|
Post by Merge on Aug 15, 2022 2:18:19 GMT
It’s more that many of the statements lack context. Trump’s “peace deals” were not exactly the wins they seemed, and he was nominated for the Nobel prize by two like-minded Norwegian politicians. Also, anyone can be nominated for a Nobel prize. Winning is what matters. Jobs - yes, jobs were coming back after the worst of the pandemic lockdowns, and Trump jumped to take credit for it. You’ve already been shown how the myth of “energy independence” wasn’t exactly that. The question is misleading. Trump may have been promising a safe vaccine, but he did everything he could to downplay Covid, promote whack job alternative therapies, and allow fake news about the vaccine’s safety and efficacy to spread widely from his supporters afterward. No credit there. Lack of awareness of a news story from the 90s is … well, that’s on the person being asked. It wasn't being hidden from anyone. Kamala Harris a leftist … hahahaha. Guess that depends on how you “rate” her. Many progressives didn’t and don’t like her because of her strong ties to law enforcement as a DA. I guess now that y’all are on the “defund the police” bandwagon you can dislike her for a different reason. And then there are all the questions that were omitted. Where are the questions about whether the voter knew about all the credible allegations against Trump, both for sexual assault and shady business dealings? Where are the questions about Pence’s record on women’s rights and his extremist religious views? You can make a poll turn out any way you want based on the questions you use, how you word them, and who you ask. This is basic stuff. You can also write them to be designed to be as unbiased as possible. There are people who spend their lives and careers studying this. When campaigns do internal polling for their own purposes, it would make no sense to write a biased poll because they're looking for useful data. They want a poll that accurately reflects the understanding and attitudes of the people being polled. You’ve already been shown how the myth of “energy independence” wasn’t exactly that. The question is misleading. I have? I don't think so. Nevertheless, "– exporting more crude oil than we imported – for the first time in recorded history" is a fact. Even if you want to quibble over yet another definition. *At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that the Commerce Department reported (on October 29) the best economic growth ever -- an annualized rate of 33.1% No comment from you. Jobs - yes, jobs were coming back after the worst of the pandemic lockdowns, and Trump jumped to take credit for it. Much as Biden did when he claimed he had no control over the price of gas? Until it went down and HE jumped to take credit for it. Nevertheless, According to WSJ under Trump "Jobs were better than expected until the crisis began." "During Trump’s first three years in office, median household incomes grew, inequality diminished, and the poverty rate among Black people fell below 20% for the first time in post-World War II records. The unemployment rate among Black people went under 6% for the first time in records going back to 1972." So no matter how you want to slice and dice him, there were important positives under Trump. *At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that evidence exists, including bank transactions the FBI is currently investigating, that directly links Joe Biden and his family to a corrupt financial arrangement between a Chinese company with connections to the Chinese Communist Party that was secretly intended to provide the Biden family with tens of millions of dollars in profits? No comment from you. It’s more that many of the statements lack context. Trump’s “peace deals” were not exactly the wins they seemed, and he was nominated for the Nobel prize by two like-minded Norwegian politicians. Also, anyone can be nominated for a Nobel prize. Winning is what matters That's just your opinion and meant to diminish the facts in the question. Your opinion holds no weight in the survey, unless you are taking the survey. Then it may make a difference to you in how you answer YOUR survey, but your opinion is not needed in order to present the facts. Trump may have been promising a safe vaccine, but he did everything he could to downplay Covid, promote whack job alternative therapies, and allow fake news about the vaccine’s safety and efficacy to spread widely from his supporters afterward. No credit there. Despite your feelings about him, the Trump administration's unprecedented $10 billion effort to expedite effective treatments to fight COVID-19, with the promise of 300 million doses of a safe vaccine available to the public as soon as next year came in before the next year and all of that are absolutely facts. Lack of awareness of a news story from the 90s is … well, that’s on the person being asked. It was in the news a lot right before the election. At least the news I watched. Kamala Harris a leftist … hahahaha. Guess that depends on how you “rate” her. Many progressives didn’t and don’t like her because of her strong ties to law enforcement as a DA. I guess now that y’all are on the “defund the police” bandwagon you can dislike her for a different reason. According to CNN "In 2019, GovTrack, a non-partisan organization that tracks bills in Congress, ranked Harris as the "most liberal compared to All Senators." One measure the organization uses is comparing how many bipartisan bills each senator cosponsors to how many bills they co-sponsored in total. Harris had the lowest at 15% in 2019." *At the time you cast your vote for president, did you know that countries throughout Europe had enacted a massive COVID-19 shut down earlier this year, which decimated their economies, and that in most countries COVID-19 has returned anyway? No comment from you. And then there are all the questions that were omitted. Where are the questions about whether the voter knew about all the credible allegations against Trump, both for sexual assault and shady business dealings? Where are the questions about Pence’s record on women’s rights and his extremist religious views? I'm guessing MRC as a resource that studies who reports what and how much time each thing is given on each network, they knew what Democrats were exposed to in their news sources. They were asking about subjects they most likely were NOT exposed to in their news sources. No, I didn’t take time to respond to every one of the statements. I’m sure you are capable of googling for multiple points of view on all of them. I correctly pointed out to you that most of them lack context and, while some may adhere to the letter of a narrow sliver of truth, they fail very much to actually be truthful or asked in good faith. To give you an example of a statement that is true but lacks very important context: are you aware that our sun is dying and there’s nothing we can do about it? When it dies, if we have avoided other catastrophic events up to that point, life on earth as we know it will cease to exist. This is indisputably true. Used in a poll like yours, some people might be induced to panic and believe that the end is near. There could be widespread unrest. And there is nothing false about the statement given. But the thing is, the death of our sun isn’t likely to happen for at least four billion years. That’s a very important contextual point that was left out of the statement and I’m sure you’ll agree that it makes a lot of difference. In including only a sliver of truth, not only have I not actually informed the person hearing the question, I may well have led them to believe something that isn’t true at all. Questions that contain only a partial truth, or an opinion stated as truth, are not questions at all. They don’t inform. They don’t seek valid responses. They exist only to lead the respondent to a prescribed response. (In your example, the poll was designed to support an opinion that if more voters knew about Joe Biden’s supposed malfeasance, the outcome of the election would have changed. It allowed for literally no other possible outcome based on its questions and methodology.) No one is actually better informed by such a poll. I really encourage you to read the absolutely non partisan Pew Research document. Polling is a science. There are correct and incorrect ways to do it.
