED IT.

Shit-for-Brains republicans just flat-out ignore the real issue here, turn around and say, "huh, he meant like, surveillance, like anything!"

No, dipsticks: It is on you to defend his claims that Obama ordered this, and that whoever ordered it, directed it at Trump.

Not one of you asshats will pony up to this.

Bingo. We've spent so long arguing with these buffoons about whether there is evidence of "wiretapping" by one definition or another (there is not) that we've forgotten that the only really important thing in those tweets was that he accused Obama of scandalous wrong-doing, comparing it to Watergate. Under no scenario that is presented so far has Obama done anything improper, by any definition of "wiretapping." Hence, even if one really is stupid enough to think that a person talking over the phone to someone else who is wiretapped is themselves being wiretapped, Trump is still a liar.

Trump is trying to distract from the investigation that he is under by pointing fingers at others. And his supporters are clutching at straws to find anything to back him up. But his statements are simply indefensible. Incidental collection that Obama wasn't even involved in? Give me a break. How can anyone make these arguments with a straight face.

To Trump supporters, are you at all interested in getting to the bottom of this allegation that Trump and/or campaign aids colluded with a hostile foreign power to help win an election or not? I get that you guys don't think it's likely to be true, but it's a rather serious allegation, and it's the subject of a now 8 month long FBI investigation. Are we going to keep talking about Susan Rice and Evelyn Farkas or are we going to resolve the question of whether our POTUS really is a traitor? You should want this to be resolved if only to vindicate Trump because what he is accused of is vastly more serious than even the worst case interpretations you guys are offering up for people like Rice. And these distractions aren't going to put off the core issue for very long.

 

[Chiropteran]

Yeah, hmm, weird. Why would the incumbent want to spy on the opposite party during an election season?

Are you guys really this dense that the obvious motive escapes you?

 

[agent00f]

Yeah, hmm, weird. Why would the incumbent want to spy on the opposite party during an election season?

Are you guys really this dense that the obvious motive escapes you?

Pretty obvious how people so stupid as to report directly to the russian ambassador would be spied on. Though in fairness that assumes a brain cell count high enough to rub two together. Would you say yours are numerous enough to be dishonest instead of just too dumb?

 

[Grooveriding]

Chiropt is an indoctrinated Trump drone. A victim of Russian psyops and Trump propaganda. He doesn't even understand how the FBI and CIA work. The FBI handles domestic issues and the CIA foreign, they are not allowed to cross over into the other one's realm. If the Russians are breaking the law domestically in the US; ie: hacking servers in the US and pushing propaganda domestically in the US with fake news on social media or whacko outlets like Breitbart, Dailycaller, Infowars - the FBI handles that because it's happening domestically.

These are challenged individuals. Trump and his team are under extreme scrutiny, the FBI in investigating them, Russia helped Trump win the election and Trump fanatics are desperate to grab onto anything to not face those facts. Trump could have excreted out any piece of propaganda and these fools would have run with it. The more relevant question is how much of an effect will this current Rice propaganda piece have on more objective people and how they view Trump. The drones will carry Trump's testicles no matter what, the undecideds not so much.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nope. Maybe you flunked out of school or something, but let me explain how it actually is supposed to work. The FBI is supposed to handle internal investigations. The CIA is supposed to handle the external stuff, like investigation the Russians. The NSA does a bit of both.

But the White House isn't supposed to investigate jack shit. The White House is not a spy agency, nor is it a criminal investigation agency. If it came out that it was some CIA investigator that unmasked a member of Trumps team, it would still be fishy as all hell, but there would be some plausible deniability there.

But a White House staffer, who serves Obama directly? No. Not supposed to be involved in any of the above. There is no ethical or legal explanation for her to be unmasking members of Trump's team.

That's ridiculous. Russian psyops, hacking & meddling in our election process is a matter of national security & rightfully deserves the attention of the President as do any parties complicit in that. So, yes, the CinC directs the IC to investigate & report back so that action can be taken, like expelling diplomats if appropriate.

Conservatives' pride keeps them from looking at it squarely, of course, because they can't admit to being chumped, ever. Anybody who finds themselves on the same side of a political battle as the Russians needs to take a long hard look at how their own head works.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yeah, hmm, weird. Why would the incumbent want to spy on the opposite party during an election season?

Are you guys really this dense that the obvious motive escapes you?

Seriously I'm all for an independent investigation just like Trump Russia. At the moment it sounds like this was part of Rice's job description but maybe I'm wrong. A good first step would be President Trump declassifies all of it so she can testify.

 

[alien42]

Yeah, hmm, weird. Why would the incumbent want to spy on the opposite party during an election season?

Are you guys really this dense that the obvious motive escapes you?

you still don't get it, when Susan Rice made requests to have American names unmasked, she didn't know who those names were at the time.

she wasn't spying, if anything, it suggests that members of the Trump campaign were connected with questionable foreign behavior.

 

[Amused]

The devolution of this thread is absurd.

Fact: Trump was not wiretapped. Shady Russian spies were.

Fact: Trump campaign staff and crew were recorded talking to said shady Russians via the taps on the Russian's phones.

Fact, Rice asked to"unmask" the Trumpers who were recorded in conversations with the shady Russians.

End of fucking thread.

It's pathetic that the right-wing cult is trying so desperately to Orwell this very simple chain of events into meaning the exact opposite. But then, don't debate crazy. Repeat the facts, ask for valid evidence and when none appears, dismiss the ridiculous counter claim being made to make the brainwashed believe the tapping was of Trump or his staff. Do not, under any circumstances fall for the diversionary tactics.

 

[Thebobo]

Yeah, hmm, weird. Why would the incumbent want to spy on the opposite party during an election season?

Are you guys really this dense that the obvious motive escapes you?

Only thing obvious are the diversions.

Seriously since you ask about motive why are continuing to press a baseless accusation?

 

[Thebobo]

The President has spoken!

 

[emperus]

The fact we are debating this is nuts. It's amazing that people keep eating this stuff up. Just 2 weeks ago wasn't it that Obama asked the UK to spy on him? I would assume the diehards would learn.

 

[umbrella39]

He gets it... he doesn't care. TrollTards aren't concerned with how stupid they are. They have convinced themselves they are right. At this point he's just following a script. Fuck this America hating conservaterrorist piece of shit and all like him. I hope him and his ilk see the inside of internment camps before It's over.... they are enemies of the State.

 

[Moonbeam]

Some people can spot a con man & some people can't. Once conned, a lot of victims will refuse to admit they were conned. That's Trumpism in a nutshell & modern American conservatism in general.

Yes, I know. Why can some spot a con man and some can't? Isn't that the more important issue?