Exactly, great points again. The point is to destroy the state. Trump and his allies are using grievances against former US policy as a cudgel to create a psuedo-authoritarian state. Claiming our democratically established institutions are the real "coup" (like "no puppet, you're the puppet") is just the latest rhetorical propaganda toward those aims.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
We're in a permanent coup (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Max Power
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
The Future Champs
Footballguy
In all seriousness, this ####### the frontrunner for Worst POTUS Of All Time. Conservatives/nonTrumpers should rejoice at the prospect of his impeachment.
The Commish
Footballguy
Do people not know what "coup" means? Process provided via our Constitution isn't a "coup".
That one guy
Footballguy
Man, I thought I was cynical toward the trust-worthiness of government, but this embracing of “coup” is wild.
You can’t trust government institutions charged with executing their function in an apolitical manner (and having mechanisms and checks to ensure such) because individuals have personal political beliefs, but you can trust elected officials because their personal political beliefs align with yours? I’m not outright saying Trump is guilty of crimes, but damn there’s a ton of smoke and those inside the government apparatus are pointing it out and others are looking and agreeing that it is indeed smoke. Instead of running directly to “Dems hate Repubs!”, shouldn’t we take pause, investigate the claims of smoke, and see if fire is causing it? Hell, if it isn’t fire but a stupid smoke machine won’t that be the best outcome for those who claim “coup”?
You can’t trust government institutions charged with executing their function in an apolitical manner (and having mechanisms and checks to ensure such) because individuals have personal political beliefs, but you can trust elected officials because their personal political beliefs align with yours? I’m not outright saying Trump is guilty of crimes, but damn there’s a ton of smoke and those inside the government apparatus are pointing it out and others are looking and agreeing that it is indeed smoke. Instead of running directly to “Dems hate Repubs!”, shouldn’t we take pause, investigate the claims of smoke, and see if fire is causing it? Hell, if it isn’t fire but a stupid smoke machine won’t that be the best outcome for those who claim “coup”?
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
Boots Riley and I are starting a Van Halen cover band.
timschochet
Footballguy
Unless you begin with the premise that our Constitution is an illegitimate document.
ren hoek
Footballguy
It's amusing how comfortable people are to assign the most sinister, comicbook evil motives onto the Trump administration- which granted, is horrible- but there's been almost zero pushback at all against the intelligence complex. I don't think there's any good guys here, but I do think the behavior of the CIA and FBI warrants a lot of scrutiny, it always has, especially the past few years- and for Taibbi to have the wherewithal to write about it doesn't make him a Trump fan.
No, there was no "there" there. We shouldn't have to rehash this bs everytime as if the only reason Mueller didn't charge anyone at all for conspiring with Russia, or lying about a conspiracy with Russia, was that he 'couldn't find a chargeable crime'. This guy had all the time, resources, and subpoena power in the world. It was a falsehood, and it should have never been dumped on this country the way it was. If you want to talk about people living in different, disparate realities, talk about that, because there's still some people living in collusion fantasyland.
To the rare extent that Trump does something good, I support him. To the extent he does something bad, I don't. I think people like me have done a lot more to be critical of Trump- look at the Venezuela and Israel threads if you think I've treated him with kidgloves- than the reflexively antiTrump people have done to be critical of the Dem/Intel establishment. I don't think many people on this board are actually that supportive of his policies- they just don't confer all of the world's problems on him as if he alone is the existential threat to the republic. He's not. You're being ridiculous. When you put it in historical context, and strip away the over the top rhetoric, the policies are surprisingly standard. When people point out historical examples that reflect this, people gaslight and call it "whataboutism".
We got here because the whole system is corrupt- not just Trump. And these factions have been trying to subvert him from the very beginning. Some people rightly have a problem with that, even though they think Trump is a bad president.
The 'law and order' 'constitutional' 'democratic process' stuff is being selectively applied to Trump because certain parts of the ruling class don't like him. Those same standards didn't apply to previous presidents, because the ruling class approved of their crimes. If you are ok with it, and you think he needs to be removed at all costs no matter who does it or what the fallout is or what replaces him or how little it actually improves working people's lives, then fine. But be honest about it.