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Aug 15, 2022 2:39:07 GMT
What that yellow chicken/Gia really wants is for nobody to talk about what a criminal that orange psycho is. She will shit a ring around herself then delete this alter when he goes down permanently. Then, give it a month or two and she'll be back under a new name raising hell about Obama's daughters being Russian spies.😂🤣😂🤣 Nice… Thanks! It's also true.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Aug 15, 2022 2:54:58 GMT
It’s more that many of the statements lack context. Trump’s “peace deals” were not exactly the wins they seemed, and he was nominated for the Nobel prize by two like-minded Norwegian politicians. Also, anyone can be nominated for a Nobel prize. Winning is what matters. Jobs - yes, jobs were coming back after the worst of the pandemic lockdowns, and Trump jumped to take credit for it. You’ve already been shown how the myth of “energy independence” wasn’t exactly that. The question is misleading. Trump may have been promising a safe vaccine, but he did everything he could to downplay Covid, promote whack job alternative therapies, and allow fake news about the vaccine’s safety and efficacy to spread widely from his supporters afterward. No credit there. Lack of awareness of a news story from the 90s is … well, that’s on the person being asked. It wasn't being hidden from anyone. Kamala Harris a leftist … hahahaha. Guess that depends on how you “rate” her. Many progressives didn’t and don’t like her because of her strong ties to law enforcement as a DA. I guess now that y’all are on the “defund the police” bandwagon you can dislike her for a different reason. And then there are all the questions that were omitted. Where are the questions about whether the voter knew about all the credible allegations against Trump, both for sexual assault and shady business dealings? Where are the questions about Pence’s record on women’s rights and his extremist religious views? You can make a poll turn out any way you want based on the questions you use, how you word them, and who you ask. This is basic stuff. You can also write them to be designed to be as unbiased as possible. There are people who spend their lives and careers studying this. When campaigns do internal polling for their own purposes, it would make no sense to write a biased poll because they're looking for useful data. They want a poll that accurately reflects the understanding and attitudes of the people being polled. You’ve already been shown how the myth of “energy independence” wasn’t exactly that. The question is misleading. I have? I don't think so. Nevertheless, "– exporting more crude oil than we imported – for the first time in recorded history" is a fact. Even if you want to quibble over yet another definition. From Reuters…
”But, contrary to what some online interpret as “energy independence,” when it comes to commodities that are traded in global markets, like crude oil and transportation fuels, the U.S. is not immune to worldwide effects even as a net exporter. For instance, while oil production in the U.S. is on the upswing , the country’s pump prices have raised to record highs ( here ). For Andrew Campbell, Executive Director of the Energy Institute at Berkeley Haas ( here ) “energy independence” is a “political slogan, not an economic or technical concept with a clear definition” often used by politicians to “imply that a country is insulated from global energy markets”.“This is rarely the case,” he said. “ If a country produces all of the energy that it consumes, does not participate in international trade in energy, does not import energy-intensive products and does not send energy-related pollution to its neighbors or the atmosphere, then I would consider it energy independent. I don’t think any country meets that definition.”*At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that the Commerce Department reported (on October 29) the best economic growth ever -- an annualized rate of 33.1% No comment from you. I looked this up and could find nothing to confirm this. What I did find that the quarter that had just ended , at the time of the poll, had a growth of around 29% while the quarter before had a loss of 30-31%. Then I quit looking.Jobs - yes, jobs were coming back after the worst of the pandemic lockdowns, and Trump jumped to take credit for it. Much as Biden did when he claimed he had no control over the price of gas? Until it went down and HE jumped to take credit for it. Nevertheless, According to WSJ under Trump "Jobs were better than expected until the crisis began." "During Trump’s first three years in office, median household incomes grew, inequality diminished, and the poverty rate among Black people fell below 20% for the first time in post-World War II records. The unemployment rate among Black people went under 6% for the first time in records going back to 1972." So no matter how you want to slice and dice him, there were important positives under Trump. That all started under President Obama. Remember the Great Recession had just started the end of Bush’s term and the beginning of Obama’s term. The unemployment raised to over 10% within the first year of Obama’s term and was at 4. something % when he left office. Whatever happened during trump’s term was a continuation of started during Obama’s time. But, even before the pandemic the economy started to soften in that there number of jobs created each month started to fall. Not by much but still falling. Now trump will go down in history with worst job creation in history of presidents.
*At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that evidence exists, including bank transactions the FBI is currently investigating, that directly links Joe Biden and his family to a corrupt financial arrangement between a Chinese company with connections to the Chinese Communist Party that was secretly intended to provide the Biden family with tens of millions of dollars in profits? No comment from you. That might have mattered more if there had not been previous and ongoing investigations into trump. He was sued and lost the case involving his university, while he was president it was determined he misused the donations that came into his foundation/charity so he can never have another one under is name. His organization was under investigation by the state of New York and by the City of New York. He was impeached but the Republicans in the senate ran interference so he was not held accountable for his actions.
Then there was Jared who’s family seemed to get loans/investment monies from the Saudi’s when they needed them. It’s more that many of the statements lack context. Trump’s “peace deals” were not exactly the wins they seemed, and he was nominated for the Nobel prize by two like-minded Norwegian politicians. Also, anyone can be nominated for a Nobel prize. Winning is what matters That's just your opinion and meant to diminish the facts in the question. Your opinion holds no weight in the survey, unless you are taking the survey. Then it may make a difference to you in how you answer YOUR survey, but your opinion is not needed in order to present the facts. This country has long maintained it did not negotiate with terrorists. Yet that is exactly what trump did with the Taliban which is a terrorist group. Not only did he negotiate with a terrorist group he cut out the legally elected government of Afghanistan in the process.Trump may have been promising a safe vaccine, but he did everything he could to downplay Covid, promote whack job alternative therapies, and allow fake news about the vaccine’s safety and efficacy to spread widely from his supporters afterward. No credit there. Despite your feelings about him, the Trump administration's unprecedented $10 billion effort to expedite effective treatments to fight COVID-19, with the promise of 300 million doses of a safe vaccine available to the public as soon as next year came in before the next year and all of that are absolutely facts. dumpster don, the organized crime wave did the one thing that all presidents would do in this situation. In other words for the first time he actually did his job.Lack of awareness of a news story from the 90s is … well, that’s on the person being asked. It was in the news a lot right before the election. At least the news I watched. Stormy Daniels. Kamala Harris a leftist … hahahaha. Guess that depends on how you “rate” her. Many progressives didn’t and don’t like her because of her strong ties to law enforcement as a DA. I guess now that y’all are on the “defund the police” bandwagon you can dislike her for a different reason. According to CNN "In 2019, GovTrack, a non-partisan organization that tracks bills in Congress, ranked Harris as the "most liberal compared to All Senators." One measure the organization uses is comparing how many bipartisan bills each senator cosponsors to how many bills they co-sponsored in total. Harris had the lowest at 15% in 2019." As someone who has been aware of Kamala Harris since her SF DA days. Phooey! Yes being from the Bay Area she is a little more left then some but no where near Bernie Sanders. Fun fact though for those progressives and her strong ties to law enforcement. While DA she had case involving a cop killer. And people wanted her to seek the death penalty. But she didn’t because like me she doesn’t believe in the death penalty.*At the time you cast your vote for president, did you know that countries throughout Europe had enacted a massive COVID-19 shut down earlier this year, which decimated their economies, and that in most countries COVID-19 has returned anyway? No comment from you. The question that should have been asked is what is more important people’s lives or money. The Republicans made it very clear that money/economy was more important then people’s lives. Remember that fool in Texas, either the governor or Lt governor who gave that interview that is was ok if old people died because it was more important to make money. Which meant part of the country was shut down and the part that didn’t had a higher death count per whatever number they used then states that did shut down. They had a higher infection rate and a death rate.And then there are all the questions that were omitted. Where are the questions about whether the voter knew about all the credible allegations against Trump, both for sexual assault and shady business dealings? Where are the questions about Pence’s record on women’s rights and his extremist religious views? I'm guessing MRC as a resource that studies who reports what and how much time each thing is given on each network, they knew what Democrats were exposed to in their news sources. They were asking about subjects they most likely were NOT exposed to in their news sources. So saying the questions "are not entirely truthful" is not truthful at all. Then we disagree. Because in my opinion they were.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Aug 15, 2022 3:07:51 GMT
