let me preempt people from expecting much to come of this by tempering your expectations considerably: this will probably not find what you want it to find this will probably not release what you...
let me preempt people from expecting much to come of this by tempering your expectations considerably:
this will probably not find what you want it to find
this will probably not release what you want it to release
people who dislike trump are not going to give that up if this isn't shit
people who like trump are not going to give that up if this is shit
people's views hardened awhile ago. unless this demonstrates that donald trump is literally running a russian syndicate of crime and is assassinating US politicians or something, the arithmetic is almost certainly not going to change regardless of the findings here.
That's definitely true, though I think that many people who dislike Trump are going to be crossing their fingers for impeachment. Realistically, what do you think the chances are that this report...
That's definitely true, though I think that many people who dislike Trump are going to be crossing their fingers for impeachment. Realistically, what do you think the chances are that this report pushes Trump closer to impeachment?
literally none. ask the republican party how trying to impeach clinton (on arguably clearer and easier to prove charges than the ones trump is accused of by virtue of his involvement here) went...
Realistically, what do you think the chances are that this report pushes Trump closer to impeachment?
literally none. ask the republican party how trying to impeach clinton (on arguably clearer and easier to prove charges than the ones trump is accused of by virtue of his involvement here) went for them. what will probably happen here is this will signify the beginning of a whole bunch of smaller, more targeted investigations into things that trump did that are also illegal, but not the prerogative of the special counsel, and we'll end up with two more years of shit like this.
because it's not about proving in the sense of the law, it's about proving in the sense of partisan politics to a degree where the opposition cannot deny that such conduct took place and such that...
How are these harder to prove than Clinton? He obstructed justice. He admitted to obstructing justice. End of story.
because it's not about proving in the sense of the law, it's about proving in the sense of partisan politics to a degree where the opposition cannot deny that such conduct took place and such that they recognize they would pay the consequences for defending it at the ballot box. impeachment is partisan and has no basis in the law, so until you convince republicans that they're going to get destroyed if they stick up for trump, trump will get off on anything that gets litigated in congress through impeachment proceedings.
Even then, it wouldn't change anything. "I could stand in the middle of 5th Ave and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters." Truest thing Trump has ever said in his life.
unless this demonstrates that donald trump is literally running a russian syndicate of crime and is assassinating US politicians or something
Even then, it wouldn't change anything.
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Ave and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters."
now that this has settled a bit, let's look back on this: judging by barr's summary, this prediction proved more apt than even i was anticipating it would be. maybe if we get the full report, that...
now that this has settled a bit, let's look back on this:
this will probably not find what you want it to find
this will probably not release what you want it to release
judging by barr's summary, this prediction proved more apt than even i was anticipating it would be. maybe if we get the full report, that will change, but otherwise it seems like this was a good bet to take.
people who dislike trump are not going to give that up if this isn't shit
people who like trump are not going to give that up if this is shit
people's views hardened awhile ago. unless this demonstrates that donald trump is literally running a russian syndicate of crime and is assassinating US politicians or something, the arithmetic is almost certainly not going to change regardless of the findings here.
we have polling on this now from morning consult (conducted entirely after the barr summary) and quinnipiac (conducted partially after the barr summary), and it shows... no change at all, so far. perhaps it needs a few more days to sit, but judging by how quick the media moved on from the barr summary and what pieces of data we're already getting, this prediction seems to have also been pretty apt. negative partisanship appears to have struck again--and god help donald, because this was probably the one big event that could have pushed him above 50% approval with the general public if the cards fell just right, but it doesn't seem like he'll even get a bump, much less an increase like that.
correct. however, watergate took two years to completely unravel and was eventually made completely unspinnable by a series of events and compelled releases that culminated in the smoking gun tape...
correct. however, watergate took two years to completely unravel and was eventually made completely unspinnable by a series of events and compelled releases that culminated in the smoking gun tape which proved nixon's culpability. there's just not a lot to suggest that there's something of similar unambiguity here, unless mueller has a bunch of unindicted co-conspirators or something he intends to spring.
Honestly I'm more looking forward to a sense of closure coming. I recognize that is likely still years out, but the completion of this report seems from a layperson's perspective to be a...
