PK loving SUBBAN posted:

No it's more like they're very scared and insecure, so they poo poo on other people to make themselves feel better.

Except it just betrays how insecure and scared they really are.

Krustic posted:

Nah not really. It's kinda like how I work with several classic liberals who dislike being lumped in with the rainbow hair, communist, SJW, burn it all down terrorism is fine cause as long as the cause is just types. I wouldn't suggest that all or even most liberals fall into this camp but I could be wrong.

Kjoery posted:

frog tripper*

King Vidiot posted:

Someone can support Socialism without having rainbow hair, being a SJW or a Communist. I don't know why anybody who isn't one of the ten richest multibillionaires in the country wouldn't want Socialism or even care or notice if they're slightly less rich while the poor are now living way more comfortably.

You could even keep the wage imbalance, just make it less imbalanced. That's the bare loving minimum we're asking here and it's entirely doable without "burning it all down".

King Vidiot posted:

Someone can support Socialism without having rainbow hair, being a SJW or a Communist. I don't know why anybody who isn't one of the ten richest multibillionaires in the country wouldn't want Socialism or even care or notice if they're slightly less rich while the poor are now living way more comfortably.

You could even keep the wage imbalance, just make it less imbalanced. That's the bare loving minimum we're asking here and it's entirely doable without "burning it all down".

Toadvine posted:

Wait are we talking about conservatives or liberals in this post

King Vidiot posted:

Someone can support Socialism without having rainbow hair, being a SJW or a Communist. I don't know why anybody who isn't one of the ten richest multibillionaires in the country wouldn't want Socialism or even care or notice if they're slightly less rich while the poor are now living way more comfortably.

You could even keep the wage imbalance, just make it less imbalanced. That's the bare loving minimum we're asking here and it's entirely doable without "burning it all down".

runupon cracker posted:

Americans are by and large already for socialism, many of them (particularly conservatives) simply don't know it. The difference is how much socialism they want, and what their criteria is.

PK loving SUBBAN posted:

Left right is an outdated paradigm

Krustic posted:

Nah not really. It's kinda like how I work with several classic liberals who dislike being lumped in with the rainbow hair, communist, SJW, burn it all down terrorism is fine cause as long as the cause is just types. I wouldn't suggest that all or even most liberals fall into this camp but I could be wrong.

PK loving SUBBAN posted:

Left right is an outdated paradigm

Kjoery posted:

yea, lumping everyone with opposing viewpoints into one category is dumb - thats why i was laying out criteria for classifying frogmen. note that this thread has a genuine #pizzagater, a person who unironically reads #the_donald, and one guy who regurgitates a specific frogman youtuber's talking points ad infinium. 4chan trolls and their ilk are not exactly known for their creativity, and do tend to follow a clear MO. the more clever frogs can be harder to pin down, though, its true

Fog Tripper posted:

Fog Tripper posted:

Krustic posted:

Nah not really. It's kinda like how I work with several classic liberals who dislike being lumped in with the rainbow hair, communist, SJW, burn it all down terrorism is fine cause as long as the cause is just types. I wouldn't suggest that all or even most liberals fall into this camp but I could be wrong.

Poetic Justice posted:

Have you read the full quote? It changes the context.

Franken: CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that "Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump." These documents also allegedly say "there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government." Again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"

Sessions: "Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communicataions with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."

Poetic Justice posted:

You should pay attention to the actual information, not who says it. Although it's easier to attack and write off somebody because you don't approve of them, it's also an easy way to end up ignorant and in an echo chamber.

Knight posted:

I've seen that and it doesn't change any of the context.

Franken brought up allegations that Trump's campaign was exchanging information with intermediaries for the Russian government and asked what Sessions would do about it. Sessions response is that he did not communicate with the Russians.

...And then they said he did but didn't talk about the election.

...And then they said he did talk about the campaign but it was light.