Pence who is 16 years younger seems to go arse up on planes steps too. The new dementia criteria - falling up plane stairs Joe Biden, falling upstairs 3 times in a row. In the same moment. Jill actually physically moved a grown ass man into place. The president of the United States! Even she TREATS him like a man in a diminished mental state. I saw Biden trying to put his jacket on the other day. It was just short of a dog chasing his tail. The press guy talking about when he was recovering from covid the first time, he said that Joe actually held up his plate to show him he ate everything on his plate. Like a 3 year old. Thinking he's running for United States Senate, (twice) when he was running for president, rambling on about a guy named Cornpop while reminiscing about letting kids playing with his leg hair decades ago, repeatedly not understanding not to read the stage directions, standing trance like while holding an imaginary steering wheel? while looking off into the distance instead of looking at the the person asking you the question, saying "We're in the process of deciding what I think." in response to a reporter's question, clapping without getting your hands even close to each other, forgetting words, concepts, people's names and that this is the Biden presidency -not the Harris presidency, admitting that "they" won't let you take questions -saying that "they" are going to be mad at him if he does, repeatedly being guided around with hands on, moving him around like you would a 5 year old. Falling off a bike while standing still. You're free to argue all of that is because of a stutter as much as you like, or however you need to dismiss it, but to the rest of the world all of that TOGETHER, IN ONE PERSON, certainly doesn't look good for cognitive capabilities. I thought of you when I saw this and felt I needed to share it with you…
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Aug 15, 2022 3:41:40 GMT
I have? I don't think so. Nevertheless, "– exporting more crude oil than we imported – for the first time in recorded history" is a fact. Even if you want to quibble over yet another definition. No comment from you. Much as Biden did when he claimed he had no control over the price of gas? Until it went down and HE jumped to take credit for it. Nevertheless, According to WSJ under Trump "Jobs were better than expected until the crisis began." "During Trump’s first three years in office, median household incomes grew, inequality diminished, and the poverty rate among Black people fell below 20% for the first time in post-World War II records. The unemployment rate among Black people went under 6% for the first time in records going back to 1972." So no matter how you want to slice and dice him, there were important positives under Trump. No comment from you. That's just your opinion and meant to diminish the facts in the question. Your opinion holds no weight in the survey, unless you are taking the survey. Then it may make a difference to you in how you answer YOUR survey, but your opinion is not needed in order to present the facts. Despite your feelings about him, the Trump administration's unprecedented $10 billion effort to expedite effective treatments to fight COVID-19, with the promise of 300 million doses of a safe vaccine available to the public as soon as next year came in before the next year and all of that are absolutely facts. It was in the news a lot right before the election. At least the news I watched. According to CNN "In 2019, GovTrack, a non-partisan organization that tracks bills in Congress, ranked Harris as the "most liberal compared to All Senators." One measure the organization uses is comparing how many bipartisan bills each senator cosponsors to how many bills they co-sponsored in total. Harris had the lowest at 15% in 2019." No comment from you. I'm guessing MRC as a resource that studies who reports what and how much time each thing is given on each network, they knew what Democrats were exposed to in their news sources. They were asking about subjects they most likely were NOT exposed to in their news sources. No, I didn’t take time to respond to every one of the statements. I’m sure you are capable of googling for multiple points of view on all of them. I correctly pointed out to you that most of them lack context and, while some may adhere to the letter of a narrow sliver of truth, they fail very much to actually be truthful or asked in good faith. To give you an example of a statement that is true but lacks very important context: are you aware that our sun is dying and there’s nothing we can do about it? When it dies, if we have avoided other catastrophic events up to that point, life on earth as we know it will cease to exist. This is indisputably true. Used in a poll like yours, some people might be induced to panic and believe that the end is near. There could be widespread unrest. And there is nothing false about the statement given. But the thing is, the death of our sun isn’t likely to happen for at least four billion years. That’s a very important contextual point that was left out of the statement and I’m sure you’ll agree that it makes a lot of difference. In including only a sliver of truth, not only have I not actually informed the person hearing the question, I may well have led them to believe something that isn’t true at all. Questions that contain only a partial truth, or an opinion stated as truth, are not questions at all. They don’t inform. They don’t seek valid responses. They exist only to lead the respondent to a prescribed response. (In your example, the poll was designed to support an opinion that if more voters knew about Joe Biden’s supposed malfeasance, the outcome of the election would have changed. It allowed for literally no other possible outcome based on its questions and methodology.) No one is actually better informed by such a poll. I really encourage you to read the absolutely non partisan Pew Research document. Polling is a science. There are correct and incorrect ways to do it. they fail very much to actually be truthful or asked in good faith. No they don't. As I said, your opinion is not needed in order to present the facts. And they are facts that they presented in the questions. Your opinion on the facts presented is nothing like a missing fact in your exploding sun story. FALSE EQUIVELENT. And as a resource that studies who reports what and how much time each thing is given on each network, MRC knew what Democrats were exposed to in their news sources. They were asking about subjects they knew Democrats most likely were NOT exposed to in their news sources. So no, saying the questions "are not entirely truthful" is not truthful at all.
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Aug 15, 2022 3:43:07 GMT
I have? I don't think so. Nevertheless, "– exporting more crude oil than we imported – for the first time in recorded history" is a fact. Even if you want to quibble over yet another definition. From Reuters…
”But, contrary to what some online interpret as “energy independence,” when it comes to commodities that are traded in global markets, like crude oil and transportation fuels, the U.S. is not immune to worldwide effects even as a net exporter. For instance, while oil production in the U.S. is on the upswing , the country’s pump prices have raised to record highs ( here ). For Andrew Campbell, Executive Director of the Energy Institute at Berkeley Haas ( here ) “energy independence” is a “political slogan, not an economic or technical concept with a clear definition” often used by politicians to “imply that a country is insulated from global energy markets”.“This is rarely the case,” he said. “ If a country produces all of the energy that it consumes, does not participate in international trade in energy, does not import energy-intensive products and does not send energy-related pollution to its neighbors or the atmosphere, then I would consider it energy independent. I don’t think any country meets that definition.”No comment from you. I looked this up and could find nothing to confirm this. What I did find that the quarter that had just ended , at the time of the poll, had a growth of around 29% while the quarter before had a loss of 30-31%. Then I quit looking. Much as Biden did when he claimed he had no control over the price of gas? Until it went down and HE jumped to take credit for it. Nevertheless, According to WSJ under Trump "Jobs were better than expected until the crisis began." "During Trump’s first three years in office, median household incomes grew, inequality diminished, and the poverty rate among Black people fell below 20% for the first time in post-World War II records. The unemployment rate among Black people went under 6% for the first time in records going back to 1972." So no matter how you want to slice and dice him, there were important positives under Trump. That all started under President Obama. Remember the Great Recession had just started the end of Bush’s term and the beginning of Obama’s term. The unemployment raised to over 10% within the first year of Obama’s term and was at 4. something % when he left office. Whatever happened during trump’s term was a continuation of started during Obama’s time. But, even before the pandemic the economy started to soften in that there number of jobs created each month started to fall. Not by much but still falling. Now trump will go down in history with worst job creation in history of presidents.
No comment from you. That might have mattered more if there had not been previous and ongoing investigations into trump. He was sued and lost the case involving his university, while he was president it was determined he misused the donations that came into his foundation/charity so he can never have another one under is name. His organization was under investigation by the state of New York and by the City of New York. He was impeached but the Republicans in the senate ran interference so he was not held accountable for his actions.
