Is political bias on part of the FBI a fact or fiction?

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Is Muller chasing his own tail or vica versa?

1 FBI is flawed and deeply biased and concocted the Russian collusion in an effort to discredit the Trump administration
4
40%
2 The Trump administration has come up with the FBI bias in order to discredit the Muler investigation
5
50%
3 unsure
1
10%
 
Total votes : 10

Re: Is political bias on part of the FBI a fact or fiction?

Postby Uccisore » Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:20 am

And here we see a liberal anarchist defending FBI surveillance and secret courts for no reason at all other than this time they were used to benefit his favorite political party.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Is political bias on part of the FBI a fact or fiction?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:51 am

Uccisore wrote:And here we see a liberal anarchist defending FBI surveillance and secret courts for no reason at all other than this time they were used to benefit his favorite political party.



What's your favorite political party? I don't know because you're always so objective and balanced.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25175
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Is political bias on part of the FBI a fact or fiction?

Postby Inconvenient Reality » Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:57 pm

Uccisore wrote:And here we see a liberal anarchist defending FBI surveillance and secret courts for no reason at all other than this time they were used to benefit his favorite political party.


They seem to have an amazing ability to deflect. Take the response to your last message. MR can't bring himself to acknowledge the point you've made, so he's re-framed it to attack your character. He knows what you've said is true, he knows his masters are behaving shamefully and by extension he feels ashamed because he associates himself and his identity with these people and/or would behave similarly himself if in a similar position. In order to reconcile this with the belief in or desire to be a "good person" or "right person" he projects the shameful behaviour onto his enemies/those who attracted his ire.

As you pointed out Ucci, with P's previous post we see the other methods they use to reconcile their broken beliefs and behaviours with being correct or decent. Similar to the above is the tactic of pointing at a past or perceived behaviour of a political opponent and either claming or insinuating that this gives them the moral authority to do the same. Or in P's case you just make up hypothetical situations placing your opponent in the villain's position (aka making up an alternate reality) or jumping to highly conjectural conclusions and presenting them as facts or meaningful in any sense.

The most lazy tactic in the bag is labeling something a "conspiracy theory" and not only dismissing the behaviour/idea, but using the fact that they labeled it as a conspiracy theory somehow as a point in their favour. Also odd is that they don't seem to know what the word means to begin with.

I can't see a single point in either of Ucci's or Chakra's positions that are even actually addressed by their respondents. The replies look like high school social media trolling.

Regardless, as time goes on we seem to be slowly finding out more and more about who did what. The Left's only power at this point is it's control over the media.
Inconvenient Reality
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:47 am

Re: Is political bias on part of the FBI a fact or fiction?

Postby Carleas » Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:54 pm

Uccisore wrote:To return to my point, it is disingenuous for you...

Isn't this just an ad hominem argument (in the technical sense of that term, not the colloquial use more common on ILP)? My first reaction to your point here was to point out that I'm not a Democrat, and my preferred political campaign got dumped on like crazy by a press that, whatever their other biases, is yet more uniform in supporting our two-party system. But if that's how I must respond to this claim, then this is a claim that I, personally, can't make the argument that I'm making, with the corollary implication that maybe someone else could so long as they usually vote Republican.

Me being ingenuous isn't a premise of my argument, and nothing I'm saying requires anyone to trust me.

Uccisore wrote:The American press has voted overwhelmingly for Democrat...

I don't think this response works. It seems like you're saying that it would be OK to treat journalism as distinct from politics so long as journalism reaches a certain conclusion (or doesn't reach certain conclusions). But that's an argument from consequences.

If instead the argument is that the press (which as you use it must exclude Fox, WSJ, Breitbart, and other right-leaning outfits, which are a minority but not insignificant) tends to lean left, and therefore must be in the pocket of the DNC, I don't think that follows. National and global media will select for people who are college graduates (leans left), liberal arts majors (leans left), coastal (leans left), globalist (leans left), etc. etc. (leans left). More generally, people that think that information and education are the key to a prosperous society, i.e. people that buy into the whole aim of news gathering and reporting, are likely to lean left. There's no need to posit anything more sinister (pun intended) than that the press as an institution is left-leaning by nature.

