(08-25-2023 06:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Trump’s mug shot hit the national media in minutes.

Paul Pelosi’s took about 2 months.

More evidence that everything is equal.

Donald Trump is about as big a celebrity as there is. Paul Pelosi not so much. If Beyoncé (BLM supporter/not a right-winger) were arrested her mug shot would hit the Internet at the speed of light

(08-25-2023 02:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Shadow government is commonly used in Europe to denote the opposition party, with members filling slots to shadow their counterparts in the majority. If UK has a Conservative government, then the leader of Labour party would be the shadow prime minister, and so forth. Nothing sinister about that.

And the last time I checked, we weren’t talking about the UK government…

No idea how that is relevant, because I can almost guarantee you that no one in the US is referring to that arrangement when speaking about a “shadow government.”

(08-25-2023 06:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Trump’s mug shot hit the national media in minutes.

Paul Pelosi’s took about 2 months.

More evidence that everything is equal.

And there still is no mug shot at all from Trump’s three previous detainment and bookings.

And the overall point is…. ?

Guess we can all have a great time at the cherry picking exercise.

(08-25-2023 02:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 12:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And the term shadow government also has a nefarious connotation.

To you, yes. To me, its a maybe. I'll even accept 'probable'... but not necessarily. It just is what it is. 90% of Washington runs regardless of whom is in power... and things don't change just because leadership changes. A racist cop doesn't stop being racist. A lawyer with a conservative bias doesn't suddenly see things through a liberal lense.

Quote:Neither term denotes unintentional malaise/negligence with long-tenured staff. Shadow government clearly implies that people are, in essence, pulling strings behind the scenes (i.e., in the shadows).

Yes... and I never said 'unintentional'. As an obvious example, I don't think you have a lot of 'drill baby drill' people at the EPA, even if you put one of them at the top. Whether they are pulling strings or merely acting mostly based on their belief of what their job should be makes no real difference to the fact that they remain, even if leadership changes.

Quote:The issue you brought up earlier was not the issue you brought up here.

Compare the two:

"what is REALLY being referred to (at least by the rest of us) is the fact that 90+% of the employees of all of these 3 letter agencies remain even if leadership changes... and that makes it all but impossible to 'change the course'"

vs

"I think most people on the right certainly believe that the 'deep state' exists to protect itself, which would include the ability of people like Hunter to 'grift' on the side as well as to protect 'Hillary's mega-donor's loop-holes' because they get dinners and gifts and book deals or appointments to higher positions etc ."

Not at all the same thing.

The former reflects a criticism disconnected from conspiracy. That there exist inefficiencies and inertia with large organizations with recalcitrant employees. The other relies on a theory that there exists a deep state that both grifts and protects itself. Two very different issues, but apparently both described using the same language per you.

Wow... so there can't be more than one example??

I never said there was only one thing... I just said they weren't 'conspiracies'.

Maybe from your perspective they are quite different, but not from mine. Some are in one camp, some are in the other... and others still believe in both. You're premise requires a monolithic view of 'Republicans'... and like any other group, we are a range...

but NOTHING I suggested is anything close to a 'conspiracy', certainly not against any particular person or party... it just is what it has become.

If the FBI hired a lot of people who are 'law first' but also believe that the ends can justify the means... or one that believes in getting 'the most' criminals vs getting 'the most criminal', you're going to get a vastly different application of laws and prosecutions... and those people would (at least mostly) continue in their beliefs and practices even if leadership changes. Hence a 'shadow', unelected government.... doing most of what it does... most of what it sees as important... regardless of whom is in charge

The one thing that should be clear from all of these hearings that used to be buried on CSPAN but are now all over the place is the idea that the people in charge often don't have much knowledge about what the people in the field actually do. Not in the grand scheme, but in specific.

There can be more than one example. But I explained why I thought your two examples were not equivalent examples, IMO.

I think you’re reaching here by arguing that people saying a “shadow government” or “deep state,” aren’t referencing nefarious individuals in the government. If they are just speaking about pencil pushers and bureaucrats, they are using the term incorrectly.

My premise doesn’t require a monolithic view of Republicans, it requires a consistent understanding of phrases and terms. The term shadow government doesn’t have anything to do with consistent application of regulations or laws from administration to administration - that is the fricken government! We would have an awful system if the way our regulations were enforced changed with every administration - consistency is critical. One of the biggest issues where you see this play out is O&G, where pipelines have been approved or canceled on the whims of an administration.