Then there was Jared who’s family seemed to get loans/investment monies from the Saudi’s when they needed them. That's just your opinion and meant to diminish the facts in the question. Your opinion holds no weight in the survey, unless you are taking the survey. Then it may make a difference to you in how you answer YOUR survey, but your opinion is not needed in order to present the facts. This country has long maintained it did not negotiate with terrorists. Yet that is exactly what trump did with the Taliban which is a terrorist group. Not only did he negotiate with a terrorist group he cut out the legally elected government of Afghanistan in the process. Despite your feelings about him, the Trump administration's unprecedented $10 billion effort to expedite effective treatments to fight COVID-19, with the promise of 300 million doses of a safe vaccine available to the public as soon as next year came in before the next year and all of that are absolutely facts. dumpster don, the organized crime wave did the one thing that all presidents would do in this situation. In other words for the first time he actually did his job. It was in the news a lot right before the election. At least the news I watched. Stormy Daniels. According to CNN "In 2019, GovTrack, a non-partisan organization that tracks bills in Congress, ranked Harris as the "most liberal compared to All Senators." One measure the organization uses is comparing how many bipartisan bills each senator cosponsors to how many bills they co-sponsored in total. Harris had the lowest at 15% in 2019." As someone who has been aware of Kamala Harris since her SF DA days. Phooey! Yes being from the Bay Area she is a little more left then some but no where near Bernie Sanders. Fun fact though for those progressives and her strong ties to law enforcement. While DA she had case involving a cop killer. And people wanted her to seek the death penalty. But she didn’t because like me she doesn’t believe in the death penalty.No comment from you. The question that should have been asked is what is more important people’s lives or money. The Republicans made it very clear that money/economy was more important then people’s lives. Remember that fool in Texas, either the governor or Lt governor who gave that interview that is was ok if old people died because it was more important to make money. Which meant part of the country was shut down and the part that didn’t had a higher death count per whatever number they used then states that did shut down. They had a higher infection rate and a death rate. I'm guessing MRC as a resource that studies who reports what and how much time each thing is given on each network, they knew what Democrats were exposed to in their news sources. They were asking about subjects they most likely were NOT exposed to in their news sources. So saying the questions "are not entirely truthful" is not truthful at all. Then we disagree. Because in my opinion they were.Nothing was left out of those questions except your opinions of the facts in them. As we know your opinion is not needed in order to present the facts. And as I was told earlier, you can have your own opinion, but you can’t have your own facts.
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Aug 15, 2022 5:55:29 GMT
A former president removes boxes of classified documents, possibly containing info on nuclear weapons, stores them in an unsecure location and refuses to comply with a subpoena. Again, Something I've been wondering about this claim is, if there is something that is so clearly an alarming threat to national security, why did the government sit politely by for a year and a half before they finally became alarmed enough to go retrieve something so dangerous to the country? I do have to wonder if she realizes how she insults our intelligence every time she claims not to be the pea formerly known as Gia, or how much it destroys her credibility when she does so. You’re supposedly the purveyor of truth here, but you can’t be honest about your own identity? I have never confirmed or denied ANY of the guesses, so you're making "less than truthful" statements. To say the least. Several of you have demonized so many other people so successfully and for some reason merge, you so desperately need me to be one of them. What's the matter, making up shit about me in order to call me a monster and attacking my mental health isn't enough for you? Going on my community oriented thread and attacking me for posting something kind is not enough for you? Telling me I'm "such an easy mark" after you're caught in raging hypocrisy is not enough for you? Dealing with the here and now is just not enough for you? I'm pixiechick. That is what you can call me. Be civil and respectful or leave me the fuck alone, like you said you were going to do last month. Otherwise you're turning yourself into a troll.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Aug 15, 2022 6:45:59 GMT
A former president removes boxes of classified documents, possibly containing info on nuclear weapons, stores them in an unsecure location and refuses to comply with a subpoena. Again, Something I've been wondering about this claim is, if there is something that is so clearly an alarming threat to national security, why did the government sit politely by for a year and a half before they finally became alarmed enough to go retrieve something so dangerous to the country? First, Biden weaponized the Justice Department and it was an unjustifiable raid on a former president’s home. Now, the Justice Department wasn’t aggressive enough? Seriously, conservatives are never happy. To be clear, the Justice Department didn’t just sit quietly by. The National archives didn’t receive 15 missing boxes of documents until January 2022. After they discovered top secret documents were missing, they referred the case to the Justice Department in Feb 2022. They later issued a subpoena but Trump refused to comply. There is a legal process that proceeds step by step. Also, it’s possible when they visited in the spring, they discovered the classified documents. Or an informant told them or they discovered the documents from watching the surveillance videos. They could have discovered they were missing after searching through the boxes that were returned in January. There’s no way to know for certain how long the National Archives and the Justice Department were aware of the the missing documents. Also, I think it’s important to point out that Trump’s actions are unprecedented. After Nixon, other presidents turned over documents at the end of their term. Prior to Trump, there may not have been a procedure in place for what to do if documents were missing or if the former president refused to turn them over. The NYT laid out a really detailed timeline www.nytimes.com/2022/08/12/us/politics/trump-classified-records-timeline.html
|
|
|
Post by gar on Aug 15, 2022 7:59:17 GMT
you can have your own opinion, but you can’t have your own facts. Irony thy name is Pixie. Forgot to add the obligatory 🤣🤣🤣🤣
|
|
maryannscraps
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,803
Aug 28, 2017 12:51:28 GMT
|
Post by maryannscraps on Aug 15, 2022 12:20:43 GMT
This thread reminds me of the importance of teachers. Learning to use critical thinking is the most important skill anyone can have. As usual, aj2hall and lizacreates and Merge, you are the queens of it.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 15, 2022 12:26:49 GMT
No, I didn’t take time to respond to every one of the statements. I’m sure you are capable of googling for multiple points of view on all of them. I correctly pointed out to you that most of them lack context and, while some may adhere to the letter of a narrow sliver of truth, they fail very much to actually be truthful or asked in good faith. To give you an example of a statement that is true but lacks very important context: are you aware that our sun is dying and there’s nothing we can do about it? When it dies, if we have avoided other catastrophic events up to that point, life on earth as we know it will cease to exist. This is indisputably true. Used in a poll like yours, some people might be induced to panic and believe that the end is near. There could be widespread unrest. And there is nothing false about the statement given. But the thing is, the death of our sun isn’t likely to happen for at least four billion years. That’s a very important contextual point that was left out of the statement and I’m sure you’ll agree that it makes a lot of difference. In including only a sliver of truth, not only have I not actually informed the person hearing the question, I may well have led them to believe something that isn’t true at all. Questions that contain only a partial truth, or an opinion stated as truth, are not questions at all. They don’t inform. They don’t seek valid responses. They exist only to lead the respondent to a prescribed response. (In your example, the poll was designed to support an opinion that if more voters knew about Joe Biden’s supposed malfeasance, the outcome of the election would have changed. It allowed for literally no other possible outcome based on its questions and methodology.) No one is actually better informed by such a poll. I really encourage you to read the absolutely non partisan Pew Research document. Polling is a science. There are correct and incorrect ways to do it. they fail very much to actually be truthful or asked in good faith. No they don't. As I said, your opinion is not needed in order to present the facts. And they are facts that they presented in the questions. Your opinion on the facts presented is nothing like a missing fact in your exploding sun story. FALSE EQUIVELENT. And as a resource that studies who reports what and how much time each thing is given on each network, MRC knew what Democrats were exposed to in their news sources. They were asking about subjects they knew Democrats most likely were NOT exposed to in their news sources. So no, saying the questions "are not entirely truthful" is not truthful at all. Did you read any of the rest of this post that you responded to? Did you glance at the Pew Research document? I’d like to hear your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Aug 15, 2022 12:27:00 GMT
Well duh, of course they are worded that way. And the propaganda from the left is worded to cast Trump in a bad light and biden in a positive one. That’s what politics is all about. The left will believe what they want to believe and ditto for the right. The left will never be able to change the minds of the right and vice versa. You can link all of the articles you want and there will always be a corresponding article for the other side. It’s quite futile, really. Not all polls are like that, though. Some are objective. Maybe it’s just me, but that’s how I look at polls. They are ALL objective depending on what side you are on. And you interpret them the way you look at them depending on the side you are on. And they are worded depending on the side you are on and on who is doing the polling and the people they pick to do the actual polling. That's how I look at polls.
|
|
purplebee
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,801
Jun 27, 2014 20:37:34 GMT
|
Post by purplebee on Aug 15, 2022 14:08:43 GMT
This thread is exhausting, but I give credit to those trying to refute and correct the outright lies being pushed as truth by TFG and his cult. I could comment specifically on much of it, but y’all have done a much better job than I could.
