(05-10-2019 03:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 09:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 06:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 05:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Getting back to Sims, notice his objection is to the "white women"?

Racist. I am sure that has been noted in the mountains of disapproval coming from the left.

Don't hold your breath for mountains of disapproval. The only place that this ridiculous story is likely maintaining any level of interest is the Rice Parliament.

I didnt realize TheFederalist.com was part of the Rice Parliament.

National Review article on Mr Sims

Nor did I realize the Wash Po is now part of the Rice Parliament. At this rate this back of the building mudpit in a sleepy water portion of a not so well known posting site will control the Internet en toto in a week or so.

Link to the site formerly known as the Washington Post but was conquered by the Rice Parliament by stealth and subterfuge

I wonder why the Rice Parliament keeps up the paywall to the site that was formerly the Washinton Post, but a look behind the Rice Parliament paywall

Apparently the Rice Parliament has quite the readership in Philly.

Hundreds of Rice Parliament readers demonstrate in Philly

If a liberL says “nobody cares”, conservatives are supposed to STFU.

(05-10-2019 03:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 09:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 06:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 05:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Getting back to Sims, notice his objection is to the "white women"?

Racist. I am sure that has been noted in the mountains of disapproval coming from the left.

Don't hold your breath for mountains of disapproval. The only place that this ridiculous story is likely maintaining any level of interest is the Rice Parliament.

I didnt realize TheFederalist.com was part of the Rice Parliament.

National Review article on Mr Sims

Nor did I realize the Wash Po is now part of the Rice Parliament. At this rate this back of the building mudpit in a sleepy water portion of a not so well known posting site will control the Internet en toto in a week or so.

Link to the site formerly known as the Washington Post but was conquered by the Rice Parliament by stealth and subterfuge

I wonder why the Rice Parliament keeps up the paywall to the site that was formerly the Washinton Post, but a look behind the Rice Parliament paywall

Apparently the Rice Parliament has quite the readership in Philly.

Hundreds of Rice Parliament readers demonstrate in Philly

If a liberal says “nobody cares”, conservatives are supposed to STFU.

(05-10-2019 03:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-10-2019 09:14 AM)ausowl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 05:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 05:51 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

Spend some time in a criminal court.

That is proof positive of 'insidious discrimination'?

I guess if that is the standard, there is massive discrimination against men; especially in enforcing murder statutes.

I haven't read much of the thread, reacting to the question "So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days?" Bias in arrest/conviction rates is well documented - A-A 6X's more likely to be incarcerated than whites, Hisp. 3X's.

I would say you are arguing a cause that doesnt have a basis. There *are* disparate rates of incarceration/conviction, no doubt. Yet, you labeled it ipso facto as 'bias' being evident in those rates.

Quote:But we do have those "insidious" disparate outcomes which we collectively tolerate.

But that's not really the question y'all are debating.

And again an example of 'equality of outcome' as the measuring stick which proof of bias or discrimination is stacked.

And, again another stick in the pile of the major fundamental differences between progressive philosophy and the philosophies of conservative and/or libertarian thought.

The only important issue is a 'substantive outcome' result of equality, and the concept of whether the underlying procedure comports with an idea of a fair procedure is seemingly irrelevant. I think the fight between 'substantive outcome equality' and 'procedural equality' will be a very long conflict.

Look I think the arrest/incarceration rates for Latinos and African American's are shockingly high compared to Asian or Caucasian. But instead of pointing straight to race or ethnicity as 'the answer to life, the universe, and everything' there is probably a *lot* more lurking under that hood.

Volunteer to help with a class at Reagan or LBJ and you might discover some.

This is an example of why I enjoy reading what you guys have to say.

As I suggested above, I do recognize that there is a lot more than *just* racial bias lurking under the hood.

But, when I look at the both the data and reflect on my life experience (including: Reagan HS grad, long time VLS volunteer, kids in AISD, helped pick a jury in a police brutality case within the last 2 years, worked with and rep'd APD officers), I don't understand how someone residing in the US in 2019 can argue that our criminal justice system and policing are free of racial bias.

