http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...minefield-for-democrats-and-the-media-w471074 I think Taibbi makes a very good point here. In their frenzy to "connect the dots", the Democrats and "liberal media" can be setting themselves up for a major fail if it turns out there's nothing there or even if a smoking gun simply is never found. An aggressive but less presumptuous investigation would be advisable, IMO.
What if it turns that out Hillary's private email server was never hacked? Hillary would be good, right?
I'd rather they go through a full and thorough investigation to make sure my President actually is honest. I would prefer there to be no scandal at all and if that's what conclusion is drawn then that would be a good thing. So far it's not looking that way, in which case they should continue with a full and thorough investigation. It's win-win either way.
Of course. There may very well have been communication between top Trump advisors and top Russian surrogates. There may very well have been conversations between both parties concerning the release of sensitive democratic information between the parties. How do you prove anything beyond that? It is difficult. However I think that is as far as most people following the issue think it goes.... an informal agreement of giving Russia preferential treatment in exchange for helping Trump win the election. All along I have felt this hunt and assumption of impeachment was over the top and not likely. People will become numb to Trump's insane comments over the next 4 years. If the economy is in good shape and we are not at war; he will get re-elected.
Trump colluding with Russia to affect the out come of the Presidential race is not an impeachable offense (since this allegedly happen before Trump took office), but it is treason. Lying about this and covering up, after Trump became President, would be.
I don't think any investigation should have presumptions going in to the it. They should only ask questions, seek answers, and facts. Then once those are in, people should start to make the presumptions.
Difference is that her having classified information on that server was what was illegal, not having people hack that server.....but you probably know that.
She had very little and it was not properly marked ... but you probably know that. So when is Trump going to lock her up?
She had hundreds of classified emails (even one is a crime) and her stripping classification markings doesn't make it better.....and before you suggest that she didn't do that or that she wouldn't do that, there are emails informing her underlings to do just that before illegally transmitting classified infomation via non classified means on at least one occasion. It was never a matter of IF she broke the law, she clearly did, it was always just a matter of if her political connections were sufficient to prevent her from being prosecuted...and they were. Now that her political career is over, I doubt the Trump administration go after her. That doesn't mean she's innocent, it just means she'll get away with it.
I understand the point the Rolling Stone article is trying to make, durvasa, but couldn't disagree more. Every lead must be followed, every stone unturned. Something is very rotten, in my humble opinion, and it isn't in Denmark. I'm not worried about blowback. I'm worried about my country.
Thanks for the link, but I disagree with the article. "Yes" and "no" are not symmetrical here. "Yes, we found something" can be definitive. "No, we haven't found anything" is not definitive; it always means "not yet." There will never be a definitive "no," as No Worries implied about Obama's birth certificate. If there is a lack of evidence, the story will just taper off endlessly. Maybe the truth about Obama/Trump will be discovered tomorrow! More interesting to me is the idea that leading media outlets might be "betting their professional and political capital." Ideally, news reporting is not a gambling enterprise: you're not trying to win something. But we all know that the ideal is not the real. Really the point of the article to me is that a political party (surprise surprise) and some media are playing a hype game. And one thing I learned from Trump is that we're kind of in a post-truth society now, due to the instantaneous nature of media technology: whether the story is true or not only partially matters. It has already spread everywhere and had some effect. Trump is the one who knows this better than anyone.
We're not in a post-truth society. It's been the way it's always been. The American people just have more self-awareness of their limitations and they're constantly reminded by the consequences (real or imaginary) of their choices and inaction. To assume society is beyond valuing truth implies that we had control over it in the first place.
It's totally different now. I'm talking about the ability to reach millions of people instantaneously, through the internet. Imagine, for example, how the "grab 'em by the p***y" story would have unfolded in the 1990's, or one of those police shooting videos. Not everyone and his brother would see the video within 24 hours, on his cell phone no less. Maybe you're not old enough to remember a pre-internet world.