I will say that anyone still believing in and hysterically spreading the feeble/dementia-afflicted/can’t take a step w/o Jill’s assistance Joe Biden tropes has a lot more issues with mental facility than I previously thought. Open your eyes and remove the Fox Kool-Aid IV’s. The President is old, yes that is a fact, but he is vigorous, sharp and entirely capable of doing his job, and intelligent enough to recruit and listen to staff that will be good for America. Come on, man…
|
|
|
Post by gar on Aug 15, 2022 14:15:49 GMT
That's how I look at polls. That's like saying "Gravity doesn't always work - thats how I look at it anyway."
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 15, 2022 14:41:16 GMT
What that yellow chicken/Gia really wants is for nobody to talk about what a criminal that orange psycho is. She will shit a ring around herself then delete this alter when he goes down permanently. Then, give it a month or two and she'll be back under a new name raising hell about Obama's daughters being Russian spies.😂🤣😂🤣 I do have to wonder if she realizes how she insults our intelligence every time she claims not to be the pea formerly known as Gia, or how much it destroys her credibility when she does so. You’re supposedly the purveyor of truth here, but you can’t be honest about your own identity? Also, all this talk about us “losing our ever loving minds” feels a lot like she’s disparaging our mental health. I think I feel viciously bullied now. Oh noes. I think she’s plainly doolally. And I don’t care if she accuses me of bullying. She can add my name to her thread title for all it matters to me. And there’s no doubt this is Gia. She bears the hallmarks of Gia’s persecution complex, tendencies to twist facts, tendencies to evade actual issues and obsess over the inconsequential. That’s all classic Gia.
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Aug 15, 2022 14:50:30 GMT
I do have to wonder if she realizes how she insults our intelligence every time she claims not to be the pea formerly known as Gia, or how much it destroys her credibility when she does so. You’re supposedly the purveyor of truth here, but you can’t be honest about your own identity? Also, all this talk about us “losing our ever loving minds” feels a lot like she’s disparaging our mental health. I think I feel viciously bullied now. Oh noes. I think she’s plainly doolally. And I don’t care if she accuses me of bullying. She can add my name to her thread title for all it matters to me. And there’s no doubt this is Gia. She bears the hallmarks of Gia’s persecution complex, tendencies to twist facts, tendencies to evade actual issues and obsess over the inconsequential. That’s all classic Gia. Doolally! My new very favorite word.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Aug 15, 2022 21:26:55 GMT
Not all polls are like that, though. Some are objective. Maybe it’s just me, but that’s how I look at polls. They are ALL objective depending on what side you are on. And you interpret them the way you look at them depending on the side you are on. And they are worded depending on the side you are on and on who is doing the polling and the people they pick to do the actual polling. That's how I look at polls. No. And you said previously that they all are biased. Now you say they are all objective. They can't all be objective and all biased at the same time. Objective = unbiased.
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Oct 2, 2022 1:42:43 GMT
Opinion The FBI did the right thing suspending an agent. These Trump-loving congressmen did not. It’s a sign of our times that the FBI must simultaneously police its own misguided agents, while it works to protect us. Oct. 1, 2022, 7:19 AM EDT By Frank Figliuzzi, MSNBC Opinion Columnist A self-styled FBI whistleblower effectively blew the whistle on himself and other FBI agents who like him are responsible for investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, but are sympathetic to the suspects they are ordered to investigate and arrest.Special agent Steve Friend of the FBI’s Daytona Beach satellite office, a 12-year bureau veteran and a SWAT team member, refused an assignment last month to help arrest a man suspected of a Jan. 6 offense and was considered absent without leave. Friend reported his suspension to Sens. Ron Johnson, R- Wis., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who included the details of his complaint in a letter that demanded answers from the FBI by Oct. 10. If polarizing extremism in society has crept into the very agency charged with ferreting out violent threats to democracy, then the FBI must simultaneously police itself while it works to protect us. We already know that at least 19 current or former law enforcement officers were charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, including some for assaulting police officers. We also know that the names of hundreds of officers were among leaked lists of Oath Keepers members. Yet recent highly politicized proclamations that as many as 14 FBI employees have chosen to challenge valid assignments or question domestic terrorism strategy by running to Trump-adoring Congress members offers a public sign that the bureau isn’t immune from society’s polarization. MAGA ‘road map to an insurrection’: Jan. 6 insider on connections to riot and Meadows texts In late August, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo to all Justice Department employees, including those at the FBI, reminding them that are legitimate processes in place to report concerns — but back channel communications with law makers isn’t one of them. It’s a sad sign of our times that the institutions responsible for identifying those among us who reject the rule of law must also determine whether such people walk the halls of those same institutions. The FBI has been scrutinizing its workforce and suspending or terminating employees who violate policies. While Rep. Jim Jordan R-Ohio, may call this a “purge,” it’s actually preservation of the FBI’s mission to protect against all threats — internal or external. A Sept. 21 opinion column in the New York Post describes Friend as “an FBI hero” who was suspended because he objected to an “overzealous” investigation of the assault on the U.S. Capitol. But there’s nothing heroic about what this agent has done; in fact, what he’s done is dangerously disturbing — and a media outlet painting these actions as valiant speaks to the threat we all face as a society. In the complaint attached to the senators' letter, Friend said he told a supervisor that he thought it “inappropriate to use an FBI SWAT team to arrest a subject for misdemeanor offenses and opined that the subject would likely face extended detainment and biased jury pools in Washington, D.C.” Days later, he said, he met with two higher-level supervisors and when they asked if he believed “any J6 rioters committed crimes,” he responded that he believed some were innocent and “had been unjustly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced.” Deeply flawed assertions, and the politically tinged way they’ve been raised, unfortunately cast a shadow on any more substantive claims made by the agents. In their letter, Grassley and Johnson say that it’s important that the Justice Department and the FBI do things by the book but that “based on allegations, the Department and FBI have come up short and instead of listening to its employees to shore up its process and procedure, the Department and FBI have chosen to retaliate against them.” But it doesn’t appear the senators have done their due diligence. Using the details provided by Friend, NBC News reporter Ryan J. Reilly concluded that Friend could have only been objecting to sending in a SWAT team to arrest Tyler Bensch. Photos taken at the U.S. Capitol that Jan. 6 show Bensch dressed in full tactical gear, including a helmet, goggles and a gas mask, spraying someone in the face with a what appears to be a chemical irritant. Bensch was also wearing a GoPro camera. As Reilly points out, it’s clear why the FBI would want to physically obtain “a copy of the critical GoPro footage rather than issuing a summons and giving him and an opportunity to delete the incriminating evidence.” It’s also clear that arresting a militia member who wears full tactical gear and sprays chemicals at adversaries might be best accomplished with a SWAT team standing by. Anything less than a well-planned arrest of such a suspect would endanger the arresting agents. Friend claimed that other agents feel the same way he does about what he calls unjust treatment of Jan. 6 suspects. Indeed, Agent Kyle Seraphin recently told the Washington Times that FBI counterterrorism investigations of far-right extremists and white supremacists are “mostly entrapment,” and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a staunch ally of former President Donald Trump and a loud critic of the FBI’s investigation of Trump and the Jan. 6 insurrection, claims to have heard from more than a dozen agents he describes as whistleblowers. Joe: GOP still not aggressively calling out what happened on Jan. 6 The people who claim they’re concerned about the FBI becoming political sure have taken a partisan path to raise those concerns. Throughout every FBI field office, from employee break rooms to the agency’s internal