Honestly I'm more looking forward to a sense of closure coming. I recognize that is likely still years out, but the completion of this report seems from a layperson's perspective to be a significant milestone, the end of the investigation with formal report submitted.
It has felt to some like an open wound has not been allowed to heal until sealed by perhaps something like this investigative finding. Regardless of the findings, I hope it will be of benefit to the nation to move on in some ways from this multi-year headline while not forgetting or failing to learn from it.
Attorney General William Barr said in a letter to Congress Friday that he may be able to provide lawmakers with the special counsel’s principal conclusions “as soon as this weekend.”
It's from two months ago, but an interesting Twitter thread by Neal Katyal, who drafted the special counsel regulations at the Department of Justice 20 years ago:...
Believe only the text of the Report, not others’ characterizations of it. This WH in particular spins “up” as “down” (like the Nunes documents). Ask what the scope of the Report is. Is it just...
Believe only the text of the Report, not others’ characterizations of it. This WH in particular spins “up” as “down” (like the Nunes documents).
Ask what the scope of the Report is. Is it just conspiracy with Russia? Does it include, for example, the campaign finance allegations, where federal SDNY prosecutors have said the President ordered the commission of felonies?
It’s almost never happened in American history that federal Prosecutors have said a sitting President orchestrated the commission of felonies.
Examine whether the Report is limited to criminal acts. Some of the most egregious allegations against Trump, like lying to the American people about his business dealings with Russia before the 2016 election and saying he had no biz in Russia, are not necessarily criminal.
Others, like being beholden to the Kremlin out of self interest, may be. Has Mueller only resolved the latter? If not, expect Congress to be taking all of that up.
Ask whether Mueller has actually resolved anything. Has he said there are other avenues to investigate for matters within the scope of his Report, such as a sit-down interview with Trump? Again, Congress may investigate further — but also don’t forget about state prosecutors.
Ask yourself, if the American people knew in 2016 what Mueller’s Report says,even if the Report says Mueller won’t indict the President, Trump would have won the election. Does this President have the judgment&transparency appropriate to serve as the nation’s highest official?
Don’t focus on the one-line spin. Focus on the facts, judgments, and limitations in the Mueller Report.
And ask yourself, if Trump had just been honest and forthcoming about all of this, we could have spared this long ordeal. END
For what purpose? I agree there are quite a few, but this is clearly major news, and if you're not interested in them, you can easily filter out politics posts. There is functionally very little...
For what purpose? I agree there are quite a few, but this is clearly major news, and if you're not interested in them, you can easily filter out politics posts.
There is functionally very little difference between a ~politics group you can unsubscribe from and a "politics" tag you can filter.
See, that's more of an argument against a group to me, not for one. If something fits into multiple groups regularly (and politics definitely tends to fit into ~news, ~enviro, ~health, and...
See, that's more of an argument against a group to me, not for one. If something fits into multiple groups regularly (and politics definitely tends to fit into ~news, ~enviro, ~health, and sometimes even other ones like ~sports, ~tech, and more), that implies that it's more appropriate as a tag.
It's not really the same, but you can think about similarly to why I don't want a ~videos. Yes, there are videos posted in lots of different groups, but that just means that "video" is closer to a type of topic than a subject. The groups are generally intended to be subject-based, though ~news itself is probably the main exception to that.
Yeah, and to be clear, I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong, or anything like that. Trying to organize things is complicated, and there's not necessarily a "correct" answer. Ideally I...
Yeah, and to be clear, I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong, or anything like that. Trying to organize things is complicated, and there's not necessarily a "correct" answer. Ideally I think I'd prefer to try to organize things by subject as much as possible, but people also just expect that there should be a place to get "news".
Politics especially is a tough one to figure out what to do with because it's both pervasive and divisive.
I know this isn't a particularly good contribution to the conversation here, and I also know that there aren't really that many contributors to the site yet, but I just want to say that it's very...