And a consequence of that is that they will be drawn to the left politicians they will likely vote for, they're scorn the right politicians that they disagree with, and left politicians will give them greater access and right politicians less access (c.f. Fox's coverage of and level of access to politicians on the right).

But here again: we should decide before we get here whether the group of people who gather and report information about the unfolding of history should be treated as distinct from the people who run the government. It does not seem sound to say that we should treat them as distinct if and only if the information that gets gathered, or the tone in which it gets reported, supports the people I would like to see run the government.

And I take from your ingenuousness point that you agree, and if so it should cut both ways: perhaps it's easy for me to endorse the distinction, because I too am a coastal globalist blue state liberal arts major, and it is easier for you to reject the distinction insofar as you've rejected your blue state coastal liberal arts roots, but we agree that neither of those are good arguments for or against the distinction.

So I propose this: we should support the distinction insofar as it is real, i.e. insofar as there is no coordination between press and politics, and that is despite how the press may end up supporting positions we don't like. Fair?

Uccisore wrote:It's entirely possible that they have some information that points to somebody in the Trump campaign talking to somebody in Russia at some point in time about the campaign, and maybe even soliciting/accepting help with the campaign. But as I already showed everybody knows that isn't illegal.

The point I made above with respect to the press has interesting parallels to collusion with foreign governments: Putin can run all the pro-Trump bot armies he wants if Trump is just sitting by and watching, but if they coordinate it's a different case. Certain conduct can be illegal if coordinated, even if the same conduct would be illegal if done without that coordination. Fair?

And if that's so, and if members of the Trump campaign were having conversations, the possibility that they were coordinating is live. In other areas of law, the line between conversation and coordination is very thin, and it should be here given how easy it is to coordinate without coordinating. For example, in finance, expressing a desire for the spoils of an act (e.g. "We've got some emails we stole from your opponent that we want to give you, what do you think?", "I love it.") would probably count as breaching the "Chinese walls" used to silo groups receiving non-public information.

My point being, it may not take much to turn otherwise lawful conduct into unlawful coordination, and its lawfulness can hinge on whether or not it was coordinated. Is any of that wrong? Or maybe, should it be wrong? It seems clear that part of the disagreement here is that people that like what Trump is saying and/or doing are OK with acts that might technically qualify as illegal, and people that don't like his words and/or actions want to hold him to the letter of the law. So, how should we deal with a political campaign coordinating with a foreign government, particularly one that is currently under sanctions and that we have reason to believe broke US laws to influence our election? This seems like something the founders had strong feelings about, are those concerns no longer relevant? What level of coordination is too much?


It also seems pretty clear that there are legitimate allegations against both sides of tu quoque and special pleading. And for better or worse our legal system actually depends on having laws that only get enforced some of the time and at the discretion of a lot of people, and often people in explicitly political offices. That's why I keep going back to what [i]should[/] be the case, what we're actually OK with rather than what's technically permitted/prohibited. Perhaps that too is a politically tinged question; people will be actually OK with Clinton doing things they aren't OK with Trump doing and vice versa , and they'll make ad hoc arguments about the specifics to justify a distinction.

WendyDarling wrote: the FBI (all the security agencies) are in the Democrats pockets

This just isn't born out by the facts. Everyone that Trump has pointed to as a Democratic conspirator is literally a Republican, and the most significant thing the FBI did with respect to the election was release a letter that probably changed the outcome of the election in Trump's favor.

Uccisore wrote:So, fact, as it turns out.