intranet, there are well-posted options to reporting misconduct, ethical or integrity concerns. Running to politicians such as Jordan or even Grassley or Johnson as they seek re-election feels much more like an attempt to avoid accountability than to protect society from harm. There’s also no semblance of respect for process when agents run to the media for headlines when they’re facing discipline for breaking the rules. The FBI responded to Seraphin’s claim with a brief statement: “This comment is inaccurate and represents a clear misunderstanding of the policy and practice in FBI investigations.” The Washington Times says Seraphin, who has been suspended by the FBI, said his run-ins with his supervisors “began with his refusal to get a Covid-19 vaccination.” Deeply flawed assertions, and the politically tinged way they’ve been raised, unfortunately cast a shadow on any more substantive claims made by the agents. For example, Friend and Seraphin assert that the high number of cases opened on those who participated in the singular event of Jan. 6 is giving Americans a false impression that domestic terror is on the rise. That’s a claim worth looking into, but it’s less likely to get attention when agents choose to make their own misleading and headline-grabbing accusations. There’s something even more disturbing about this small group of FBI agents who refuse to respect the rule of law and decide which parts of long-established criminal justice processes they will or won’t follow in that they’re exhibiting the same radicalized mindset of Jan. 6 defendants they’re supposed to be investigating and arresting. Law enforcement agents who mirror that behavior aren’t “heroes” or patriots — they’re dangerous dupes who’ve lost their compass, and, I believe, ought to lose their jobs. www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-allies-are-supporting-these-violations-fbi-conduct-n1299211lucyg MergeY’all know it doesn’t cost more money to start a new thread than to bump an old one, right? I don’t understand why people do this months later. So freaking annoying.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 2, 2022 1:48:44 GMT
|
|
pantsonfire
Drama Llama
Take a step back, evaluate what is important, and enjoy your life with those who you love.
Posts: 6,273
Jun 19, 2022 16:48:04 GMT
|
Post by pantsonfire on Oct 2, 2022 6:13:15 GMT
myshelly because it is an update to the OG topic. Good gosh. It also doesn't cost anything to be nice! revirdsuba99 don't delete. Keep it here please. I like when topics like this can stay on track and I don't have to search through multiple threads.
|
|
pantsonfire
Drama Llama
Take a step back, evaluate what is important, and enjoy your life with those who you love.
Posts: 6,273
Jun 19, 2022 16:48:04 GMT
|
Post by pantsonfire on Oct 2, 2022 6:14:11 GMT
The FBI did the right thing suspending an agent. These Trump-loving congressmen did not. It’s a sign of our times that the FBI must simultaneously police its own misguided agents, while it works to protect us. Oct. 1, 2022, 7:19 AM EDT By Frank Figliuzzi, MSNBC Opinion Columnist A self-styled FBI whistleblower effectively blew the whistle on himself and other FBI agents who like him are responsible for investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, but are sympathetic to the suspects they are ordered to investigate and arrest. Special agent Steve Friend of the FBI’s Daytona Beach satellite office, a 12-year bureau veteran and a SWAT team member, refused an assignment last month to help arrest a man suspected of a Jan. 6 offense and was considered absent without leave. Friend reported his suspension to Sens. Ron Johnson, R- Wis., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who included the details of his complaint in a letter that demanded answers from the FBI by Oct. 10. If polarizing extremism in society has crept into the very agency charged with ferreting out violent threats to democracy, then the FBI must simultaneously police itself while it works to protect us. We already know that at least 19 current or former law enforcement officers were charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, including some for assaulting police officers. We also know that the names of hundreds of officers were among leaked lists of Oath Keepers members. Yet recent highly politicized proclamations that as many as 14 FBI employees have chosen to challenge valid assignments or question domestic terrorism strategy by running to Trump-adoring Congress members offers a public sign that the bureau isn’t immune from society’s polarization. MAGA ‘road map to an insurrection’: Jan. 6 insider on connections to riot and Meadows texts In late August, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo to all Justice Department employees, including those at the FBI, reminding them that are legitimate processes in place to report concerns — but back channel communications with law makers isn’t one of them. It’s a sad sign of our times that the institutions responsible for identifying those among us who reject the rule of law must also determine whether such people walk the halls of those same institutions. The FBI has been scrutinizing its workforce and suspending or terminating employees who violate policies. While Rep. Jim Jordan R-Ohio, may call this a “purge,” it’s actually preservation of the FBI’s mission to protect against all threats — internal or external. A Sept. 21 opinion column in the New York Post describes Friend as “an FBI hero” who was suspended because he objected to an “overzealous” investigation of the assault on the U.S. Capitol. But there’s nothing heroic about what this agent has done; in fact, what he’s done is dangerously disturbing — and a media outlet painting these actions as valiant speaks to the threat we all face as a society. In the complaint attached to the senators' letter, Friend said he told a supervisor that he thought it “inappropriate to use an FBI SWAT team to arrest a subject for misdemeanor offenses and opined that the subject would likely face extended detainment and biased jury pools in Washington, D.C.” Days later, he said, he met with two higher-level supervisors and when they asked if he believed “any J6 rioters committed crimes,” he responded that he believed some were innocent and “had been unjustly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced.” Deeply flawed assertions, and the politically tinged way they’ve been raised, unfortunately cast a shadow on any more substantive claims made by the agents. In their letter, Grassley and Johnson say that it’s important that the Justice Department and the FBI do things by the book but that “based on allegations, the Department and FBI have come up short and instead of listening to its employees to shore up its process and procedure, the Department and FBI have chosen to retaliate against them.” But it doesn’t appear the senators have done their due diligence. Using the details provided by Friend, NBC News reporter Ryan J. Reilly concluded that Friend could have only been objecting to sending in a SWAT team to arrest Tyler Bensch. Photos taken at the U.S. Capitol that Jan. 6 show Bensch dressed in full tactical gear, including a helmet, goggles and a gas mask, spraying someone in the face with a what appears to be a chemical irritant. Bensch was also wearing a GoPro camera. As Reilly points out, it’s clear why the FBI would want to physically obtain “a copy of the critical GoPro footage rather than issuing a summons and giving him and an opportunity to delete the incriminating evidence.” It’s also clear that arresting a militia member who wears full tactical gear and sprays chemicals at adversaries might be best accomplished with a SWAT team standing by. Anything less than a well-planned arrest of such a suspect would endanger the arresting agents. Friend claimed that other agents feel the same way he does about what he calls unjust treatment of Jan. 6 suspects. Indeed, Agent Kyle Seraphin recently told the Washington Times that FBI counterterrorism investigations of far-right extremists and white supremacists are “mostly entrapment,” and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a staunch ally of former President Donald Trump and a loud critic of the FBI’s investigation of Trump and the Jan. 6 insurrection, claims to have heard from more than a dozen agents he describes as whistleblowers. Joe: GOP still not aggressively calling out what happened on Jan. 6 The people who claim they’re concerned about the FBI becoming political sure have taken a partisan path to raise those concerns. Throughout every FBI field office, from employee break rooms to the agency’s internal intranet, there are well-posted options to reporting misconduct, ethical or integrity concerns. Running to politicians such as Jordan or even Grassley or Johnson as they seek re-election feels much more like an attempt to avoid accountability than to protect society from harm. There’s also no semblance of respect for process when agents run to the media for headlines when they’re facing discipline for breaking the rules. The FBI responded to Seraphin’s claim with a brief statement: “This comment is inaccurate and represents a clear misunderstanding of the policy and practice in FBI investigations.” The Washington Times says Seraphin, who has been suspended by the FBI, said his run-ins with his supervisors “began with his refusal to get a Covid-19 vaccination.” Deeply flawed assertions, and the politically tinged way they’ve been raised, unfortunately cast a shadow on any more substantive claims made by the agents. For example, Friend and Seraphin assert that the high number of cases opened on those who participated in the singular event of Jan. 6 is giving Americans a false impression that domestic terror is on the rise. That’s a claim worth looking into, but it’s less likely to get attention when agents choose to make their own misleading and headline-grabbing accusations. There’s something even more disturbing about this small group of FBI agents who refuse to respect the rule of law and decide which parts of long-established criminal justice processes they will or won’t follow in that they’re exhibiting the same radicalized mindset of Jan. 6 defendants they’re supposed to be investigating and arresting. Law enforcement agents who mirror that behavior aren’t “heroes” or patriots — they’re dangerous dupes who’ve lost their compass, and, I believe, ought to lose their jobs. www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-allies-are-supporting-these-violations-fbi-conduct-n1299211