If you don’t believe me that you’re using the term correctly; here is Wikipedia’s take: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_g...cy_theory)

(08-25-2023 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 06:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Trump’s mug shot hit the national media in minutes.

Paul Pelosi’s took about 2 months.

More evidence that everything is equal.

And there still is no mug shot at all from Trump’s three previous detainment and bookings.

And the overall point is…. ?

Guess we can all have a great time at the cherry picking exercise.

Actually, I think you are the one cherry picking.

A mug shot is needed for future identification. A former President is easily identifiable. I would have no problem with them skipping mug shots for Bill, Hillary, or Barrack, if they were ever arrested.

I would have no problem with them skipping one of Joe Biden. Hopefully, someday soon this may get put to the test.

As you say, they skipped it in earlier episodes, as a courtesy.

But now, THIS TIME, not only is it required, it leaks to the public press immediately. Almost as if it was the plan.

Even lesser figures get the courtesy - Paul Pelosi, for example.

Is this part of a so-called DOJ cabal? I doubt it. Is it part of a political stunt orchestrated by the DNC? I don't doubt it.

Have a nice day.

Actual lesser figures *dont* get the courtesy. Example -- Paul Pelosi gets mug shotted. As does virtually everybody else -- even in fed indictments and arrests in larger profile instances that Paul Pelosi.

Second -- are you absolutely sure that the mugshot isnt a public record? That sure seems to underlay your premise here.

I know for a fact that, given a name, I can find Travis County mugshots that are literally only hours old.

(08-26-2023 10:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actual lesser figures *dont* get the courtesy. Example -- Paul Pelosi gets mug shotted. As does virtually everybody else -- even in fed indictments and arrests in larger profile instances that Paul Pelosi.

Second -- are you absolutely sure that the mugshot isnt a public record? That sure seems to underlay your premise here.

I know for a fact that, given a name, I can find Travis County mugshots that are literally only hours old.

I don't know if a mug shot is a public record or not in Georgia or if it is the same in every jurisdiction. I do know it took forever to get PP's mugshot. I also know it took nanoseconds to get Trump's.

I also know that it is different on this fourth iteration.

Thanks for keeping it civil.

Looks like Trump has turned the mug shot to his advantage by using it to raise money. Apparently you can now buy tshirts and mugs(!) with his mug shot on them.

(08-27-2023 11:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Looks like Trump has turned the mug shot to his advantage by using it to raise money. Apparently you can now buy tshirts and mugs(!) with his mug shot on them.

Yeah, I got the email blast from him. On two accounts. 34 bucks.

I guess it goes into the full fledged 'keeping Donald's attornies paid' fund. Like the rest of the donations to his PAC do, but they really dont tell you that in those 'PAC' "we need money" blasts.

One thing I am astounded about --

I find it really funny that a guy who has his own 100 million dollar 757 with another 40 million dollars to retrofit it with gold lavatory fixtures and 24 karat gold seat belt hardware -- is SO populist as to continuously ask me (and a few million more people) to fund *his* own personal legal bills, and literally hide it to his requestees as being a donation to his campaign..... lolz.

And on top of it I got an invite to a several thousand dollar a plate banquet -- all to benefit that same PAC that is effectively a slush fund for his legal bills.

Quite the man of the people, there.... lolz.

(08-26-2023 10:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 06:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Trump’s mug shot hit the national media in minutes.

Paul Pelosi’s took about 2 months.

More evidence that everything is equal.

And there still is no mug shot at all from Trump’s three previous detainment and bookings.

And the overall point is…. ?

Guess we can all have a great time at the cherry picking exercise.

Actually, I think you are the one cherry picking.

A mug shot is needed for future identification. A former President is easily identifiable. I would have no problem with them skipping mug shots for Bill, Hillary, or Barrack, if they were ever arrested.

I would have no problem with them skipping one of Joe Biden. Hopefully, someday soon this may get put to the test.

As you say, they skipped it in earlier episodes, as a courtesy.

But now, THIS TIME, not only is it required, it leaks to the public press immediately. Almost as if it was the plan.