I say that with sincere, deep respect for law enforcement officers. I've worked with APD officers who are simply outstanding individuals.

Recognizing a systemic imbalance in outcome and that racial bias might factor into that equation doesn't necessitate throwing out procedural equality. Granted a danger, but not required.

(05-10-2019 06:07 PM)ausowl Wrote:  But, when I look at the both the data and reflect on my life experience (including: Reagan HS grad, long time VLS volunteer, kids in AISD, helped pick a jury in a police brutality case within the last 2 years, worked with and rep'd APD officers), I don't understand how someone residing in the US in 2019 can argue that our criminal justice system and policing are free of racial bias.
Recognizing a systemic imbalance in outcome and that racial bias might factor into that equation doesn't necessitate throwing out procedural equality. Granted a danger, but not required.

Recognizing an imbalance in outcome is not the same as concluding that racial bias is systemic and overwhelming. I would never assert that there is no racial bias anywhere. But I think blaming it all on racial bias is a cheap trick that may bring political hay but fails to address other non-racial-bias causes that need to be addressed.

You have white suburban kids growing up being told that police officers are your friend and should be obeyed, and black inner city kids growing up being told that cops are racist and cannot be trusted. Now assume you have an interaction between officer and citizen where both have some reasonable fear of death or injury being a possible outcome. White suburban kid or black inner-city kid, which one is going to end better?

(05-10-2019 06:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-10-2019 06:07 PM)ausowl Wrote:  But, when I look at the both the data and reflect on my life experience (including: Reagan HS grad, long time VLS volunteer, kids in AISD, helped pick a jury in a police brutality case within the last 2 years, worked with and rep'd APD officers), I don't understand how someone residing in the US in 2019 can argue that our criminal justice system and policing are free of racial bias.
Recognizing a systemic imbalance in outcome and that racial bias might factor into that equation doesn't necessitate throwing out procedural equality. Granted a danger, but not required.

Recognizing an imbalance in outcome is not the same as concluding that racial bias is systemic and overwhelming. I would never assert that there is no racial bias anywhere. But I think blaming it all on racial bias is a cheap trick that may bring political hay but fails to address other non-racial-bias causes that need to be addressed.

You have white suburban kids growing up being told that police officers are your friend and should be obeyed, and black inner city kids growing up being told that cops are racist and cannot be trusted. Now assume you have an interaction between officer and citizen where both have some reasonable fear of death or injury being a possible outcome. White suburban kid or black inner-city kid, which one is going to end better?

Neither experience nor data support "blaming it all on racial bias". Agree with you about the political hay making.

But conflating a mention of racial bias as one of several factors with "blaming it all on racial bias" is equally problematic.

White suburban kid with an ounce of MJ and A-A inner-city kid with an ounce of MJ. Which one gets his car searched, which one gets a warning/pass, which one gets a decent attorney?

Your example and my example can both be true.

Criminal justice reform is interesting since you can come at from very different perspectives and wind up in the same place.

(05-10-2019 07:31 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Neither experience nor data support "blaming it all on racial bias". Agree with you about the political hay making.
But conflating a mention of racial bias as one of several factors with "blaming it all on racial bias" is equally problematic.
White suburban kid with an ounce of MJ and A-A inner-city kid with an ounce of MJ. Which one gets his car searched, which one gets a warning/pass, which one gets a decent attorney?

And maybe, just maybe, that difference is that the white kid acts cool and the black kid panics, because that's the way they've been conditioned. I think people like BLM do more harm than good because they put both sides on edge more than they need to be.

Quote:Your example and my example can both be true.
Criminal justice reform is interesting since you can come at from very different perspectives and wind up in the same place.

Oh, I definitely think we need reforms to the criminal justice system. I would decriminalize victimless crimes, go with more restitution and less incarceration for crimes against property, and longer and tougher sentences for crimes against persons.