No, there was no "there" there. We shouldn't have to rehash this bs everytime as if the only reason Mueller didn't charge anyone at all for conspiring with Russia, or lying about a conspiracy with Russia, was that he 'couldn't find a chargeable crime'. This guy had all the time, resources, and subpoena power in the world. It was a falsehood, and it should have never been dumped on this country the way it was. If you want to talk about people living in different, disparate realities, talk about that, because there's still some people living in collusion fantasyland.
To the rare extent that Trump does something good, I support him. To the extent he does something bad, I don't. I think people like me have done a lot more to be critical of Trump- look at the Venezuela and Israel threads if you think I've treated him with kidgloves- than the reflexively antiTrump people have done to be critical of the Dem/Intel establishment. I don't think many people on this board are actually that supportive of his policies- they just don't confer all of the world's problems on him as if he alone is the existential threat to the republic. He's not. You're being ridiculous. When you put it in historical context, and strip away the over the top rhetoric, the policies are surprisingly standard. When people point out historical examples that reflect this, people gaslight and call it "whataboutism".
We got here because the whole system is corrupt- not just Trump. And these factions have been trying to subvert him from the very beginning. Some people rightly have a problem with that, even though they think Trump is a bad president.
The 'law and order' 'constitutional' 'democratic process' stuff is being selectively applied to Trump because certain parts of the ruling class don't like him. Those same standards didn't apply to previous presidents, because the ruling class approved of their crimes. If you are ok with it, and you think he needs to be removed at all costs no matter who does it or what the fallout is or what replaces him or how little it actually improves working people's lives, then fine. But be honest about it.
Sure the title of the article is a hyperbole, but that does not mean there is no merit to being concerned with the politicalization of of our overly invassive intelligence agencies. It is ironic that we now have the left touting these intelligence agencies as being filled with a bunch of patriotic Americans who are bravely doing their duty to uphold our Constitutional principles. To even suggest there might be some political motivation in these organization in providing information to support an impeachment inquiry is simply unAmerican. Is it not allowable in here to be critical of both Trump and our intelligence agencies?
The Commish
Footballguy
It's really not ironic at all. It's convenient. I remember the times when it was GWB and our intelligence agencies that were the puppeteers of the 9/11 attacks. I see very few who are ever concerned with our IC until "their guy" is being questioned. This current conspiracy theory rivals that of 9/11 as it too suggests this HUGE group of people, all able to keep everything secret and on the DL all over the world. The major difference between the two of course is that in THIS instance, it's simply because the guy isn't liked. That's the motive this current conspiracy theory offers for its existence...because people don't like Trump. All the billions of dollars to keep this hushed up and all the billions to keep all the players in line and on the same page, just because they don't like Trump. Slightly beyond the pale for my liking.
None of this is to say we shouldn't be wary of our intelligence community. They've shown a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted. Oh, and there were a few of us who said Obama should have been brought up on charges for allowing drone strikes on known US citizens. We were met with less than flattering banter....oddly enough a lot of them were the same group who once protected/justified our IC and now think our IC is the biggest conspiracy involved groups in the world.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Question: if you’re in a military, diplomatic or intelligence agency and you see evidence and you strongly feel that the agency you’re in is being politicized, what should you do?
dkp993
Footballguy
Even discussing his removal is a waste of time. It absolutely will not happen. He may get voted out in 2020 (though I still that that’s against the odds) but the Senate removing him is a non starter.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Maybe. I think he deserves to be removed and people will look back historically and wonder how on Earth he wasn’t removed so it’s legitimate conversation imo. However, I agree that the GOP will continue to protect him through this term.
-fish-
Footballguy
He hasn't been for at least a couple of years now. I can't believe people still take him seriously.
rockaction
Footballguy
I find the credulity of people who would take the CIA and FBIs word over Taibbi's the most ghastly of the credulous.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Isn't Taibbi just a commentator though? Aren't we really examining the word of multiple government agencies vs the word of the Trump organization? Of which, I don't believe either, but I believe my own eyes and ears.
rockaction
Footballguy
I was really responding to the people saying that Taibbi was off the deep end or had lost it in some way. I find that really reductive. I've always been skeptical of his wilder claims back both during the bank crisis and Occupy, and the Russia/Trump thing, but he seems like he's at least acting in good faith, and not unwell.
My comment had little to do with Trump; your take seems pretty spot-on to me.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Unamerican in ideals, quite American in actual execution though. The FBI has always been political.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
LOL- always a bit of anarchy in your libertarianism. I think this must go back to your punk rock days.
rockaction
Footballguy
Yeah, sure, but that contrarian streak is buffered by the reality of the odiousness and lawbreaking stuff Hoover did, not to mention what the CIA must be involved in.