Even lesser figures get the courtesy - Paul Pelosi, for example.

Is this part of a so-called DOJ cabal? I doubt it. Is it part of a political stunt orchestrated by the DNC? I don't doubt it.

Have a nice day.

TIL that celebrities really don't need mugshots because they are "easily identifiable". Who knew?

Jimi Hendrix, Frank Sinatra, OJ Simpson, Pablo Escobar, Tiger Woods, David Bowie and Justin Bieber say hi.

(08-27-2023 04:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 10:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 06:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Trump’s mug shot hit the national media in minutes.

Paul Pelosi’s took about 2 months.

More evidence that everything is equal.

And there still is no mug shot at all from Trump’s three previous detainment and bookings.

And the overall point is…. ?

Guess we can all have a great time at the cherry picking exercise.

Actually, I think you are the one cherry picking.

A mug shot is needed for future identification. A former President is easily identifiable. I would have no problem with them skipping mug shots for Bill, Hillary, or Barrack, if they were ever arrested.

I would have no problem with them skipping one of Joe Biden. Hopefully, someday soon this may get put to the test.

As you say, they skipped it in earlier episodes, as a courtesy.

But now, THIS TIME, not only is it required, it leaks to the public press immediately. Almost as if it was the plan.

Even lesser figures get the courtesy - Paul Pelosi, for example.

Is this part of a so-called DOJ cabal? I doubt it. Is it part of a political stunt orchestrated by the DNC? I don't doubt it.

Have a nice day.

TIL that celebrities really don't need mugshots because they are "easily identifiable". Who knew?

Jimi Hendrix, Frank Sinatra, OJ Simpson, Pablo Escobar, Tiger Woods, David Bowie and Justin Bieber say hi.

Hugh Grant. Elvis. Mick Jagger.

(08-27-2023 04:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 04:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 10:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 06:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Trump’s mug shot hit the national media in minutes.

Paul Pelosi’s took about 2 months.

More evidence that everything is equal.

And there still is no mug shot at all from Trump’s three previous detainment and bookings.

And the overall point is…. ?

Guess we can all have a great time at the cherry picking exercise.

Actually, I think you are the one cherry picking.

A mug shot is needed for future identification. A former President is easily identifiable. I would have no problem with them skipping mug shots for Bill, Hillary, or Barrack, if they were ever arrested.

I would have no problem with them skipping one of Joe Biden. Hopefully, someday soon this may get put to the test.

As you say, they skipped it in earlier episodes, as a courtesy.

But now, THIS TIME, not only is it required, it leaks to the public press immediately. Almost as if it was the plan.

Even lesser figures get the courtesy - Paul Pelosi, for example.

Is this part of a so-called DOJ cabal? I doubt it. Is it part of a political stunt orchestrated by the DNC? I don't doubt it.

Have a nice day.

TIL that celebrities really don't need mugshots because they are "easily identifiable". Who knew?

Jimi Hendrix, Frank Sinatra, OJ Simpson, Pablo Escobar, Tiger Woods, David Bowie and Justin Bieber say hi.

Hugh Grant. Elvis. Mick Jagger.

Giant mug shot list of strictly right-wing celebrities. David Bowie famously conservative.

(08-27-2023 04:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 04:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 04:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 10:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And there still is no mug shot at all from Trump’s three previous detainment and bookings.

And the overall point is…. ?

Guess we can all have a great time at the cherry picking exercise.

Actually, I think you are the one cherry picking.

A mug shot is needed for future identification. A former President is easily identifiable. I would have no problem with them skipping mug shots for Bill, Hillary, or Barrack, if they were ever arrested.

I would have no problem with them skipping one of Joe Biden. Hopefully, someday soon this may get put to the test.

As you say, they skipped it in earlier episodes, as a courtesy.

But now, THIS TIME, not only is it required, it leaks to the public press immediately. Almost as if it was the plan.

Even lesser figures get the courtesy - Paul Pelosi, for example.

Is this part of a so-called DOJ cabal? I doubt it. Is it part of a political stunt orchestrated by the DNC? I don't doubt it.

Have a nice day.

TIL that celebrities really don't need mugshots because they are "easily identifiable". Who knew?

Jimi Hendrix, Frank Sinatra, OJ Simpson, Pablo Escobar, Tiger Woods, David Bowie and Justin Bieber say hi.