You really take the Nunes memo as dispositive? Setting asides the flaws within the memo, at best it only describes part of why the FISA warrant was issued, and we have nothing to compare it to because we don't know what standard usually applies to FISA warrants. (EDIT: this poorly worded. We do know what the standard is, but we don't have precedent for how it applies in practice in FISA courts.)

But Nunes didn't even see the warrant application before writing a memo about it, and he's since acknowledged that the headline omission wasn't actually an omission, he just didn't know that the political motive behind the dossier was indeed disclosed in the warrant application because he never saw the warrant application.

Uccisore wrote:Anybody who says this is no big deal is saying they would happily see it done again.

I thought D'Souza was a Trump supporter. But he makes a good point, what Trump's doing is a big deal.

...see what I did there?

Uccisore wrote:And here we see a liberal anarchist defending FBI surveillance and secret courts for no reason at all other than this time they were used to benefit his favorite political party.

But would you agree that this sort of thing is happening to both left and right? Dems used to care about infrastructure and be anti-secret-courts, now they aren't. The Republicans used to be anti-deficit and care about sex scandals. Now they don't.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5554
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Is political bias on part of the FBI a fact or fiction?

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:30 pm

Uccisore wrote:And here we see a liberal anarchist defending FBI surveillance and secret courts for no reason at all other than this time they were used to benefit his favorite political party.


K: a couple of different things.... First of all, I didn't actually defend them,
I helped make clear what the FISA procedure was, I actually disagree with
and hope they do away with the entire FISA program...... but I am one voice
in the wilderness...finally, THANK GOD, finally someone realizises that I am
a former anarchist, and not a communist.. about fucking time...

and as far as the part of "benefiting my favorite political party"....
well, if my favorite political party is the party that is
in fact, in favor of what democracy we have, in favor of
tolerance and justice and promotes honesty and integrety
and against Putin and believes that to attack the integrety of
the FBI and the Justice departement damages and hurts America
here at home and around the world and favors science over witchcraft
and faith base medicine and believes that religion is a private matter
between a person and their god, then yes, I am quite glad to
have something benefit my "favorite political party"

as oppose to my least favorite political party which favors dictatorship
and loves Putin and hates America, as it attacks American institutions
like the FBI and the Justice and loves injustice and economic inequality
and intolorance against anyone who isn't white and upper class......
hates science and hopes that the police can shoot anyone anywhere
without any consequences unless that person is white, then gosh darn,
the police is out of control...... loves white privilege because those darn
pesky black and brown people are taking jobs away from us white people...
to belong to the party that thinks that the laws are a pesky pain in the ass that
keeps white people from keeping black slaves....

yeh.... I think anything that benefits my favorite political party is great.....


Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6394
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Is political bias on part of the FBI a fact or fiction?

Postby WendyDarling » Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:32 pm

#-o
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6843
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Is political bias on part of the FBI a fact or fiction?

Postby Meno_ » Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:24 am

Perhaps the GOP is reaching for a new low in trying to ascertain whether the Brit intelligence whose information supposedly gave momentum to the warrant and finally the memo, was biased toward the Clinton presidency . if this process to be the case, will it give a sign of another brick in the wall for the claim that the whole nine yarsds, the Deep State, the Justice Dept and the intelligence services all had something to do with the granting of the warrant to monitor the REPUBLICAN campaign? Will this finding, if left untampered, finally give some clues ? Or is this another plant of accommodation for the Right, most of whom have been implicitly consemned to be purveyors of conspiracy? Are we coming to some kind of rational man's approximately certain knowledge of what the real facts are?
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3042
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Is political bias on part of the FBI a fact or fiction?

Postby Meno_ » Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:25 am

Meno_ wrote:Perhaps the GOP is reaching for a new low in trying to ascertain whether the Brit intelligence whose information supposedly gave momentum to the warrant and finally the memo, was biased toward the Clinton presidency . if this process to be the case, will it give a sign of another brick in the wall for the claim that the whole nine yarsds, the Deep State, the Justice Dept and the intelligence services all had something to do with the granting of the warrant to monitor the REPUBLICAN campaign? Will this finding, if left untampered, finally give some clues ? Or is this another plant of accommodation for the Right, most of whom have been implicitly condemned to be purveyors of conspiracy? Are we coming to some kind of rational man's approximately certain knowledge of what the real facts are?