The truth has always been challenging to sift out...and knowing is half the battle. I generally don't follow up on events until the week after because the instantaneous qualities you describe hinder facts rather than help it. And just because I was the first pair of eyeballs to take a gander at something like Trayvon Martin or Rodney King doesn't make any real difference than if I were to see it a week after. I'd still be stuck in the realm of ignorance and quick judgement at best. At worst, I'd be pulled along any emotionally charged narrative to whatever loudmouth screams the hardest. Age is not a big deal compared to paying attention to history and the different voices behind it. Memory is overrated. Ultimately, while it's easy to put on a catchy phrase like "post-truth world" for the current zeitgeist, we're no better or worse in spite of it. Rather it's the illusion that we have control over reality and others that's fueling the current angst of the left whom so frequently proclaims it.
You're describing the behavior of yourself. Do you deny that police shooting videos released on one day have had huge impacts before the publication of the morning papers the next day? People react and they don't know who is guilty or innocent. Do you think, for example, that BLM protesters, whoever they are, "pay attention to history and the different voices behind it"? It's admirable that you have so much faith BLM, the Occupy movement, tea partiers, etc. have the good judgement not to fly off the handle and act before all the acts are in, but reality seems to prove otherwise.
P.S. I have to say, without ill intent, that this is the most profoundly wrong thing I have read in a long time: "Memory is overrated"? Memory is fundamental to everything. First, you have to remember experience in order to put 2 and 2 together. You need to remember, if you put your hand in fire, it will be hot. Remember that a gun can kill you if you fire it at yourself. Remember what will happen if you are hit by a car. Remember the effect that broken glass has when you step on it. Second, this is a big one too, you need to be able to remember the meanings of words, so you can understand what I am writing about right now. And so you can express your thoughts to other people through language. Third--we're going to a level of civilization now--you need to remember scientific knowledge that allows you to produce things, to exert control over your environment, to learn. Fourth, you need to remember history. You need to remember the Holocaust and the Civil War and Watergate etc., so that you don't repeat those things, just as on a personal level you need to remember to avoid danger. The importance of memory can be listed probably endlessly, like a fractal form, because it is so necessary to our functioning beyond the level of babies who do not even know that fire will burn. Civilization is impossible without memory. To question the value of memory is to question the value of civilization and history books and science and technology and literature and ethics and morality and language itself and even self preservation. We must remember not to drink poison.
The unfortunate events of Trayvon Martin was largely ignored by the media when it happened until there were continued pleas by the victim's families to at least prosecute the killer. I think you're mistaking scoops and breaking news as actionable facts...something that's generally in short supply for the public right when an event happens. During the days after 9/11, there was non-stop news coverage over the tiniest of details, as if no stone was left unturned, except a lot of those details were pure hokum and rumors that magnified in the echo media chamber without any strong attention to witnesses and sourcing. It was because the public needed to know at a time when they felt unsafe and uncertain, and news orgs didn't want to get the reputation of "getting scooped" which reinforced itself into every imaginable narrative published onto legitimate news publications. Speaking of Bush era shenanigans, I guess living in a Pre-Post-Truth World allowed us to escape the black eyes of Iraq War II, where more than 1/2 Americans thought Saddam had a role in 9/11 or was "this close" to producing WMDS. Or maybe the Pre-Pre-Pre-Post Truth Era glossed over the media's role in promoting any American war before/during/after, such as their rolling over Johnson's account over the events at the Gulf of Tonkin, which pushed the US into the Vietnam War. You're conflating and twisting different definitions of "memory" to fit your needs when the original context was assuming that I wasn't "old enough to remember things". Actually, even if I were to use my rose colored glasses, it wouldn't legitimize my points one bit, no matter how much I sermonize them to an internet stranger. As a correction, memory isn't overrated, but it's damn unreliable. It's mixed in with bias, emotional baggage, and is easily manipulated. Plus with our tendencies to assume or project with limited information, it's easily susceptible to believe that the times right now are dramatically different through a thing called confirmation bias. The rude awakening some people are having with the Trump Era is more because they haven't been active or even paying attention to realize how things have already been going. The dosage of poison is higher, but it's always been there with every administration. You were just told it was medicine or vitamins. Or maybe you knowingly swallowed it thinking it would give you an edge over your enemies and competitors.
