Which is KEY. "Supposed", because our government wasn't designed to deal with someone so blatant and shameless. We The People were "supposed" to know better than to EVER put such a person in office. Honor system through and through.
Now if I read this transcript correctly, the goal isn't active enforcement but passive acceptance. Go ahead and discriminate in accordance with your faith, and the state won't do anything to infringe on your right to do so. Separation of church and state in the most literal sense.
She makes some very good points. I might also consider getting that book. I especially like what she said about liberalism's inherent flaw: the tolerance of other opinions. And that's going to be the party's downfall. Unfortunately, I think the cat is out of the bag. These extremist points of view that we'd otherwise laugh at, now think they are legitimate. In fact, our own *shudder* president, has essentially legitimized the nastier of them. I know the pendulum will swing back, probably during these mid-terms. But I don't see these sexist, racist, nationalist, "deport all mexicans" shitheads leaving the national political seen anytime soon. And when they do go away, they won't go quietly. 4Chan is now a political party basically.
Its a good article, but she mixes up some key points and contradicts herself a few times. Otherwise its decent, aside from the doom and gloom. She plays right into the "crying wolf" point she made by all but calling Trump the reincarnation of Hitler. She knew that would get laughed at, so she dances around it quite a bit.
They're talking about the philosophical and political theory of liberalism in that part, not the party. I've read a couple things from her in the run-up to this book and I think the book would be worth reading, but the biggest flaws in her arguments are neatly apparent in that excerpt, that she thinks this: Is a threat of something that might happen in the future when it already started happening, what? Five years ago, at least? And generally thinking that this: Is a realistic portrayal of the majority of the left, while massively downplaying the existence and necessity of much more serious and legitimate fights centered around sex and race. I'm not sure if that's just because she's Irish so it's a flaw of being on the outside looking in, or if it's because she's coming from it from the Jacobin corner of the Left which has their own blind spots towards sex and race, or if it's because her gateway into all this was digging into anti-feminist forums and so her views on what was happening on the left at the time were marred by consuming it through the lens of those type of people who have never had an accurate grasp of what's actually happening because they don't care to find out, and never did her due dilligence to see if or how much that needed to be corrected. I'm also curious if Russian troll farms make their way into this at all. I know that these are the people who bragged about memeing their way to a presidency only to turn around and say that shit on social media doesn't affect elections once it was revealed that those memes were created and spread by the Kremlin, but still. But, I think she's exactly right in that in order to understand so much of what was going on these are the kinds of things that need to be studied. And she has a much more authentic sense of internet culture in general than most of the dusty old academics I've read trying to explain it all, so she makes a lot of great points about that. I hope her book isn't the last and definitive one on the topic, is all.
You may want to read this: https://www.npr.org/2018/02/22/5879...n-aggressive-campaign-to-disrupt-the-u-s-elec It is but one of hundreds of article that discuss the reports and findings of multiple US intelligence agencies.
You mean trump vodka? He made some rather hilarious predictions about it. The best part is, trump loves to rant about the evils of alcohol (his brother died from it) so he doesn't drink. So of course he should promote vodka, which he thinks is evil.
Butina is the Kompromat Queen. Was it her mission to get selfies with the entire GOP/NRA structure? Because it seems she did. And now she's a jailed spy, and all her selfie buddies are suspect.
Hey so who needs to prove there was a conspiracy(collusion) when the president outright tells you it was?
I had to verify that this was an actual tweet that he sent. It seemed impossibly stupid even for him. Ladies and gents, this is officially the dumbest thing the president has ever said. Go home internet, you're drunk.
Maybe in his final defense he will admit to early onset Alzheimer's or some other neurocognitive decomposition so even if they told him, he didn't really know. LOOPHOLE BITCHES.
See this where Im fuzzy on the particulars. There is such a thing as legitimate legal opposition research, which I am guessing is what he's claiming. I don't know what all goes into what is and is not considered legal. Someone fill me in or point to where there is an explanation broken down? Unless their is information that isn't public that Meuller is holding on to to spring on them as to actual quid pro quo deals or secret communications, the fact that they took a meeting with a Russian lobbyist that went no where (no information exchanged at all), raises to the level of "they colluded"? The worst it does, again outside of some smoking gun not yet publicly revealed, is make the Trump organization look bad as they were open to receiving dirt, particularly from the Russians. Circles back to what would be considered legitimate or legal oppo research, and if Meuller can prove they had intent to find/receive illegal information (though Im not even sure intent could be considered a crime here?).
The idea is that the meeting at Trump tower was to receive illegally obtained material from the DNC hack in exchange for reducing or removing Russian sanctions from the Magnitsky act. Remember they said the meeting was about adoptions, which was banned in response to that act(I think). Additionally, Trump concocted the original false statement for Jr., which based on his tweet this morning, is now directly contradicted. And he wrote a statement about the meeting that he said he didn’t know about and wasn’t there(in any form) in the first place. Now he says the meeting with the Russians took place with all the major players in his campaign in order to get oppo research on Clinton. He’s throwing his kid under the bus in real time.
As I remember it, the email exchange and communications where vague in the "we have dirt on her" not any specifics of what type of content and medium were discussed before hand. I guess it'd be up to Meuller to prove both sides meant the illegal emails? As I think there is legal opposition research, even if obtained by a foreign source, they can just claim they thought they were going to look at.