Hugh Grant. Elvis. Mick Jagger.

Giant mug shot list of strictly right-wing celebrities. David Bowie famously conservative.

So, what then is the rationale for passing on the mug shot? It's not required by law, is it?

(08-27-2023 10:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 04:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 04:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 04:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 10:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Actually, I think you are the one cherry picking.

A mug shot is needed for future identification. A former President is easily identifiable. I would have no problem with them skipping mug shots for Bill, Hillary, or Barrack, if they were ever arrested.

I would have no problem with them skipping one of Joe Biden. Hopefully, someday soon this may get put to the test.

As you say, they skipped it in earlier episodes, as a courtesy.

But now, THIS TIME, not only is it required, it leaks to the public press immediately. Almost as if it was the plan.

Even lesser figures get the courtesy - Paul Pelosi, for example.

Is this part of a so-called DOJ cabal? I doubt it. Is it part of a political stunt orchestrated by the DNC? I don't doubt it.

Have a nice day.

TIL that celebrities really don't need mugshots because they are "easily identifiable". Who knew?

Jimi Hendrix, Frank Sinatra, OJ Simpson, Pablo Escobar, Tiger Woods, David Bowie and Justin Bieber say hi.

Hugh Grant. Elvis. Mick Jagger.

Giant mug shot list of strictly right-wing celebrities. David Bowie famously conservative.

So, what then is the rationale for passing on the mug shot? It's not required by law, is it?

Some jurisdictions they are a requirement, some not. They appear to be a requirement in Georgia for felony arrests.

What difference does the mug shot or not make?

(08-28-2023 07:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What difference does the mug shot or not make?

OO brought up the mug shots with the implication that the speed at which Trump’s mug shot hit the press was somehow indicative of bias. He also brought up the possibility that celebrities don’t need a mug shot because they are easily identifiable. That is what prompted the mug shot discussion

(08-28-2023 09:13 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-28-2023 07:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What difference does the mug shot or not make?

OO brought up the mug shots with the implication that the speed at which Trump’s mug shot hit the press was somehow indicative of bias. He also brought up the possibility that celebrities don’t need a mug shot because they are easily identifiable. That is what prompted the mug shot discussion

So, what difference does it make?

(08-28-2023 09:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-28-2023 09:13 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-28-2023 07:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What difference does the mug shot or not make?

OO brought up the mug shots with the implication that the speed at which Trump’s mug shot hit the press was somehow indicative of bias. He also brought up the possibility that celebrities don’t need a mug shot because they are easily identifiable. That is what prompted the mug shot discussion

So, what difference does it make?

I didn't think it ever made "a difference". I guess you'd have to ask OO.

OO made some comments about mug shots in general that I responded to.

I don't think the Trump mug shot makes a difference beyond it being another opportunity for him to extract money from his fawning believers.

I compared the long time it took to get the Paul Pelosi mug shot into the public domain to the immediate availability of the Trump mug shot, and think there may be a difference in political bias there. Nobody has presented any testimony to the contrary.

Somebody brought up that Trump had not been Mug shotted on his previous indictments. I speculated that this was a courtesy extended previously but withheld this time, for some reason. I speculated it was extended the three previous times because he is so well known that no LEO, if asked to arrest him, would ask "what does he look like"?

So, Numbers, I ask you as somebody unbiased,

1. what is the purpose of a mugshot?
2. Are they required for all arrest, or all felony arrests?
3. Who has the authority to waive mug shots?
4. Are they kept confidential or immediately released to the public?

(08-25-2023 04:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Got it. Sounds awesome.

It is what it is. All I'm doing is telling you what the reality of the world is. Trump has a rabid following... many people not supportive of Trump STILL don't trust 'the police'... rich/powerful people 'walk' (not meaning entirely, but plead to or get convicted of a vastly lesser crime) all the time.

You've admitted all of this before... so other than some need you seem to have to attempt to belittle me, I have no idea why you continue to argue that I am stating my preferences or desires. The BIGGEST thing you miss is that your comments about Trump and attacks on anyone whom you even PERCIEVE might not be 'in the tank against him' are not a good look for someone claiming to support the things you do. Equal justice doesn't mean JETFL... and JETFL doesn't work if there is ANY discretion, which you have personally 'justified' yourself (they have limited resources and have to choose their battles etc etc). At the very least, fight the battles that need to be fought... not just the ones you can win. I agree that the 'battle' against Trump's actions needs to be fought... 100%... but it is not the ONLY battle than needs to be fought.... and I don't see the 'fervor' from you or anyone else to do so.