|
|
nursema
Full Member
Posts: 352
Mar 1, 2022 10:14:32 GMT
|
Post by nursema on Oct 2, 2022 14:03:23 GMT
The FBI did the right thing suspending an agent. These Trump-loving congressmen did not. It’s a sign of our times that the FBI must simultaneously police its own misguided agents, while it works to protect us.Oct. 1, 2022, 7:19 AM EDT By Frank Figliuzzi, MSNBC Opinion Columnist A self-styled FBI whistleblower effectively blew the whistle on himself and other FBI agents who like him are responsible for investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, but are sympathetic to the suspects they are ordered to investigate and arrest. Special agent Steve Friend of the FBI’s Daytona Beach satellite office, a 12-year bureau veteran and a SWAT team member, refused an assignment last month to help arrest a man suspected of a Jan. 6 offense and was considered absent without leave. Friend reported his suspension to Sens. Ron Johnson, R- Wis., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who included the details of his complaint in a letter that demanded answers from the FBI by Oct. 10. If polarizing extremism in society has crept into the very agency charged with ferreting out violent threats to democracy, then the FBI must simultaneously police itself while it works to protect us. We already know that at least 19 current or former law enforcement officers were charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, including some for assaulting police officers. We also know that the names of hundreds of officers were among leaked lists of Oath Keepers members. Yet recent highly politicized proclamations that as many as 14 FBI employees have chosen to challenge valid assignments or question domestic terrorism strategy by running to Trump-adoring Congress members offers a public sign that the bureau isn’t immune from society’s polarization. MAGA ‘road map to an insurrection’: Jan. 6 insider on connections to riot and Meadows texts In late August, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo to all Justice Department employees, including those at the FBI, reminding them that are legitimate processes in place to report concerns — but back channel communications with law makers isn’t one of them. It’s a sad sign of our times that the institutions responsible for identifying those among us who reject the rule of law must also determine whether such people walk the halls of those same institutions. The FBI has been scrutinizing its workforce and suspending or terminating employees who violate policies. While Rep. Jim Jordan R-Ohio, may call this a “purge,” it’s actually preservation of the FBI’s mission to protect against all threats — internal or external. A Sept. 21 opinion column in the New York Post describes Friend as “an FBI hero” who was suspended because he objected to an “overzealous” investigation of the assault on the U.S. Capitol. But there’s nothing heroic about what this agent has done; in fact, what he’s done is dangerously disturbing — and a media outlet painting these actions as valiant speaks to the threat we all face as a society. In the complaint attached to the senators' letter, Friend said he told a supervisor that he thought it “inappropriate to use an FBI SWAT team to arrest a subject for misdemeanor offenses and opined that the subject would likely face extended detainment and biased jury pools in Washington, D.C.” Days later, he said, he met with two higher-level supervisors and when they asked if he believed “any J6 rioters committed crimes,” he responded that he believed some were innocent and “had been unjustly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced.” Deeply flawed assertions, and the politically tinged way they’ve been raised, unfortunately cast a shadow on any more substantive claims made by the agents. In their letter, Grassley and Johnson say that it’s important that the Justice Department and the FBI do things by the book but that “based on allegations, the Department and FBI have come up short and instead of listening to its employees to shore up its process and procedure, the Department and FBI have chosen to retaliate against them.” But it doesn’t appear the senators have done their due diligence. Using the details provided by Friend, NBC News reporter Ryan J. Reilly concluded that Friend could have only been objecting to sending in a SWAT team to arrest Tyler Bensch. Photos taken at the U.S. Capitol that Jan. 6 show Bensch dressed in full tactical gear, including a helmet, goggles and a gas mask, spraying someone in the face with a what appears to be a chemical irritant. Bensch was also wearing a GoPro camera. As Reilly points out, it’s clear why the FBI would want to physically obtain “a copy of the critical GoPro footage rather than issuing a summons and giving him and an opportunity to delete the incriminating evidence.” It’s also clear that arresting a militia member who wears full tactical gear and sprays chemicals at adversaries might be best accomplished with a SWAT team standing by. Anything less than a well-planned arrest of such a suspect would endanger the arresting agents. Friend claimed that other agents feel the same way he does about what he calls unjust treatment of Jan. 6 suspects. Indeed, Agent Kyle Seraphin recently told the Washington Times that FBI counterterrorism investigations of far-right extremists and white supremacists are “mostly entrapment,” and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a staunch ally of former President Donald Trump and a loud critic of the FBI’s investigation of Trump and the Jan. 6 insurrection, claims to have heard from more than a dozen agents he describes as whistleblowers. Joe: GOP still not aggressively calling out what happened on Jan. 6 The people who claim they’re concerned about the FBI becoming political sure have taken a partisan path to raise those concerns. Throughout every FBI field office, from employee break rooms to the agency’s internal intranet, there are well-posted options to reporting misconduct, ethical or integrity concerns. Running to politicians such as Jordan or even Grassley or Johnson as they seek re-election feels much more like an attempt to avoid accountability than to protect society from harm. There’s also no semblance of respect for process when agents run to the media for headlines when they’re facing discipline for breaking the rules. The FBI responded to Seraphin’s claim with a brief statement: “This comment is inaccurate and represents a clear misunderstanding of the policy and practice in FBI investigations.” The Washington Times says Seraphin, who has been suspended by the FBI, said his run-ins with his supervisors “began with his refusal to get a Covid-19 vaccination.” Deeply flawed assertions, and the politically tinged way they’ve been raised, unfortunately cast a shadow on any more substantive claims made by the agents. For example, Friend and Seraphin assert that the high number of cases opened on those who participated in the singular event of Jan. 6 is giving Americans a false impression that domestic terror is on the rise. That’s a claim worth looking into, but it’s less likely to get attention when agents choose to make their own misleading and headline-grabbing accusations. There’s something even more disturbing about this small group of FBI agents who refuse to respect the rule of law and decide which parts of long-established criminal justice processes they will or won’t follow in that they’re exhibiting the same radicalized mindset of Jan. 6 defendants they’re supposed to be investigating and arresting. Law enforcement agents who mirror that behavior aren’t “heroes” or patriots — they’re dangerous dupes who’ve lost their compass, and, I believe, ought to lose their jobs. www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-allies-are-supporting-these-violations-fbi-conduct-n1299211Deleted most of my response, will post elsewhere - but I agree with your comments and with Figliuzzi!
|
|
pantsonfire
Drama Llama
Take a step back, evaluate what is important, and enjoy your life with those who you love.