I know this isn't a particularly good contribution to the conversation here, and I also know that there aren't really that many contributors to the site yet, but I just want to say that it's very refreshing to see the "top brass" being an active part of the community. Thank you!
i think it's mostly about how much political news specifically seems to dominate ~news, such that a lot of the time it's basically indistinguishable from what a ~politics would probably look like...
i think it's mostly about how much political news specifically seems to dominate ~news, such that a lot of the time it's basically indistinguishable from what a ~politics would probably look like if we had one. something like half the posts on the past two page of results right now are tagged with politics, and you could argue more of them probably should have been than actually are. given that type of volume, i can see the case for why we should perhaps separate political news from everything else--not necessarily as a matter of filtering, but because just the amount of political news is basically equivalent to all other news that gets posted in here combined and it usually provides the most active topics in this section because people have plenty of political opinions.
uh, that said though, given the nature of expressly political sections to develop their own culture and undesirable norms rather quickly if not closely and severely monitored, i don't actually think separating the two out would be particularly advisable until there's at least a few more people who can actually keep an eye on things.
I think ~politics is a necessary evil once the site expands far beyond what it is now. Until then, the logical progression would be tag -> subgroup -> group. Politics being such a polarizing issue...
I think ~politics is a necessary evil once the site expands far beyond what it is now. Until then, the logical progression would be tag -> subgroup -> group.
Politics being such a polarizing issue and having more reasons to be isolated from the rest of the site, I think this would be a good place to create the mechanics for progressing a tag all the way up to a group. (obviously something in the far future, but I feel this will be one of the first of its kind)
let me preempt people from expecting much to come of this by tempering your expectations considerably:
people's views hardened awhile ago. unless this demonstrates that donald trump is literally running a russian syndicate of crime and is assassinating US politicians or something, the arithmetic is almost certainly not going to change regardless of the findings here.
That's definitely true, though I think that many people who dislike Trump are going to be crossing their fingers for impeachment. Realistically, what do you think the chances are that this report pushes Trump closer to impeachment?
literally none. ask the republican party how trying to impeach clinton (on arguably clearer and easier to prove charges than the ones trump is accused of by virtue of his involvement here) went for them. what will probably happen here is this will signify the beginning of a whole bunch of smaller, more targeted investigations into things that trump did that are also illegal, but not the prerogative of the special counsel, and we'll end up with two more years of shit like this.
because it's not about proving in the sense of the law, it's about proving in the sense of partisan politics to a degree where the opposition cannot deny that such conduct took place and such that they recognize they would pay the consequences for defending it at the ballot box. impeachment is partisan and has no basis in the law, so until you convince republicans that they're going to get destroyed if they stick up for trump, trump will get off on anything that gets litigated in congress through impeachment proceedings.
Even then, it wouldn't change anything.
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Ave and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters."
Truest thing Trump has ever said in his life.
now that this has settled a bit, let's look back on this:
judging by barr's summary, this prediction proved more apt than even i was anticipating it would be. maybe if we get the full report, that will change, but otherwise it seems like this was a good bet to take.
we have polling on this now from morning consult (conducted entirely after the barr summary) and quinnipiac (conducted partially after the barr summary), and it shows... no change at all, so far. perhaps it needs a few more days to sit, but judging by how quick the media moved on from the barr summary and what pieces of data we're already getting, this prediction seems to have also been pretty apt. negative partisanship appears to have struck again--and god help donald, because this was probably the one big event that could have pushed him above 50% approval with the general public if the cards fell just right, but it doesn't seem like he'll even get a bump, much less an increase like that.
While keeping expectations minimal is always good practice, i will counter by saying that my understanding is thatbwatergate began with much less.
correct. however, watergate took two years to completely unravel and was eventually made completely unspinnable by a series of events and compelled releases that culminated in the smoking gun tape which proved nixon's culpability. there's just not a lot to suggest that there's something of similar unambiguity here, unless mueller has a bunch of unindicted co-conspirators or something he intends to spring.
It also was in a world without media bubbles. Nixon didn't have the luxury of fox news convincing half the country that the tapes were fake news.
Honestly I'm more looking forward to a sense of closure coming. I recognize that is likely still years out, but the completion of this report seems from a layperson's perspective to be a significant milestone, the end of the investigation with formal report submitted.