I think Democrats are driving themselves crazy going after Trump's tax returns. What do they expect to find? What do they think they will find that they can use? That he followed the law and paid the legal amount required? That is what the IRS with its hundreds of CPAs has concluded. But maybe Nadler can find something they missed.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnbcA1

I have heard some say that they think his returns will show he is not as rich as he says. First you won't get his net worth from income tax returns, and second, so what?

What, he has not followed the footsteps blazed by Richard Nixon, the first to do so? Oooh, Nixon is such a icon to them.

Don't Democrats have anything better to do? Like passing laws and such?

They are like kittens chasing a flashlight beam.

About time

Lots of smoke. We need to clear this up.

(05-14-2019 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  About time

Lots of smoke. We need to clear this up.

Finally?

From the text:

Quote:His inquiry is the third known investigation focused on the opening of an F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation during the 2016 presidential campaign into possible ties between Russia’s election interference and Trump associates.

The department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is separately examining investigators’ use of wiretap applications and informants and whether any political bias against Mr. Trump influenced investigative decisions. And John W. Huber, the United States attorney in Utah, has been reviewing aspects of the Russia investigation. His findings have not been announced.

I said 23

(05-14-2019 09:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  About time

Lots of smoke. We need to clear this up.

Finally?

From the text:

Quote:His inquiry is the third known investigation focused on the opening of an F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation during the 2016 presidential campaign into possible ties between Russia’s election interference and Trump associates.

The department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is separately examining investigators’ use of wiretap applications and informants and whether any political bias against Mr. Trump influenced investigative decisions. And John W. Huber, the United States attorney in Utah, has been reviewing aspects of the Russia investigation. His findings have not been announced.

So your quibble is with the word "finally"? Not the investigation itself?

OK with me. I just want a thorough investigation into how the witch hunt happened. The IG, I believe, is limited in scope, and I have no idea why Utah is involved.

(05-14-2019 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 09:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  About time

Lots of smoke. We need to clear this up.

Finally?

From the text:

Quote:His inquiry is the third known investigation focused on the opening of an F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation during the 2016 presidential campaign into possible ties between Russia’s election interference and Trump associates.

The department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is separately examining investigators’ use of wiretap applications and informants and whether any political bias against Mr. Trump influenced investigative decisions. And John W. Huber, the United States attorney in Utah, has been reviewing aspects of the Russia investigation. His findings have not been announced.

So your quibble is with the word "finally"? Not the investigation itself?

OK with me. I just want a thorough investigation into how the witch hunt happened. The IG, I believe, is limited in scope, and I have no idea why Utah is involved.

The IG is drastically limited in scope in the toolbox available for their investigation when compared to a DOJ or US Attorney investigation.

The Utah US Atty was authorized to look into Uranium One issues.

So yes, the word 'finally' looks to be appropriate, since the two other efforts are either limited procedurally and effectually (IG) or don't deal with the FISA issue.

So once again look at the inherent biased language in the paragraph cited. Cites two efforst, one of which is hamstrung procedurally and one 'has been reviewing aspects of the Russia investigation', which is, while technically true, fairly deceptive given the issue in the just announced effort (FISA) and comparing that focus to Uranium One.

To be blunt lad, the two cited investigations really are not comparable to this announced effort at all when one looks at the details.

(05-14-2019 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 09:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  About time

Lots of smoke. We need to clear this up.

Finally?

From the text:

Quote:His inquiry is the third known investigation focused on the opening of an F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation during the 2016 presidential campaign into possible ties between Russia’s election interference and Trump associates.

The department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is separately examining investigators’ use of wiretap applications and informants and whether any political bias against Mr. Trump influenced investigative decisions. And John W. Huber, the United States attorney in Utah, has been reviewing aspects of the Russia investigation. His findings have not been announced.

So your quibble is with the word "finally"? Not the investigation itself?

OK with me. I just want a thorough investigation into how the witch hunt happened. The IG, I believe, is limited in scope, and I have no idea why Utah is involved.

No quibble - just kind of chuckling given the comment of finally when the text of the article cites two other investigations.