(08-25-2023 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Quote:Compare the two:

"what is REALLY being referred to (at least by the rest of us) is the fact that 90+% of the employees of all of these 3 letter agencies remain even if leadership changes... and that makes it all but impossible to 'change the course'"

vs

"I think most people on the right certainly believe that the 'deep state' exists to protect itself, which would include the ability of people like Hunter to 'grift' on the side as well as to protect 'Hillary's mega-donor's loop-holes' because they get dinners and gifts and book deals or appointments to higher positions etc ."

Not at all the same thing.

The former reflects a criticism disconnected from conspiracy. That there exist inefficiencies and inertia with large organizations with recalcitrant employees. The other relies on a theory that there exists a deep state that both grifts and protects itself. Two very different issues, but apparently both described using the same language per you.

If you don’t believe me that you’re using the term correctly; here is Wikipedia’s take: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_g...cy_theory)

Let's start with this.
Wiki can certainly be useful and does have some good information... but that doesn't make it the arbiter of truth. Try looking up 'woman' on wiki and see if you think everyone would agree on that definition. (I haven't done so... I've just assumed). Your article suggests that elected officials are subservient to the shadow government... I have not said that, nor have I heard that. They are simply part of it.

As to me using the term correctly... The term the way I'm using it, I've heard since I was about 10 years old with a father working in the Pentagon... an aunt who lived with us who was a paralegal for an EPA lobbying firm... a neighbor who was on the VPs Secret Service detail and most of my friends whose parents worked in the District. They WERE/ARE the 'Shadow Government' that I am speaking of.

While I get that it has been hijacked by people who wish to label it a conspiracy, when the people I speak to about it and I discuss it, we are not talking about something necessarily nefarious.... though obviously it CAN be.

As to the two lines you've selected above and tried to compare...

I didn't compare them. In context, they are not remotely meant to be synonyms. Both can be (and IMO are) true. Yes, one is slightly 'darker' than the other, but it is not a 'conspiracy' any more than it would be one to suggest that Labor Unions (which are representative of the employees) exist at least in part to make sure that 'high employee counts' remain even when a new leader has been brought in to make cuts.

The Shadow Government is not the conspiracy of illuminati who are pulling strings from a bunker somewhere, but the people who do the work behind the scenes/across administrations... the staff at the DOJ, the clerk at the DMV, the Cop on the block, the guy repairing water and sewer, the teachers at a school... these are mostly not elected officials... and they have SOME autonomy and they keep their jobs across election cycles. Like any employer/employee relationship, there is often resistance to new ideas or new directions. People tend to like to keep ding their jobs the way they've been doing them... or their own way... rather than to change gears every few years.... especially to a way that they don't embrace.

I also didn't suggest that the system existed to grift. I simply said it DID. That seems obvious. AOC is a great example (though there are of course many others on both sides of the aisle)... she makes 150k/yr for a few years and had little to her name before becoming elected, and now she's apparently a millionaire? Even if not true of her, such examples exist. She just came to mind because I saw some stupid tweet about her and that possibility... and she hasn't been in office long enough to have simply 'gotten lucky'.

I also said that it existed to preserve itself. Why would anyone want to change that? Trips overseas, dinners, lunches, invitations to parties, lobbyists, etc. This is an entire industry... a multi-trillion dollar one... with lots of mouths to feed, and not all of them 'play well with others'.

Hunter IMO is the natural result of the system. He is an 'internal' Donald Trump. If Trump's dad had been a politician rather than a real-estate guy... Trump would have been at least as bad if not worse. The system can't easily shut someone like Hunter down without somehow implicating Joe.... so although it doesn't exist to enable graft, it does that anyway. It exists mostly because you can't have IDK, 2mm government jobs changing every 2-4 years. DRAINING the swamp doesn't mean you have to turn it into a park...it just means you get a chance to remove some of the barnacles and allow the 'healthy' plants to thrive.