It has felt to some like an open wound has not been allowed to heal until sealed by perhaps something like this investigative finding. Regardless of the findings, I hope it will be of benefit to the nation to move on in some ways from this multi-year headline while not forgetting or failing to learn from it.
Attorney General William Barr said in a letter to Congress Friday that he may be able to provide lawmakers with the special counsel’s principal conclusions “as soon as this weekend.”
It's from two months ago, but an interesting Twitter thread by Neal Katyal, who drafted the special counsel regulations at the Department of Justice 20 years ago: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1083203987468357635.html
Believe only the text of the Report, not others’ characterizations of it. This WH in particular spins “up” as “down” (like the Nunes documents).
Ask what the scope of the Report is. Is it just conspiracy with Russia? Does it include, for example, the campaign finance allegations, where federal SDNY prosecutors have said the President ordered the commission of felonies?
It’s almost never happened in American history that federal Prosecutors have said a sitting President orchestrated the commission of felonies.
Examine whether the Report is limited to criminal acts. Some of the most egregious allegations against Trump, like lying to the American people about his business dealings with Russia before the 2016 election and saying he had no biz in Russia, are not necessarily criminal.
Others, like being beholden to the Kremlin out of self interest, may be. Has Mueller only resolved the latter? If not, expect Congress to be taking all of that up.
Ask whether Mueller has actually resolved anything. Has he said there are other avenues to investigate for matters within the scope of his Report, such as a sit-down interview with Trump? Again, Congress may investigate further — but also don’t forget about state prosecutors.
Ask yourself, if the American people knew in 2016 what Mueller’s Report says,even if the Report says Mueller won’t indict the President, Trump would have won the election. Does this President have the judgment&transparency appropriate to serve as the nation’s highest official?
Don’t focus on the one-line spin. Focus on the facts, judgments, and limitations in the Mueller Report.
And ask yourself, if Trump had just been honest and forthcoming about all of this, we could have spared this long ordeal. END
For what purpose? I agree there are quite a few, but this is clearly major news, and if you're not interested in them, you can easily filter out politics posts.
There is functionally very little difference between a ~politics group you can unsubscribe from and a "politics" tag you can filter.
See, that's more of an argument against a group to me, not for one. If something fits into multiple groups regularly (and politics definitely tends to fit into ~news, ~enviro, ~health, and sometimes even other ones like ~sports, ~tech, and more), that implies that it's more appropriate as a tag.
It's not really the same, but you can think about similarly to why I don't want a ~videos. Yes, there are videos posted in lots of different groups, but that just means that "video" is closer to a type of topic than a subject. The groups are generally intended to be subject-based, though ~news itself is probably the main exception to that.
Yeah, and to be clear, I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong, or anything like that. Trying to organize things is complicated, and there's not necessarily a "correct" answer. Ideally I think I'd prefer to try to organize things by subject as much as possible, but people also just expect that there should be a place to get "news".
Politics especially is a tough one to figure out what to do with because it's both pervasive and divisive.
I know this isn't a particularly good contribution to the conversation here, and I also know that there aren't really that many contributors to the site yet, but I just want to say that it's very refreshing to see the "top brass" being an active part of the community. Thank you!
i think it's mostly about how much political news specifically seems to dominate ~news, such that a lot of the time it's basically indistinguishable from what a ~politics would probably look like if we had one. something like half the posts on the past two page of results right now are tagged with politics, and you could argue more of them probably should have been than actually are. given that type of volume, i can see the case for why we should perhaps separate political news from everything else--not necessarily as a matter of filtering, but because just the amount of political news is basically equivalent to all other news that gets posted in here combined and it usually provides the most active topics in this section because people have plenty of political opinions.
uh, that said though, given the nature of expressly political sections to develop their own culture and undesirable norms rather quickly if not closely and severely monitored, i don't actually think separating the two out would be particularly advisable until there's at least a few more people who can actually keep an eye on things.
I think ~politics is a necessary evil once the site expands far beyond what it is now. Until then, the logical progression would be tag -> subgroup -> group.
Politics being such a polarizing issue and having more reasons to be isolated from the rest of the site, I think this would be a good place to create the mechanics for progressing a tag all the way up to a group. (obviously something in the far future, but I feel this will be one of the first of its kind)