I've repeatedly said I have no issue with an investigation into the dossier and how the Trump investigation started. I had thought that Mueller's report would dive into that a bit, given that his entire report would have been based upon that. Since I've not heard an analysis of the Mueller report indicating that it did do that, I think this makes sense.

There's a lot of rabble about how the entire investigation started, and laying out the details for the public to see will be good.

(05-14-2019 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 09:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  About time

Lots of smoke. We need to clear this up.

Finally?

From the text:

Quote:His inquiry is the third known investigation focused on the opening of an F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation during the 2016 presidential campaign into possible ties between Russia’s election interference and Trump associates.

The department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is separately examining investigators’ use of wiretap applications and informants and whether any political bias against Mr. Trump influenced investigative decisions. And John W. Huber, the United States attorney in Utah, has been reviewing aspects of the Russia investigation. His findings have not been announced.

So your quibble is with the word "finally"? Not the investigation itself?

OK with me. I just want a thorough investigation into how the witch hunt happened. The IG, I believe, is limited in scope, and I have no idea why Utah is involved.

No quibble - just kind of chuckling given the comment of finally when the text of the article cites two other investigations.

I've repeatedly said I have no issue with an investigation into the dossier and how the Trump investigation started. I had thought that Mueller's report would dive into that a bit, given that his entire report would have been based upon that. Since I've not heard an analysis of the Mueller report indicating that it did do that, I think this makes sense.

There's a lot of rabble about how the entire investigation started, and laying out the details for the public to see will be good.

And yet the article fails to note the limited ability of an IG investigation, and the stark fact that the other investigation is focused on a different topic. Funny that.

The dossier is just a small part of what I want to know about. AFAIAC, this should not be
an investigation into just the dossier, but into the motivations and methods of those who used and provided it.

There is evidence that some within the government wanted to thwart the election and after the election, nullify it. I think the biggest threats to our democracy lie within the government, not overseas.

I have to wonder if any of this will lead to Hillary and/or Obama.

I hope that this will include the Tarmac meeting.

I know why this was not done earlier. To institute this investigation before Mueller was concluded would be to invite allegations of OOJ, and perhaps rightly so.

Wouldn't shock me at all if some small fish ended up indicted for lying to the investigation. Maybe even a little money laundering and campaign finance violations.

(05-14-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The dossier is just a small part of what I want to know about. AFAIAC, this should not be
an investigation into just the dossier, but into the motivations and methods of those who used and provided it.

There is evidence that some within the government wanted to thwart the election and after the election, nullify it. I think the biggest threats to our democracy lie within the government, not overseas.

I have to wonder if any of this will lead to Hillary and/or Obama.

I hope that this will include the Tarmac meeting.

I know why this was not done earlier. To institute this investigation before Mueller was concluded would be to invite allegations of OOJ, and perhaps rightly so.

Wouldn't shock me at all if some small fish ended up indicted for lying to the investigation. Maybe even a little money laundering and campaign finance violations.

What evidence are you talking about?

And why would this include the tarmac meeting? That meeting was in June 2016 and has always been related to Benghazi-gate.

(05-14-2019 01:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The dossier is just a small part of what I want to know about. AFAIAC, this should not be
an investigation into just the dossier, but into the motivations and methods of those who used and provided it.

There is evidence that some within the government wanted to thwart the election and after the election, nullify it. I think the biggest threats to our democracy lie within the government, not overseas.

I have to wonder if any of this will lead to Hillary and/or Obama.

I hope that this will include the Tarmac meeting.

I know why this was not done earlier. To institute this investigation before Mueller was concluded would be to invite allegations of OOJ, and perhaps rightly so.

Wouldn't shock me at all if some small fish ended up indicted for lying to the investigation. Maybe even a little money laundering and campaign finance violations.

What evidence are you talking about?

And why would this include the tarmac meeting? That meeting was in June 2016 and has always been related to Benghazi-gate.

Related to email-gate you mean. Benghazi was the instance that made Hillary's server known -- way more than Benghazi resided on it.