. The deep inquiry into the British agent's leaning should not be interpreted in a demeaning manner, and that's not the message here, but irrespective of the result, it may effect the overall result diminutively, in accordance to a curve , pitting
the extent of influence of his views against the change of opinions of the overlaying opinions of other effected people involved. By the time it reaches the memo, its effect may diminish accordingly.

It is not a tie breaker for that reason
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3042
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Is political bias on part of the FBI a fact or fiction?

Postby Carleas » Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:26 pm

New Manafort and Gates indictment, 32 counts, looks like they're all financial crimes.

Whatever your prior, the Bayesian probability of a Trump indictment has to increase with this, right? The more crimes the chairman of your campaign is indicted for, the more likely you are implicated in one of them. The more individuals in your circle that get indicted, the more likely that you too are vulnerable to indictment. What's the Trumpland spin on Bayes here?
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5554
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Is political bias on part of the FBI a fact or fiction?

Postby Zero_Sum » Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:31 pm

Carleas wrote:New Manafort and Gates indictment, 32 counts, looks like they're all financial crimes.

Whatever your prior, the Bayesian probability of a Trump indictment has to increase with this, right? The more crimes the chairman of your campaign is indicted for, the more likely you are implicated in one of them. The more individuals in your circle that get indicted, the more likely that you too are vulnerable to indictment. What's the Trumpland spin on Bayes here?

By all means indict the current president and create a civil war in this country, I'm all for it. :lol:

Let the velvet gloves come off.....
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-


"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein


"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie
User avatar
Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

Re: Is political bias on part of the FBI a fact or fiction?

Postby Carleas » Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:10 pm

Yeah, "indictment" was sloppy on my part. Not that a the odds of a Trump indictment didn't increase, just the prior was so small that it's not really worth discussing. But the new indictments of Manafort and Gates also seem to increase the odds of a Trump impeachment, and the priors there are not quite as small (still small though, I would give it substantially less than 50%, but maybe as high as 30%).
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5554
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Is political bias on part of the FBI a fact or fiction?

Postby Zero_Sum » Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:30 am

Carleas wrote:Yeah, "indictment" was sloppy on my part. Not that a the odds of a Trump indictment didn't increase, just the prior was so small that it's not really worth discussing. But the new indictments of Manafort and Gates also seem to increase the odds of a Trump impeachment, and the priors there are not quite as small (still small though, I would give it substantially less than 50%, but maybe as high as 30%).

If the democratic globalist no national border limitless immigration corporate marxists are going to start a political coup in this country just get it over with and be done with it. This whole dragged out bullshit Mueller Russian investigation becomes tedious and tiring with each absurd day, it's been over a little of a year now. I'm tired hearing everyday one corporate media celebrity presstitute after another. Throw the whole country into civil war and be done with it already. Stop dragging it out and just do it, put your money where your mouths are.
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone."

"I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

-Thomas Hobbes-


"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

“To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell.”― Marquis de Sade

“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”
― Robert A. Heinlein


"Republicans are red and democrats are blue, neither political party gives a flying fuck about you." - Unknown Origin

“In the architecture of their life some may display Potemkin happiness in view of hiding the dark features of their fair weather relationship, preferring to set up a window dressing of fake satisfaction rather than being rejected as emotional outcasts." Erik Pevernagie
User avatar
Zero_Sum
Machiavellian Negator, Absurdist, And Cynic
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: United States- Financial And Commercial Corporate Feudal Oligarchic Empire/Gulag Of Wallstreet.

Previous

Return to Current Events



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users