I find it hard to believe someone as cogent and well-thought-out as Taibbi has all of the sudden just "lost it" because he went "all-in."
rockaction
Footballguy
That's not to say Taibbi cannot be or is not wildly off-base and wrong here. It's just that charges of being unfit or unwell or losing it are a bit much and devalue the subject they're describing to a degree I'm not sure is warranted.
But enough. Back to coups, which I thought were military overthrows of heads of state, specifically and limited to.
But enough. Back to coups, which I thought were military overthrows of heads of state, specifically and limited to.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Can be military or just a certain organized government group. Usually the support of the military is needed.
rockaction
Footballguy
Jackstraw
Footballguy
JUST GIVE ME SOME TRUTH!!!!
Let us lie on your platform without consequence or else. The constant lying, manipulation, misdirection and obfuscation of the truth is galling. Sunday news shows with Republicans are puke inducing. Eveyone, EVERYONE knows they lie through their teeth and we have to sit here and both sides this stuff. Garbage.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/14/facebook-zuckerberg-conservatives-private-meetings-046663
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been hosting informal talks and small, off-the-record dinners with conservative journalists, commentators and at least one Republican lawmaker in recent months to discuss issues like free speech and discuss partnerships.
The dinners, which began in July, are part of Zuckerberg’s broader effort to cultivate friends on the right amid outrage by President Donald Trump and his allies over alleged “bias” against conservatives at Facebook and other major social media companies. "I’m under no illusions that he’s a conservative but I think he does care about some of our concerns,” said one person familiar with the gatherings, which multiple sources have confirmed.
News of the outreach is likely to further fuel suspicions on the left that Zuckerberg is trying to appease the White House and stay out of Trump’s crosshairs. The president threatened to sue Facebook and Google in June and has in the past pressured the Justice Department to take action against his perceived foes.
“The discussion in Silicon Valley is that Zuckerberg is very concerned about the Justice Department, under Bill Barr, bringing an enforcement action to break up the company,” said one cybersecurity researcher and former government official based in Silicon Valley. “So the fear is that Zuckerberg is trying to appease the Trump administration by not cracking down on right-wing propaganda.”
Facebook has been criticized in recent days, including by Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, for its ad policy, which exempts politicians from third-party fact-checking and arguably facilitates the spread of disinformation.
Let us lie on your platform without consequence or else. The constant lying, manipulation, misdirection and obfuscation of the truth is galling. Sunday news shows with Republicans are puke inducing. Eveyone, EVERYONE knows they lie through their teeth and we have to sit here and both sides this stuff. Garbage.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/14/facebook-zuckerberg-conservatives-private-meetings-046663
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been hosting informal talks and small, off-the-record dinners with conservative journalists, commentators and at least one Republican lawmaker in recent months to discuss issues like free speech and discuss partnerships.
The dinners, which began in July, are part of Zuckerberg’s broader effort to cultivate friends on the right amid outrage by President Donald Trump and his allies over alleged “bias” against conservatives at Facebook and other major social media companies. "I’m under no illusions that he’s a conservative but I think he does care about some of our concerns,” said one person familiar with the gatherings, which multiple sources have confirmed.
News of the outreach is likely to further fuel suspicions on the left that Zuckerberg is trying to appease the White House and stay out of Trump’s crosshairs. The president threatened to sue Facebook and Google in June and has in the past pressured the Justice Department to take action against his perceived foes.
“The discussion in Silicon Valley is that Zuckerberg is very concerned about the Justice Department, under Bill Barr, bringing an enforcement action to break up the company,” said one cybersecurity researcher and former government official based in Silicon Valley. “So the fear is that Zuckerberg is trying to appease the Trump administration by not cracking down on right-wing propaganda.”
Facebook has been criticized in recent days, including by Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, for its ad policy, which exempts politicians from third-party fact-checking and arguably facilitates the spread of disinformation.
timschochet
Footballguy
He hasn't lost it. He's always been this way. Taibbi is a muckracker, and a very good one. He's at his best when he investigates and uncovers corruption and hypocrisy. He's rather weak when he tries to make larger commentary, as here.