...And now Trump has said that Sessions has his "full confidence"

Poetic Justice posted:

The context being of course he met the Russian ambassador, because that's part of his job, as a senator. He did not meet him in his function as a Trump surrogate.

edit: At least as someone who considers himself disinterested, that's how I see it.

sincx posted:

Then Sessions should have admitted that at the confirmation hearing, not lie and say that he didn't have any contact with the Russians.

It's not the event, it's the cover-up.

sincx posted:

Then Sessions should have admitted that at the confirmation hearing, not lie and say that he didn't have any contact with the Russians.

It's not the event, it's the cover-up.

Fog Tripper posted:

BEEP BOOP BOOP BEEP Yes, they totally should narrow things completely out of context and then act on those single sentences.

quote:

FRANKEN: CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that “Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so, you know.

But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.

FRANKEN: Very well.

Poetic Justice posted:

The context being of course he met the Russian ambassador, because that's part of his job, as a senator. He did not meet him in his function as a Trump surrogate.

sincx posted:

Then Sessions should have admitted that at the confirmation hearing, not lie and say that he didn't have any contact with the Russians.

It's not the event, it's the cover-up.

Poetic Justice posted:

I mean he could have said something like "I speak with Russia as part of my Senate position" but again that wasn't really the question being asked. So eh... again I think people are blowing it out of proportion, personally.

Fog Tripper posted:

BEEP BOOP BOOP BEEP Yes, they totally should narrow things completely out of context and then act on those single sentences.

Poetic Justice posted:

I mean he could have said something like "I speak with Russia as part of my Senate position" but again that wasn't really the question being asked. So eh... again I think people are blowing it out of proportion, personally.

LGD posted:

Also, while it probably would have only been a minor issue if he hadn't lied:

https://twitter.com/adamentous/status/837390959193309186

Meeting with the Russian ambassador wasn't actually an expected part of that job, so the notion that it was normal/unexceptional doesn't really pass the laugh test.

sincx posted:

LOL there was nothing narrow about it. Maybe actually read the transcript instead of just listening to Fox?

Here's the entire exchange:

Translation:

FRANKEN: A few cookies might have been stolen from the cookie jar. What would you do if you get a lead on who stole the cookies?
SESSIONS: IT WASN'T ME, I DIDN'T STEAL THE COOKIES.


He did this in a written response as well.

Moridin920 posted:

Oh.

I feel like I don't really care that much and it is starting to feel like people are trying to construct some massive conspiracy theory about the scary Russians who have some mysterious hold over all these officials in the same vein that people were talking about Obama being a secret Muslim terrorist agent. Specially prosecute my rear end in a top hat.

Poetic Justice posted:

Franken knows that Sessions meets with foreign diplomats all the time including the Russians so that rules out the issue of asking about meeting Russians as a Senator. Sessions knows that and Franken also knows that. The only other context left is working on behalf of the campaign. Sessions is clearly saying he has been called a surrogate and IN THAT CAPACITY he didn't have communications with Russia.

Poetic Justice posted:

Franken knows that Sessions meets with foreign diplomats all the time including the Russians so that rules out the issue of asking about meeting Russians as a Senator. Sessions knows that and Franken also knows that. The only other context left is working on behalf of the campaign. Sessions is clearly saying he has been called a surrogate and IN THAT CAPACITY he didn't have communications with Russia.

quote:

FRANKEN: CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that “Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so, you know.

But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.

sincx posted:

Translation:

FRANKEN: A few cookies might have been stolen from the cookie jar. What would you do if you get a lead on who stole the cookies?
SESSIONS: IT WASN'T ME, I DIDN'T STEAL THE COOKIES.

Poetic Justice posted:

Franken knows that Sessions meets with foreign diplomats all the time including the Russians so that rules out the issue of asking about meeting Russians as a Senator. Sessions knows that and Franken also knows that. The only other context left is working on behalf of the campaign. Sessions is clearly saying he has been called a surrogate and IN THAT CAPACITY he didn't have communications with Russia.

Moridin920 posted:

he's not talking about literally any Russian in any government position. He's talking specifically about the allegations that Senator Franken is talking about.