(05-14-2019 01:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 01:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The dossier is just a small part of what I want to know about. AFAIAC, this should not be
an investigation into just the dossier, but into the motivations and methods of those who used and provided it.

There is evidence that some within the government wanted to thwart the election and after the election, nullify it. I think the biggest threats to our democracy lie within the government, not overseas.

I have to wonder if any of this will lead to Hillary and/or Obama.

I hope that this will include the Tarmac meeting.

I know why this was not done earlier. To institute this investigation before Mueller was concluded would be to invite allegations of OOJ, and perhaps rightly so.

Wouldn't shock me at all if some small fish ended up indicted for lying to the investigation. Maybe even a little money laundering and campaign finance violations.

What evidence are you talking about?

And why would this include the tarmac meeting? That meeting was in June 2016 and has always been related to Benghazi-gate.

Related to email-gate you mean. Benghazi was the instance that made Hillary's server known -- way more than Benghazi resided on it.

Not really germane to the point, which is that it seems unrelated entirely to the Russia investigation.

(05-14-2019 01:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The dossier is just a small part of what I want to know about. AFAIAC, this should not be
an investigation into just the dossier, but into the motivations and methods of those who used and provided it.

There is evidence that some within the government wanted to thwart the election and after the election, nullify it. I think the biggest threats to our democracy lie within the government, not overseas.

I have to wonder if any of this will lead to Hillary and/or Obama.

I hope that this will include the Tarmac meeting.

I know why this was not done earlier. To institute this investigation before Mueller was concluded would be to invite allegations of OOJ, and perhaps rightly so.

Wouldn't shock me at all if some small fish ended up indicted for lying to the investigation. Maybe even a little money laundering and campaign finance violations.

What evidence are you talking about?

And why would this include the tarmac meeting? That meeting was in June 2016 and has always been related to Benghazi-gate.

Have you been living under a rock? The use of the dossier is only one point, but actions/words by Strhok, Page, McCabe, Comey, Steele, Fusion GPS. the Clinton Campaign, many others are questionable, and taken together paint a picture, and as one of my young friends so famously claimed about the Trump/Russia investigation, there's lot's of smoke there. Throw in the Ukraine connections of Clinton and Biden. There is something rotten here.

Tarmac meeting is at least peripherally aligned, as the purpose was probably to take heat off a candidate for office. What more does there have to be to count as an attempt to sway an election? But, in any case, I am sure the investigation will be empowered to investigate "whatever else may arise", a la Mueller. Ask Manafort how that works. Why would you think it would be narrowly restricted to the dossier?

I think a cabal of government figures including perhaps very high people who take it into their hands to influence an election in favor of or against a particular candidate is way more of a credible threat to our democratic way than some nebulous conspiracy built off chance meetings and paranoia. We investigated one, time to do the other one.

i just hope the findings are made public before November 2020.

You said you had no objection.

(05-14-2019 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 01:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 01:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The dossier is just a small part of what I want to know about. AFAIAC, this should not be
an investigation into just the dossier, but into the motivations and methods of those who used and provided it.

There is evidence that some within the government wanted to thwart the election and after the election, nullify it. I think the biggest threats to our democracy lie within the government, not overseas.

I have to wonder if any of this will lead to Hillary and/or Obama.

I hope that this will include the Tarmac meeting.

I know why this was not done earlier. To institute this investigation before Mueller was concluded would be to invite allegations of OOJ, and perhaps rightly so.

Wouldn't shock me at all if some small fish ended up indicted for lying to the investigation. Maybe even a little money laundering and campaign finance violations.

What evidence are you talking about?

And why would this include the tarmac meeting? That meeting was in June 2016 and has always been related to Benghazi-gate.

Related to email-gate you mean. Benghazi was the instance that made Hillary's server known -- way more than Benghazi resided on it.

Not really germane to the point, which is that it seems unrelated entirely to the Russia investigation.

Some consistently blend Benghazi in with the totality of the email stuff.

And yes, the tarmac meeting at least to me is seemingly unrelated. Kind of like the relation of Manafort's tax evasion to Russian collusion, eh?