Look- right now we have evidence of apparent wrongdoing by the President. That is what we have to deal with, without distraction. Congress, and the public in general, need to judge Donald Trump and whether or not he deserves to be President. Once that's done, I'm perfectly fine with looking at wrongdoing by the FBI or CIA or whoever. If there was an underhanded plot to "get Trump", I want it uncovered. If our established institutions are completely illegitimate and corrupt, as Taibbi and others like him seem to assume, lets find out and root out the corruption. But none of this has anything to do with whether or not Trump committed high crimes, and I think it's being used as a distraction.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
Okay - so why now? Why hasn't there been greater outrage over the past few decades? Why not during Bush? Obama? Why now all of a sudden?
rockaction
Footballguy
I can't really argue with that. I mean, I wasn't making a point about the "Deep State," nor have I ever, but it seems like knowing what actors got us to this point would be helpful in some sort of concretized way.
rockaction
Footballguy
I think you know the answer to that. It's Trump and his supporters. eta* And the hard left, of which Taibbi is a part.
My beef with the CIA and FBI goes back a long time, and especially involves domestic spying and other malfeasance committed under Hoover.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Sure. Just like we wanted to learn who Deep Throat was. All of this is important and interesting.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
I don't think is really a coup though. Political attacks probably but not a coup imo- even if much of the attacks are true.
rockaction
Footballguy
No, I'd probably disagree with the word "coup" also. It tends to be a loaded word and what we think of often as what happens in unstable Latin and South American countries given our own proximity to those two places.
shader
Footballguy
Really interesting article. Haven’t read the comments below. As a guy who knows about 5% of the details, it comes across very logical.
I’m sure he made some errors and these will he picked apart down below, but his general premise is one I agree with. It’s quite possible that the USA is about to hit a point where things are broken to a level where they will never be able to go back to where they were....and that’s true regardless of who is responsible for the break.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
cosjobs
Footballguy
cosjobs
Footballguy
HellToupee
Footballguy
Wild in the Streets? World Up My ###? Live Fast Die Young?cosjobs said:
cosjobs
Footballguy
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
i agree - America's gone coup coup
moleculo
Footballguy
When talking about conspiracy theories, sometimes you can think about the number of people it would take to pull the conspiracy off, and how implausible it is that that many people can keep their mouth shut about it. Think about 9/11 - how many people would be involved in planting the hijackers, arranging them to get to the US, training them, etc (or, planting their identities and hiring actual suicide pilots, depending on the flavor of conspiracy you are following). It's hundreds of people. All it takes is one person feeling guilty to blow the whole operation. With that in mind, let's think about two recent conspiracy theories - one actively believed in, and one hypothetical.
The first is that the CIA/FBI framed Trump with the Russian Collusion narrative. As the story goes, this was a CIA operation to take down the president because...I don't know, they don't like him. How many people would be involved in an operation of this magnitude? We are talking about hacking the DNC, sending the info to wikileaks, hiring Steele, working with the Australian gov't to implicate Poppadopolous, Joseph Misfud and his handlers, framing Carter Page, etc. Every single facet of the operation would have a team with specialized skill-sets, and the operation would span multiple countries. It's a hell of a lot more than Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Mueller, etc., it includes computer hackers, forensics team, SIGINT & HUMINT apparatus, agents on the ground, staffers, stenographers, secretaries, analysts, etc. And, of all of these people, it requires 100% of them to be in on it - died in the wool Never Trumpers, unwilling to blow the whistle in the face of intense scrutiny.
Now, lets contrast that with my hypothetical conspiracy theory. In this one, Ukraine starts an investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden. They are immediately rewarded with all the military assistance they want, and Zelenskyy is a State guest of the White House. The conspiracy theory is that Trump asked Zelenskyy to dig up dirt on Biden. Back to reality though - an actual whistle blower blew the whistle. Someone wasn't on board with the operation, and that's why this conspiracy never came to fruition.
I think it's a common mistake to assume that organizations are completely in sync. Any particular group is likely to have different opinions and outlooks; it's a mistake to assume they all have the same beliefs and opinions. I see this at work - we assume everyone from another particular office has the same opinion on a particular topic, but when I talk to them individually, I realize there is infighting and debate there just as there is here. I think it's a mistake to assume everyone in the entire IC is anti-Trump. It's a mistake to assume they are all institutionalists, and work to serve their agency ahead of the country. That seems to be Tiabbi's underlying assumption.