Posts: 6,273
Jun 19, 2022 16:48:04 GMT
|
Post by pantsonfire on Oct 2, 2022 15:00:57 GMT
The FBI did the right thing suspending an agent. These Trump-loving congressmen did not. It’s a sign of our times that the FBI must simultaneously police its own misguided agents, while it works to protect us.Oct. 1, 2022, 7:19 AM EDT By Frank Figliuzzi, MSNBC Opinion Columnist A self-styled FBI whistleblower effectively blew the whistle on himself and other FBI agents who like him are responsible for investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, but are sympathetic to the suspects they are ordered to investigate and arrest. Special agent Steve Friend of the FBI’s Daytona Beach satellite office, a 12-year bureau veteran and a SWAT team member, refused an assignment last month to help arrest a man suspected of a Jan. 6 offense and was considered absent without leave. Friend reported his suspension to Sens. Ron Johnson, R- Wis., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who included the details of his complaint in a letter that demanded answers from the FBI by Oct. 10. If polarizing extremism in society has crept into the very agency charged with ferreting out violent threats to democracy, then the FBI must simultaneously police itself while it works to protect us. We already know that at least 19 current or former law enforcement officers were charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, including some for assaulting police officers. We also know that the names of hundreds of officers were among leaked lists of Oath Keepers members. Yet recent highly politicized proclamations that as many as 14 FBI employees have chosen to challenge valid assignments or question domestic terrorism strategy by running to Trump-adoring Congress members offers a public sign that the bureau isn’t immune from society’s polarization. MAGA ‘road map to an insurrection’: Jan. 6 insider on connections to riot and Meadows texts In late August, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo to all Justice Department employees, including those at the FBI, reminding them that are legitimate processes in place to report concerns — but back channel communications with law makers isn’t one of them. It’s a sad sign of our times that the institutions responsible for identifying those among us who reject the rule of law must also determine whether such people walk the halls of those same institutions. The FBI has been scrutinizing its workforce and suspending or terminating employees who violate policies. While Rep. Jim Jordan R-Ohio, may call this a “purge,” it’s actually preservation of the FBI’s mission to protect against all threats — internal or external. A Sept. 21 opinion column in the New York Post describes Friend as “an FBI hero” who was suspended because he objected to an “overzealous” investigation of the assault on the U.S. Capitol. But there’s nothing heroic about what this agent has done; in fact, what he’s done is dangerously disturbing — and a media outlet painting these actions as valiant speaks to the threat we all face as a society. In the complaint attached to the senators' letter, Friend said he told a supervisor that he thought it “inappropriate to use an FBI SWAT team to arrest a subject for misdemeanor offenses and opined that the subject would likely face extended detainment and biased jury pools in Washington, D.C.” Days later, he said, he met with two higher-level supervisors and when they asked if he believed “any J6 rioters committed crimes,” he responded that he believed some were innocent and “had been unjustly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced.” Deeply flawed assertions, and the politically tinged way they’ve been raised, unfortunately cast a shadow on any more substantive claims made by the agents. In their letter, Grassley and Johnson say that it’s important that the Justice Department and the FBI do things by the book but that “based on allegations, the Department and FBI have come up short and instead of listening to its employees to shore up its process and procedure, the Department and FBI have chosen to retaliate against them.” But it doesn’t appear the senators have done their due diligence. Using the details provided by Friend, NBC News reporter Ryan J. Reilly concluded that Friend could have only been objecting to sending in a SWAT team to arrest Tyler Bensch. Photos taken at the U.S. Capitol that Jan. 6 show Bensch dressed in full tactical gear, including a helmet, goggles and a gas mask, spraying someone in the face with a what appears to be a chemical irritant. Bensch was also wearing a GoPro camera. As Reilly points out, it’s clear why the FBI would want to physically obtain “a copy of the critical GoPro footage rather than issuing a summons and giving him and an opportunity to delete the incriminating evidence.” It’s also clear that arresting a militia member who wears full tactical gear and sprays chemicals at adversaries might be best accomplished with a SWAT team standing by. Anything less than a well-planned arrest of such a suspect would endanger the arresting agents. Friend claimed that other agents feel the same way he does about what he calls unjust treatment of Jan. 6 suspects. Indeed, Agent Kyle Seraphin recently told the Washington Times that FBI counterterrorism investigations of far-right extremists and white supremacists are “mostly entrapment,” and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a staunch ally of former President Donald Trump and a loud critic of the FBI’s investigation of Trump and the Jan. 6 insurrection, claims to have heard from more than a dozen agents he describes as whistleblowers. Joe: GOP still not aggressively calling out what happened on Jan. 6 The people who claim they’re concerned about the FBI becoming political sure have taken a partisan path to raise those concerns. Throughout every FBI field office, from employee break rooms to the agency’s internal intranet, there are well-posted options to reporting misconduct, ethical or integrity concerns. Running to politicians such as Jordan or even Grassley or Johnson as they seek re-election feels much more like an attempt to avoid accountability than to protect society from harm. There’s also no semblance of respect for process when agents run to the media for headlines when they’re facing discipline for breaking the rules. The FBI responded to Seraphin’s claim with a brief statement: “This comment is inaccurate and represents a clear misunderstanding of the policy and practice in FBI investigations.” The Washington Times says Seraphin, who has been suspended by the FBI, said his run-ins with his supervisors “began with his refusal to get a Covid-19 vaccination.” Deeply flawed assertions, and the politically tinged way they’ve been raised, unfortunately cast a shadow on any more substantive claims made by the agents. For example, Friend and Seraphin assert that the high number of cases opened on those who participated in the singular event of Jan. 6 is giving Americans a false impression that domestic terror is on the rise. That’s a claim worth looking into, but it’s less likely to get attention when agents choose to make their own misleading and headline-grabbing accusations. There’s something even more disturbing about this small group of FBI agents who refuse to respect the rule of law and decide which parts of long-established criminal justice processes they will or won’t follow in that they’re exhibiting the same radicalized mindset of Jan. 6 defendants they’re supposed to be investigating and arresting. Law enforcement agents who mirror that behavior aren’t “heroes” or patriots — they’re dangerous dupes who’ve lost their compass, and, I believe, ought to lose their jobs. www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-allies-are-supporting-these-violations-fbi-conduct-n1299211Deleted most of my response, will post elsewhere - but I agree with your comments and with Figliuzzi! I just copy and pasted the OG post by another pea. I wanted it to remain here for ease of accessibility.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Oct 2, 2022 15:23:03 GMT
Deleted most of my response, will post elsewhere - but I agree with your comments and with Figliuzzi! I just copy and pasted the OG post by another pea. I wanted it to remain here for ease of accessibility. I’m all for bringing back older threads if there is more to the story. Unfortunately with this thread the OP inserted a childish petty comment in the title that only she can remove. That being the case I think this thread should be left to die and go with the new one that has been started.
|
|