I can't believe that the CIA is capable of pulling off an operation the size of framing Trump with the Russia stuff - not without someone blowing the whistle. It just takes one do-gooder to believe in his oath of office to put country over agency and the whole thing is up in smoke...just like Trump/Rudy's Ukraine operation.
I'm not here to say the CIA/FBI/NSA are 100% good and pure. However, I will note that we only know of their misdeeds from the actions of whistleblowers (some are in jail right now). We have actual evidence of conspiracy theories being confirmed because someone said something. The fact that no one from within the IC blew the whistle on Russiagate relegates the "IC framed Trump" meme to pure conspiracy theory.
The first is that the CIA/FBI framed Trump with the Russian Collusion narrative. As the story goes, this was a CIA operation to take down the president because...I don't know, they don't like him. How many people would be involved in an operation of this magnitude? We are talking about hacking the DNC, sending the info to wikileaks, hiring Steele, working with the Australian gov't to implicate Poppadopolous, Joseph Misfud and his handlers, framing Carter Page, etc. Every single facet of the operation would have a team with specialized skill-sets, and the operation would span multiple countries. It's a hell of a lot more than Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Mueller, etc., it includes computer hackers, forensics team, SIGINT & HUMINT apparatus, agents on the ground, staffers, stenographers, secretaries, analysts, etc. And, of all of these people, it requires 100% of them to be in on it - died in the wool Never Trumpers, unwilling to blow the whistle in the face of intense scrutiny.
Now, lets contrast that with my hypothetical conspiracy theory. In this one, Ukraine starts an investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden. They are immediately rewarded with all the military assistance they want, and Zelenskyy is a State guest of the White House. The conspiracy theory is that Trump asked Zelenskyy to dig up dirt on Biden. Back to reality though - an actual whistle blower blew the whistle. Someone wasn't on board with the operation, and that's why this conspiracy never came to fruition.
I think it's a common mistake to assume that organizations are completely in sync. Any particular group is likely to have different opinions and outlooks; it's a mistake to assume they all have the same beliefs and opinions. I see this at work - we assume everyone from another particular office has the same opinion on a particular topic, but when I talk to them individually, I realize there is infighting and debate there just as there is here. I think it's a mistake to assume everyone in the entire IC is anti-Trump. It's a mistake to assume they are all institutionalists, and work to serve their agency ahead of the country. That seems to be Tiabbi's underlying assumption.
I can't believe that the CIA is capable of pulling off an operation the size of framing Trump with the Russia stuff - not without someone blowing the whistle. It just takes one do-gooder to believe in his oath of office to put country over agency and the whole thing is up in smoke...just like Trump/Rudy's Ukraine operation.
I'm not here to say the CIA/FBI/NSA are 100% good and pure. However, I will note that we only know of their misdeeds from the actions of whistleblowers (some are in jail right now). We have actual evidence of conspiracy theories being confirmed because someone said something. The fact that no one from within the IC blew the whistle on Russiagate relegates the "IC framed Trump" meme to pure conspiracy theory.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Framing it as coup is helpful because it sends a clear signal that the speaker is arguing in bad faith and I can ignore him with impunity.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I probably know the answer to this without asking, but did you ever provide any kind of explanation for how the intelligence complex tricked Trump into pressuring the Ukrainian government to interfere in the 2020 election? That seems to be a pretty important element of the narrative that's missing.ren hoek said:
Last edited by a moderator:
I can probably answer this - I don't think its that far-fetched.
Trump is widely known as a conspiracy nut. Getting him to bite on a conspiracy theory that Ukraine tried to derail his 2016 bid, and holds the key to derailing Biden's 2020 bid would be like shooting fish in a barrel for the IC.
Of course being a conspiracy nut should be disqualifying in and of itself....
Is anyone actually doing this? No one thinks trump is extremely sinister. He doesn't care enough about other people to get off on screwing them over just to do it. I think we (rational folks) all know he's a simple-minded, selfish PoS. His motive is singular: purely self-interest. It's not the "most sinister" motive but it still results in a cluster **** for the country.ren hoek said:
Whataboutism means false equivalency. And to claim what he's doing now is equivalent to what's happened before is disingenuous af. You might find a semi-decent fit here or there, but what trump has done is over the top in both scale and number - and it goes well beyond policies. Many of his actions have been unprecedented, so you don't even have a false equivalency to play. So this claim of historical context is weak and bogus.ren hoek said:
Similar threads
